| |
This is my last word in this thread. God grant I'm not tempted to break
that.
----------
In article <slrn85t8of.3j4.cjc@zelda.ns.utk.edu>, cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com
(Mike Stanley) wrote:
> Robert M. Dye <robdye@writeme.com> wrote:
> > > I'll show TLC as much respect as it shows me.
> > > I'll show Brad as much respect as I show Todd.
> >
> > See, this is where you lose me.
> > Completely.
> > The prove it Prove It, PROVE IT! post struck me as amazingly rude.
> >
> > And NOT rude to TLC.
> >
> > To *Todd.*
>
> Well, first, *I* didn't write the message you're referring to. I've
> sometimes quite loudly disagreed with Todd, but I have never been,
> and don't plan on ever being, rude to him.
So...what...? Since you did not write it, it was not rude? My original post
on this topic was not addressed to you. I said, speaking in general to the
group, that I felt the fellow who did the "prove it ,Prove It, PROVE IT"
post came across to me as a moron.
I still feel it was moronic. It reminded me of little kids in grade school,
yelling "PROVE IT" at each other.
Would you prefer that I say I felt it was unspeakably rude? All right. I
think it was.
Would you prefer that I say I think the fellow doing it...ahhh, skip it!
The way I see it, Todd does not have to PROVE anything when it comes to his
policy decisions regarding LUGNET. It's his (and Susan's, no?) If Todd says
there will be no more posts here of links to material he think/feels/guesses
TLC will not want ussed that way, then there shouldn't be. He doesn't have
to prove it, all he has to do is set policy. If he says we all have to say
the moon is made of green cheese in order to retain our posting privledges,
then he can do that. He does not have to prove it. We have the option of
saying, "Hey, no thanks, I'll go elsewhere," or "Okay, fine, the moon is
made of green cheese. now let's talk about LEGO."
Todd's policy statement was not as absurd as my example, or even absurd at
all. his reasons for policy are his, and he does not have to PROVE anything
about them. After all, HE IS PROVIDING THE FORUM. As far as I am concerned,
the one who pays the band gets to call the tune. No one has presented me
with a bill for LUGNET, so I'll be happy to defer to those who DO pay the
bills.
The "PROVE IT" poster implies that he does not accept (or even see!) that
this would have to be the case.
> Second, things DID get a little heated over the last week or two.
Don't use that as an excuse.
> I
> don't really see what Tom wrote as rude so much as overly excited,
> and I even agreed with him. I think Todd (and Suz) were vehemently
> defending (and maybe even over-defending from what I saw at the
> time) a company that hadn't really made a statement of its own. Tom
> did too, and really thought that, given the (then) lack of response
> from TLC, HIS interpretation of the tea leaves was a valid as
> theirs.
Lace of response TO YOU, or TO TOM, perhaps. Do you know all that has been
communicated to Todd, or to Susan, regarding LUGNET? I don't. But I see it
as a good guess that Todd had all kinds of thinking and consultaion before
LUGNET went live. He was risking a hell of a lot of work if he didn't have
some idea what was acceptable and what was not, and some way for someone at
LEGO to clue him before someone swooped in and pulled the plug on anything
borderline.
I'm willing to presume Todd knows what he's doing. Since he never asked me
for any money, that's not that hard to do. Screaming for proof would seem to
me idiotic.
>
> I'm sure if Todd had interpreted his posts as amazingly rude he
> would have said so.
Todd's silence means that they were not rude?
>
> This is all moot, though. The _basic_ point I tried to make was
> that YOU, Rob Dye, calling Tom Stangl a MORON, was over the line.
Again, I said how he struck me. not what he *is.* I don't know what he is,
or what you are, having never met either one of you. You strike me as loud
and abusive. That's just based on your posts (some of them, anyway; others
have seemed calm, reasonable, and balanced, which leaves me thinking of you
as more of an enigma), and does not say who you are, or HOW you are in
reality.
If you want to call that a cowardly distinction, fine, go ahead, I'm tired
of the argument.
> That's undeniable. You can say you had reasons, you can say you
> have excuses, but the fact of the matter is you called Tom a moron
> and I called you on it.
>
> > >
> > > The people to people respect is, imo, more important than this
> > > bizarre devotion to the Lego company.
> >
> > Why is defending Todd, and defending good manners, and defending common
> > sense...equal to " bizarre devotion to the Lego company?"
>
> They're not. I'm not equating the two - you are.
I didn't equate them. You keep throwing this line into your posts, and I
can't say I understand what you mean by it at all.
> You've wandered
> pretty far off the subject here. I've pointed out that you're
> calling of one of my friends a moron is over the line of acceptable
> behavior. You can take issue with his (or my) posts all you want,
> but I'll do YOU the respect of not calling you a moron if you do me
> the same, how 'bout that? We can leave all the "but he started it"
> or "he was mean too" out of it and just try to play nice.
>
>
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Enough already
|
| I agree totally with Robert...Which brings me, once again, to point out an address EVERYONE should look at. Todd is, in my opinion, trying the best he can to *follow* the words in this website: (URL) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Probably mine as well. (...) I think I see where you're coming from, although your core reasoning here seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Tom was the author of this "prove it" post you're talking about. Todd, however, was not the person (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Well, first, *I* didn't write the message you're referring to. I've sometimes quite loudly disagreed with Todd, but I have never been, and don't plan on ever being, rude to him. Second, things DID get a little heated over the last week or two. (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
|
72 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
