Subject:
|
Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Feb 2000 22:33:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
824 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes:
> Either contribute something useful to the discussion or go jump in a
> lake.
In what way was my post not a useful contribution? I'm seriously trying to
determine at what point someone has shown themselves to be enough of a violator
of T&C to warrant disciplinary action.
You say that you would support action against repeat offenders- so how repeat
would they have to be in your mind? Obviously, Scott doesn't qualify- so what
would?
I'm sure we all appreciate the relative orderliness that having T&C brings.
I'm sure that none of us would want to see lugnet.* degenerate into the
relative chaos that r.t.l has become. Unfortunately, that means that at SOME
point you have to draw the line. At SOME point you have to say "this person
has gone too far". I'm just wondering at what point *you* draw that line. You
say in your earlier post that you would support ToSsing repeat offenders, but
then you say that Scott Arthur's actions don't warrant disciplinary action.
That seems like a bit of a contradiction to me. I'm honestly curious how they
balance out in your mind. I'm sure you have a valid opinion as a member of the
Lugnet community concerning this, as do I. I'm trying to engage you in a
discussion about it. It is, to me, a very important matter, as it seems to be
to you. I know the matter is distasteful, and I'm not trying to be an ogre,
but it's a decision that Lugnet is going to have to come to in order to move
forward as a healthy community.
In any event, as I said, you should at least be prepared for people who feel
differently than you about matters to post and say so. There seem to me to be
a lot of people reading these posts, but not discussing them, and I can only
assume that means they haven't made up their minds. If you can feel free to
post your opinions, I can only assume that you would want someone with a
dissenting opinion to post theirs, in the spirit of discussion and open debate.
eric
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Lorbaat (<Fq3IoE.53M@lugnet.com>) wrote at 22:33:50 (...) Perhaps there isn't one. Larry has commented on the relative informality of proceedings here, and perhaps most people are just happy to let things go if the person (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) violator (...) Because it contributed NOTHING to the discussion. This one does. I'll respond below. (...) repeat (...) what (...) Ok, I'll detail what my response to Scott's latest post is. I don't remember all of (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) I'm frankly sick of reading all this, but just because I'm not posting doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. My opinion, briefly: Scott has a history of this, but I am inclined to believe he just might have made a quick, poorly worded post (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
82 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
|
|
|
|
