Subject:
|
Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Mar 2000 04:30:39 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2347 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes:
> I am not asking for any sort of punishment, or trying to get you to shut up
> or anything (in fact, if you understood my beliefs at all, you would realize
> that that would be very much against my beliefs). What I did was mention
> that I also happened to be offended by the language, and asked for
> CLARIFICATION as to what the T&C meant. I'm sorry if you read me as "crying
> to mommy to get you to shut up", but that was not my intent. My intent was
> to ask Todd to look at the language being used, and clarify for us if that
> was out of the bounds set by the T&C (which we are obligated to follow since
> this is a private place). In fact, in another post, I even clarified my
> feelings and pointed out that while I am both offended by the language
> (which you are continuing to use) and your message, I can ask that you
> follow the T&C and refrain from offensive language. I can not ask you to
> refrain from offensive opinions.
I think (personally) what they said was borderline. Not the words themselves
so much as the tone and the disrepect intended via them. I personally found
it offensive as well, but only because I'd rather people talked maturely and
treated one another with respect. Did it violate the T&C? Maybe, maybe not,
but since several people complained, I think it did, since that is as good an
acid test as any. However, had those same things been said in .off-topic
.debate, I think they'd be less borderline and less likely to have generated
complaints.
Moreso than the language, however, all it takes is a quick check of the
.dear-lego charter to see that those posts were a violation of the T&C simply
by being so wildly off-topic for that group. Although many other off-topic
messages have been tolerated in that same group, these are IIRC among the
first that have visibly upset people so strongly in that group. And when
people are visibly upset, it makes little sense permit continuation of
charter-abuse. If people aren't upset, then a bit of leeway makes sense,
because after all this is only a hobby and it's human nature to stray off-
topic a bit here and there. Is that fair? If not, then this is something
beyond my grasp of human interaction, and perhaps something for others to
decide collectively.
> Frankly, I'm a little miffed at the way Todd wrote off my "interpreting
> myself in"
(Did I miss a critical post anywhere? I've had my head in the books for most
of the past 48 hours and for the tail end of this I've only caught about 1/2
of the debate.)
> because your "hypothetical" case clearly mirrored the current
> situation, and because of my core beliefs, I find myself no different to
> Larry (who you did seem to more directly insult), and therefore equally a
> target of your insult.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
51 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
|
|
|
|
