Subject:
|
Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:18:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
487 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > However, as far as I can see it looks like you reacted to his
> > > criticism of you more than anything else.
> > Interesting guess, but wrong. Here are the threshold breakers:
> Not really a guess.
Interesting "conclusion" then; still wrong.
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6608
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6609
>
> Both of which were before your post in the same thread:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6616
>
> But you did not disallow him for more than an hour after you read
> the "threshold breakers", in the intervening time you read and replied to
> his denigration(1) of you?
Sometimes I read chronologically and sometimes I read reverse-chronologically.
My newsreader sorts everything by time, and gives me a near-live feed, so if
I happen to be sitting at the screen and notice a new post appear, I'll see it
within typically 60 seconds of its having been posted. If I'm away from the
keyboard for a while and messages stack up, I often read messages in an ad hoc
order. My newsreader doesn't record the timestamp of the time I first passed
my read-cursor over an article, however, so I couldn't even begin to tell you
what order I read them, but in any event I wouldn't (polite way of saying you
shouldn't) make assumptions that messages get read chronologically by anyone
or that they're always at the keyboard to respond to something within a half
hour.
> Further, I can't remember anyone being excluded from LUGNET without having
> a right to reply in admin.general... ...but I don't claim to have 100%
> knowledge of this area.
Other than cases where someone's email was discovered to be a dead-end or be a
spammer, I believe that's correct. No one has been obviously malicious here
before. Is there a point to what you are suggesting? If you care to continue
discussions/relations with MM, is there something that is stopping you from
carrying on via email or RTL?
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
17 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
|
|
|
|
