Subject:
|
Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:40:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3925 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> 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.
But you would still have read at least read a message in order to reply to it?
But I take your point.
>
>
> > 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?
I'm not sure I do want to speak to him, but I'm also not sure about how is
banning came about. I pointed out posts earlier which (I think) were worse
than his. So why were they allowed, when his "input" is not?
Scott A
>
> --Todd
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
