 | | Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
|
(...) My professional opinion is I'm concerned that the arguments of the past 36 hours have been more about Matthew and his continued presence or non-presence and less about the underlying issues he was trying to raise. Perhaps the collective mind (...) (24 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
|
(...) I let this one sit for a while, maybe should let it sit even longer. I think we do need to separate the issue of what to do about MM (which seems to be coming to a consensus, more or less) from the larger issue of whether Lugnet is (...) (24 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Todd, I don't have a heck of a lot of time but in general I will say this as to Matthew's concerns. 1. As far as TLC's fair play rules I could care less and I personally would rather (...) (24 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
|
(...) Can you be more specific? --Todd (24 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) I'm not a social scientist, too, but I say yes to the first question. Maybe I take the word elitist as different one, but I can see that we are at similar points on the subject. I already throw some words on it (...) (24 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
|
(...) Well I don't know how specific you want but without nameing names I will try. I also assume you want specifics as to what I don't like about the reasoning for banning Matthew not reasoning for not liking Matthew. It is my feeling that there (...) (24 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
