Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:42:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8486 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> My being member #15 or member #2015 or not a paying member at all has nothing
> to do with it. In fact I try to avoid posting my member # because I find it
> elitest and I don't see the value add of doing so.
I think you may have misunderstood why I mentioned your member number (note I
didn't mention mine). I also don't think your number should necessarily
indicate you have some sort of status or "power" here. I referenced it simply
because I think, in some cases, a fairly high number may indicate you came to
the LUGNET community a little later than some. Nothing wrong with that, but
being here from the beginning does provide a different sort of perspective.
Not always a better perspective, mind you, but certainly a different one.
And I meant all that in the sense that those of us who remember people leaving
RTL because of the actions of others (whatever they might have been) might
have a different take on someone feeling the need to leave if LUGNET were
allowed to become a not-so-friendly place. That's all - no implied elitism,
although I'm mostly in Larry's camp when it comes to elitism not necessarily
being a bad thing, as long as it is merit-based.
> To try and force Todd,
> not that that would ever happen, into an action as serious as bannishment is
> just wrong in my opinion.
To try to force Todd to do anything would be futile, I assure you. :) To try
to influence Todd, though, is not necessarily wrong, imo. Especially if
you're just stating your opinion and perhaps offering your perspective. I
snipped what you wrote about possibly assuming a threatening nature to the
comments about leaving, but I think it is important to note that *Todd* did
not characterize them as threats, so I would not characterize them as attempts
to *force* him to do anything either.
> I am not sure I totally agree with Todd's statement that if he had known
> Matthew were the Mad Hatter that he would not have let him in but that is
> Todd's choice. I personally like to give 2nd chances as much as possible as
I'm sure I totally agree with Todd's statement, but I'm ok with you tending
towards 2nd chances.
> Well fortunately we won't have to worry about that.
Yup. :)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes: <snip> (...) That statement I would not take as being a threat but like I said I don't know what people said to Todd privately and I assume there were many people writing Todd privately about the topic (...) (26 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
122 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
