Subject:
|
Re: When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:45:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
980 times
|
| |
|
|
Interesting discussion. It just raised a parallel issue which gives us a
precedent to look at. That precedent is auctions. Todd has made it quite
clear that pointing to an auction website in a group which doesn't
welcome auction posts is fine when the intent and effect of the post is
to point out the item being auctioned (or to a limited extent in
lugnet.market.theory to discuss tactics being used in the auction).
What we have in the following post:
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=3842
shows that Matthews intent was clearly to get people to read his
diatribe and get upset, and the effect of the post is clear, it caused
an acrimonious debate to continue and to escalate.
While we do have to leave room for people to blow up and then cool down,
what I perceive is that Matthew really doesn't want to cool down. He
won't let go of it. Obviously a bunch of people got overheated, which
happens from time to time. The question is more what do people do after
there is a call to cool down. Everyone else has dramatically turned down
the heat (even Matthew turned down the heat, but he's turned it right
back up). I also want to say for the benefit of Matthew that it would
not surprise me if some of the others who were involved in the
altercation have smudges on their face. They may not be enough to
warrant action, and hopefully they won't get quite so hot in a future
argument, and risk developing enough of a black mark to warrant severe
action, but Matthew shouldn't feel that he is being held to a different
standard than everyone else. He is being held to the same standard. I
would even point out that if you explore the posting history of the
various folks involved in the discussion that you could find at least
one individual who has come close to the line, however the individual
who has jumped immediately to mind has managed to refrain from
inflamatory remarks though they also have some problem "letting it go".
I do see some unfairness on Lugnet from time to time, but I have never
seen unfairness to the level Matthew believes he is being subjected to.
What I would ask Todd to do is make a decision and announce it, and shut
down the unproductive debate (there is some productive discussion which
could take place, but it's being burried by unproductive debate).
Larry also provides an interesting point about the US as world cop. I'm
not sure I'm in total agreement with Larry on when international
intervention is acceptable and by whom, but I know that we're working
from the same base principles in forming our opinion. The base principle
is that whatever you do with your own property (which includes more than
just the physical things you own and the "space" you own), is your
buisiness, but when what you are doing with your property impacts
someone else's property without their consent, there is a place for
intervention. If the problem is tough enough, that intervention needs
involvement of a third party. But lets not go any further on this topic
here. If people want to explore this in more depth, it belongs over in
lugnet.off-topic.debate.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
58 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
