| |
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G7KAE9.MFt@lugnet.com...
> And why shouldn't I have the right to point out irrational anti MS bias?
I didn't (and don't) dispute your rights.
> Especially when it's posted in a non useful way, as I said. Todd does have • a
> special responsibility to keep the line between his private persona and • his
> public one distinct.
I don't accept that at all. Anyone who wants to express their opinion in a
public forum should be allowed to do so, whether they are involved in
running it or not. If someone else takes exception to that, that's fine, but
I don't think in this situation you (or anyone) has the right to dictate
Todd's (or anyone's) "responsibility" (special or otherwise).
> Is he claiming that LUGNet officially has an anti MS bias, and therefore • by
> extension, an anti TLC bias, inasmuch as they have allied themselves in • this
> area?
Well, that's Todds call, but my view is that unless it shows up in the
official terms of use (or other LUGNet doco, it's not an official LUGNet
view.
> I don't think he is, but clarity is essential. Is he claiming that's
> the view of the membership as a whole? It certainly isn't. I'm pretty sure
> it is, but clarity is essential.
>
> Just as the ToS requires official signatures from TLC employees when they
> speak in their capacity as employees and not as private citizens, I think • it
> would be helpful if Todd were to sign his name differently when he is
> speaking in an official capacity. Something he doesn't currently do.
Granted, it seems common these days to sign like "These are my personal
views, not those of my employer", however I think those entities requiring
it are in the minority. I certainly don't, but I do make it painfully
obvious when I *am* expressing the views of my employer, by using a standard
company sig.
> FUT admin.general as this is an administrative question. But if you want • to
> debate why it's irrational and ineffective to be anti MS to the extent of
> cutting your nose off to spite your face, take it up in .debate...
From the implied meaning, I think my views on that are probably fairly close
to yours...
Regards,
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
| (...) I'm not dictating. Not now, not ever. That (not dictating) is a longstanding and consistent position I've held, you can check back as far as you like... back to the very start of LUGNet(tm), and farther. Note that I distinguish between things (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
| (...) I wouldn't say "incredibly inefficient," but definitely wasteful and inefficient. It's no big deal for occasional hand-typed URLs, but it's extremely annoying for links. (...) I agree completely, and in the case of hand-typed URLs (where (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: URLs without trailing slashes
|
| (...) Different, yes... you could even say "unconventional", which is what Tom is saying. Unconventional is not alway "wrong". But when you break a convention you should have a good reason to do so. Users not needing to remember to type .ftx on the (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: URLs without trailing slashes
|
| (...) A different way of naming pages that seems wrong to EVERY SINGLE person I've talked to. Doesn't that tell you something? If the UI is counterintuitive, change the UI if possible, don't try to change the users. In this case, changing the UI is (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
