| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> writes:
> > > > This post was on topic, it answered a direct question. Hope that helps.
> > >
> > > In a way, yes, your post answered a question.
> > >
> > > In a much larger way, it was a flog for your models for sale. And you know
> > > it.
> >
> > No, and no.
>
> ++Lar,
It's Lar. ++ is the signature lead in, not part of the name. Thanks.
> are you saying that you disagree that your post was a flog?
Yes, I am specifically saying that I disagree that it was intended to be
such. Everything in it was put there to back up my assertion (boast) that
the doodlebug is a "killer model" and nothing more.
> It sure
> read like a flog to me, and only after you called it a brag was I able to
> see more insight into its purpose and agree that it's more a brag than a
> flog. But it's also a flog, IMHO.
It wasn't written with intent to flog. There is no way to judge intent from
the outside, of course, so you'll have to take my word for it (or not, as
you choose). All you can judge is outcome or appearance. And differences of
opinion are what make life interesting, I guess.
However failure to communicate clearly is the fault of the writer, not the
reader, unless the reader is significantly challenged in some way. Hence if
you were confused, it could have been written better.
> > It was a brag. Steve asked who had done killer models and I answered.
>
> There's definitely something to be said for someone who can comfortably
> admit that he was bragging.
Go ahead and say it. :-)
> > > Therefore, IMHO, violates the spirit of the TOS.
> >
> > No again.
>
> That's a matter of opinion, I think. Now, the tone and the underlying
> message of your post probably annoyed the living snot out of dozens of
> people,
Why would that be? Is there something wrong with being good, knowing it, and
not being ashamed to say it? Steve was challenging people (to change the
subject from his not communicating the info about IOLTC very clearly,
although I think that's fixed now) and I was a bit annoyed at that challenge
so I gave some trash talk back. Happens all the time.
> but it didn't technically break the TOS as far as I can tell. Did
> it break the spirit of the TOS? That's hard to say, but that's not really
> relevant anyway unless you're showing a pattern of trying to walk the line
> just for the sake of walking the line. You've shown a history of trying to
> walk the line for the sake of flogging and bragging, but not for the sake of
> walking the line per se.
I would dispute that I've shown any such history. What I would rather say is
that there is a history of relatively innocuous posts of mine being challenged.
> (Hmm, I wonder which is more destructive to the
> community? Certainly neither is positive.)
Well, there is a lot of non positive stuff going on here lately.
> > > Auction flogging is frowned upon. I can only imagine that sale flogging
> > > is frowned upon as well.
> >
> > You are correct sir, you can only imagine it, you can't cite
>
> I would cite this:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=2907
>
> but that's more of a polite request than a mandate.
That's as may be, but since I didn't post it as a flog it's not completely
relevant. I shouldn't have muddied the water by neglecting to point that out
in my first response to Lorbaat.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) ++Lar, are you saying that you disagree that your post was a flog? It sure read like a flog to me, and only after you called it a brag was I able to see more insight into its purpose and agree that it's more a brag than a flog. But it's also a (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
33 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
|
|
|
|
