Subject:
|
Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Jan 2002 03:07:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
609 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In the 7 days or so since I made these two posts (oldest being 7 days ago)
> > I've received about 1300 hits to my site. 99% of these originated from one
> > of the two postings to LUGNET. Of all those hits, I've received only one
> > email commenting that I should not have made the second announcement in the
> > .announce group. Do I take it from the lack of dozens of negative emails
> > that most people *apparently* don't mind my posting to the .announce group?
> > Or do I address and react to the one lone voice of dissent?
>
> > I did follow-up that complaint with a prompt email in an attempt to open a
> > dialog on the topic. Unfortunately 3 days later I still haven't heard back
> > from that person. Do I assume my arguements were so stunning that I've made
> > a convert? :)
>
> Maybe your mail is being bounced silently on the way in or out? I sent you a
> complaint via email when you posted the second time but got no reply,
> leading me to believe you never saw it or your reply never made it back to me.
My apologies for making any assumptions. I wondered if the mail had perhaps
bounced at the other end without generating an error at my end.
> > Which ultimately highlights my point about some of us not knowing where the
> > heck to post anything. It was noted today that the 2001 posting totals are
> > down over the previous year. Here I am 3 years into LUGNET, still
> > apparently making mistakes about which group to post to. How is a new
> > person ever supposed to figure out the compartmentalization around here?
>
> Read the group headers, they do give guidance. Ask (in admin.general) if
> unclear. People do want to help. But you have to WANT to be helped, not want
> to argue about it.
As mentioned (twice or three times now) I did, most certainly, read the
charter for that group. I honestly and sincerely did not see any issue with
my postings; either the first or the second one. I do not wish to argue the
point any further, but was simply trying to engage you (Larry) in a debate
about why you felt the .announce group was being overused/misused/abused. I
apologize if my intentions were unclear.
> > I'm sure that some shy but wonderful people refrain from
> > posting for the simple fact that they are afraid to make a mistake.
>
> That is a problem in any public forum. The way to address it is to give
> gentle correction when people make mistakes and encourage their further
> participation. People should not feel constrained from posting.
They should not, but I sense that they do anyway. I always thought of
LUGNET as a place that welcomed newcomers. My point was that the ambiguity
of some of the charters and posting regulations might make it difficult for
someone to make themselves at home here.
> > And for my final trick......
> >
> > I won't redirect this follow-up, but I will disagree with you again Larry.
> > I really just wanted to hear and debate your opinions on the topic. I
> > didn't want to raise this as an admin issue on LUGNET because I really
> > didn't want to raise it as an admin issue on LUGNET. The .debate group was
> > actually the appropriate place to send the thread, but I won't correct you.
>
> No it was not initially, and it *remains* the incorrect place, no matter how
> many times you assert it.
>
> Note that something being an "admin issue" doesn't mean that it is
> necessarily something where someone needs to be chastised about something.
> In this case, clarification of the charter (reiteration, in fact), and some
> gentle reminding is the appropriate outcome. Your not wanting it to be an
> admin issue has zero bearing on whether it IS an admin issue or not.
Larry... please take a moment to read your last paragraph. This is the type
of language that causes your reputation to be tarnished from time to time.
Despite me telling you why in clear and unbroken language, you insist upon
declaring your opinion the only valid stance. It was my follow-up, and I
am quite certain I knew my own intentions. I hate repeating myself, but I
will in this case. I *only* wanted to debate the issue of why you felt the
.announce groups were being overused. I did not have any intention
whatsoever of making it into an .admin issue. If *you* wanted to make it
such, then you should have made a new posting or a new follow-up to do so.
Please Larry, when someone tells you why they did something, just accept it,
even if you don't like it.
> > I'd hate to scare you into not posting anymore. ;)
>
> I have no idea what this means, if it's sarcasm, it's lost on me. It's
> certainly not funny.
This was a joke Larry. See the winking smilie at the end of the sentence?
I have read many many of your posts Larry and always felt that at the very
least you had a sense of humor. My apologies if I offended you with this
comment.
In reality, I really wouldn't like to see you stop posting again. I often
read your postings. And, more often than not I disagree with you. But I
don't respond to every posting I disagree with, that's not why I'm here. I
generally only reply to your posts when something is interesting or
important to me personally. And as mentioned, I do so because I am a firm
believer that any true opinion or belief can withstand not only
disagreement, but criticism and debate. When I disagree with you Larry, I'm
challenging your thoughts and ideas, not you the person. If there is no
disagreement around here, then why post at all? Shouldn't one comment on
any one topic be enough to satisfy everyone? It's not and I'm sure you can
see why.
You often make valid points Larry.... heck, sometimes I even agree with you
(big smile). And you know what? Sometimes you even make me laugh Larry, and
that's a good thing. I like to laugh, as it makes life so much easier.
> > Best regards and all comments meant in the spirit of friendly debate,
> > Allan B.
>
> I have no interest whatever in debating this topic for the sake of debating
> it.
Again, I feel it falls upon me to apologize. I see the numerous posts that
you make to the off-topic groups and thought that perhaps we could simply
engage in some thought-provoking conversation about an issue we seem to
disagree on. I thought you *liked* debating, since you do often seem to
engage in it. I guess you just don't like debating me, but I don't know why.
> If you want to debate it purely for fun, you're barking up the wrong tree.
> I'm not interested.
I was trying to have a little fun Larry. Just trying to open up a friendly
discussion about an issue related to this site. I wasn't trying to impose
my will on anyone. I wasn't even trying to tell you that you were wrong;
only to offer you the chance to debate the issue. You seemed to be
interested as you mentioned this problem online and off.
I sense that you have little interest in going any further with this issue,
so I'll let you know that I won't bother bringing it up again. I have a
feeling that this will be one of my last posts to LUGNET, probably for good
this time. I took a break for several months once. I came back because I
thought I could spark some dicussions on the state of the LEGO company from
the perspective of someone who doesn't hold with many of the accepted
beliefs of the adult LEGO fan community. I am saddened that some folks
around here seem to be so bent on holding an opinion sometimes that no one
else is allowed to challenge it. I think when I sign off this time it will
be for the last time.
I always try to put some humor into my postings; I use a lot of smilies.
But it's as though the humor is being filtered out lately. It's as though
everyone just wants their own opinion to be the only valid opinion and
everyone else be damned. This just doesn't seem like the LUGNET of a couple
years ago.
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
| (...) You asked how one is supposed to determine things. I answered. No critcism of your first post to .announce was intended, I've said (twice or three times now) that it fits the charter as it's written. I think the charter needs changing but (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
| (...) Maybe your mail is being bounced silently on the way in or out? I sent you a complaint via email when you posted the second time but got no reply, leading me to believe you never saw it or your reply never made it back to me. (...) Read the (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
38 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
|
|
|
|
