Subject:
|
Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 Jan 2002 03:46:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
708 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > As mentioned (twice or three times now) I did, most certainly, read the
> > charter for that group.
>
> 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 until it does, no criticism. As to your second one, well,
> if the charter is unclear, how can it be your fault? If you continued to
> post about it after the charter was clarified that would be something else
> but no one is suggesting that you would.
I think this is where we may have gotten off track Larry. I *suspect* you
may be very interested in having the charter(s) updated as a way of
addressing your pet peeve(s). And this is should have been understood by
me. It wasn't and I apologize.
I saw this just as a chance for some interesting discussion, not realizing
that perhaps you see it as an important community/LUGNET issue. Not being a
LUGNET member anymore, I don't get involved in any of the admin issues
related to the site. I'm happy to talk about LEGO bricks, the LEGO company,
LEGO history, mountain bikes, computers, programming, music, movies, board
games.... just about anything... but not the behind-the-scenes nitty gritty
of LUGNET. I used to do that, but it made me very sad, so I stopped.
> > 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.
>
> If we go back to the start of the thread you asked me why I felt the
> announce groups were overused (I said it was a pet peeve of mine). I wasn't,
> when I answered, thinking that you wanted a *debate* about it... I didn't
> then and don't now. I was just trying to answer your question. YOU seem to
> want to debate it. Not me. I just don't see it as debatable or, even if it
> is, as appropriate for any group other than one that has admin in it (maybe
> admin.terms instead of admin.general but naaa...) as it is an admin question
> to ask what the charter of a group means.
See above comments. Again, the 'debating' idea was mine and was not
appropriate, given the context.
> But you even want to debate that (weakly, you present no arguments, just
> assert. I on the other hand reviewed the charters of admin.general and of
> offtopic.debate.
I do think you're being a bit unfair with this last comment.
Not only did I review the charters as well (which above qualifies you as
having presented arguments) but I also spent some time reviewing the News
web interface main page. I looked at the total number of posts to the
various groups and was thus able to determine that .announce does not rank
in the top 20 for volume of posts. Granted this may be weak evidence, but
it is a fact none-the-less and not just opinion.
> NOTHING in the charter of offtopic.debate remotely fits an
> admin question about LUGNET itself, I don't think.), apparently.
You're absolutely right. I wasn't trying to pretend it did. I simply
misunderstood your desire to direct this thread into .admin. Once again,
this was my error in judgement.
> But that aside. let's face facts. The lugnet.announce group IS over used and
> every other poster to this thread (I think, with the possible exception of
> one) agrees that most of what gets posted to lugnet.announce is off charter
> and doesn't belong there.
Larry. If you look above you say "let's face facts. The lugnet.announce
group IS over used". But this is really just your opinion, isn't it? You
don't present any facts to back it up. Play fair Larry. If you insist on
other folks presenting facts during a disagreement, I think you need to do
the same. Just having other people agree with you doesn't qualify as a
fact, just as my difference of opinion doesn't qualify as a fact.
> You can disagree if you like but I don't want to debate that point. Really,
> I don't.
I disagree with some of your opinions/statements, but that's nothing new.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread... that's one of the things that's
always made LUGNET interesting. Differences in opinions simply serve to
highlight the differences in people; which isn't a bad thing. That's the
reason (as mentioned before) that I enjoy reading many of your posts. You
present an opinion that is diametrically opposed to mine; I find that
interesting, not offensive.
> If this little incident is enough to make you stop posting,
Ooops... sorry, I didn't mean to infer that it was this particular thread
that was causing me to stop posting. I just think it's time, that's all.
> I have to question the strength of your convictions.
Conviction to what? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Are you referring
to my conviction to LUGNET or to LEGO?
> If you sincerely believe you have
> an important message, the fact that most everyone disagrees with you about
> posts to lugnet.announce being too common seems inconsequential compared to
> that message of deliverance for the Lego Company. Focus on that crusade
> would be my advice.
I'm not sure it's a crusade as such (no rampaging or looting) but you are
correct to point out that I do have a message for the company. It seems to
be falling on generally deaf ears, but then I'm a patient person. :)
I think it's worth pointing out exactly *why* I take often critical and very
often unpopular stances on LEGO-related issues around here. It's because I
care very deeply for this company and its products. Some might see my
concern as nothing more than foolish sentamentalism. That's o.k. I'm fine
with that. But it seems more and more that few people on LUGNET want to
hear that message. So it's really not appropriate for me to bring it up
over and again. I really don't want to spoil anyone's fun; that's never been
my intention.
It's really something better taken to a different site and allowed to
flourish there. I've opened up my site for anyone to voice their opinion
about anything the company is doing or has done. I'm trying to keep it
positive and fun yet at the same time critical and demanding. After all...
in the end the customers keep a company in business by what they *do* buy
and not by what they pass on.
Larry, I hope you'll forgive me for trying to open up this issue to a pure
debate. I really didn't see your intentions; it wasn't meant as anything
malicious, I hope you know that.
Best regards,
Allan B.
Serious, but ironic note. I am looking at this posting and honestly don't
see the contents as a .admin-related message anymore. But I have no idea
where to set the follow-up. Is this a .people posting, since it's just me
talking to you? Or should it be in one of the .off-topic groups? Perhaps
just in .general. Seriously, I have no idea.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Allan Bedford writes: <mostly well considered and not disagreed to by me so I snipped it> except for this: (...) No, it *isn't* just my opinion... it seems to be the opinion of the person who wrote the charter. And he ought (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
