| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Benjamin Whytcross writes:
>
> > I beg to differ on this...I have NO control over whether messages appear
> > threaded...
>
> Beg all you want. You can't deny responsibility. You've been told what not to
> do, if you persist in doing it, you're responsible. Therefore you have • control.
>
> > Further, I believe that it has been stated that our company's policy's are
> > wrong...For a company that has little to no need to use the internet, I see • no
> > problems with not having it (though I would like it).
>
> No company "has little or no need to use the internet". Not if it wants to
> survive. Adapt or die. Evolve or go extinct. I understand that the sandbank is
> a comfy place for your company's head, though... till the predators come.
Correction...What I meant was that most/all companies have no need to allow
employees access to the internet. Maybe some want to try and entice people
using the internet to buy their products by having a website, but that isn't a
NEED.
> > True, many companies do
> > allow employees to access the net from their workstations, but having that
> > ability in some companies doesn't mean all should do this.[1] In fact, by
> > giving employees access to a non-essential service [that's right...most
> > companies probably SHOULDN'T give internet access to workers, unless it is
> > 100% necessary] they're promoting lower work standards, as a worker who's
> > using the internet unnessesarily isn't helping the company, or being
> > productive.
>
> (reordered to make a point...) Please square the above with this:
>
> > And I have little-to-no time to use the internet while at home...
>
> So what you're saying is that it's a waste of company time for you to post to
> Lugnet (by whatever mechanism...) but that you don't have time to do so at
> home> So it's OK for you to waste company time instead of using your free
> time? That's a valid choice if it's OK by your firm, but it certainly
> undermines your argument that companies shouldn't allow net access, wouldn't
> you say? Or are you saying you want your company to protect you from your own
> tendency to waste your time on their nickel? Help me understand your point
> here.
I said internet, as opposed to email, which can be useful within a company to
allow widespread distribution of information.
And I believe that there's few companies around that don't allow some personal
email use from work.
> > Therefore, I've more-or-less been prevented from using lugnet to post • messages
> > [and not just replies, which I've tried to avoid as much as possible in the
> > past.] :(
>
> How so? You're not prevented, you're just restricted from using a broken tool.
> Use a different tool. There are a lot out there you can use.
Well, I'd be interested in knowing which ones are available that can do all
these things through a MS exchange server...
> > [1] As some countries call for free trade while subsidising their own
> > industries/farmers, whilst others actually DO try to provide free trade and • as
> > a result suffer at the hands of those who want everything THEIR way, without
> > trying to be fair...
>
> Define fair in this context. But never mind, non sequitur.
Fair as in doing what they want everyone else to do.
> *I'm* the guy saying that the job market in Oz is depressed because of choices
> Aussies make. You are welcome to your choices but don't dodge the
> consequences. And I'm not calling for subsidies by the US government of
> ANYTHING. I oppose them. Hence your statement is irrelevant. Besides, the US
> economic miracle is due to the computer industry, and the net, the most
> unsubsidied and most unregulated industries in the US, not due to subsidies of
> our inefficient farmers and bailouts of failing rustbelt firms. So besides
> being irrelevant, it's wrong, too.
>
> If you want to continue that argument, go start a thread in .debate. It's
> pretty old news, though.
>
> Sorry if it seems like I am picking on you but it really gets up my nose that
> you just won't admit that it is *you* that is responsible, ultimately, for
> your choices. You choose to use broken tools. So Todd is stopping you. He
> shouldn't have to use drastic measures, you've been asked politely to stop,
> but you didn't. So stop already.
>
> Personally, as I said before, I want the filter left on, though, now that it's
> in place. Because when *I* inadvertantly post due to someone's rudeness in
> mailing me a copy of their reply, I want to know about it and take corrective
> action. You don't seem to care. As far as you're concerned, everyone else has
> to compensate so you can keep using your broken tool.
>
> This is a small point in the grand scheme of things but I'm dug in now. And
> I'm just an obnoxious seppo. Isn't that what you called me? Chickens do often
> come home to roost.
Well, I can't help that Strine is now undegoing censorship (And that I was
brought up using it)...It's a much more colourful language than "american" :)
[I don't recall calling anyone obnoxious, though...]
> Soon as you admit culpability instead of squirming away from responsibility,
> I'll stop.
I wasn't denying that the problem was mine indirectly [eg...I can't make the
company do what it "should".] all I wanted was to know if there was a way that
something could be done at the other end, as mine can't be changed [to the
best of my knowledge]
Benjamin Whytcross
bwhytcro@pacificaccess.com.au
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
10 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
|
|
|
|
