Subject:
|
Re: 8 new subgroups of lugnet.people (Kids, Teens, Adults, Singles, Couples, Parents, Support, LGBT)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Sep 2004 03:34:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5635 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Tim Courtney wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
| |
However, I am saddened by the number of people who disagree with this move.
While I was inflammatory in the past, I will only say now that I think these
people are being “civilly discrimantory.” Its the most accurate way I can
think to describe them. While I do respect that they have the right to thier
opinions, I just really wished they could see how mean-hearted it appears to
others.
-Alfred
|
I have to say that I have seen some people opposing this move who can be
legitimately interpreted as mean-hearted, and yes, that’s sad.
What I think is equally sad, though 1, is that people can’t seem to respect
that many want to enjoy their hobby peacefully without being bothered by such
discussion 2, and their intent really *isn’t* discrimination. I wish those
people could see how imposing the insistance upon such groups appears to
others.
How much did this topic step all over people just trying to log on and talk
about LEGO (without all this garbage) this week?
-Tim
1 Actually sadder, given that the focus of the site is a hobby.
2 “Just add it to your skip-filter” isn’t good enough unless the groups are
heavily policed for spillage into on-topic groups.
|
You don’t have to listen, Tim. That is the point. Now, I know I read things
differently than some. I use the web interface and not NNTP. So, I don’t get
deluged with information--I have to go get it. I think the only thing here I am
actually subscribed to is Lugnet.org.us.NELUG, and that is an email summary.
The fact is, if you are so interested in listening about everything that Lego
fans want to talk about, then why are you proposing censorship? Yes, your
proposing censorship to say people can’t “have such discussions.” The fact is
the discussions in question could happen anywhere on Lugnet, since all we were
talking about were discussions that fall into the current TOS.
Now, what do you imagine will happen that causes “spillage into on-topic
groups?” I mean part of the whole reason this group was asked for was to make
LGBT people more comfortable about posting--away from the traditional groups?
How many club meeting announcements spill over? How many off-topic.debate items
end up in .space? Very few. And if they do, it is either relevant, or quickly
corrected?
The question you have to ask yourself is this. What makes LGBT issues so much
more troublesome than say Larry’s post about George Bush?
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=25647 I am sure there were people
who didn’t agree with Larry’s views, or didn’t even want it said because it is
so not-lego. (Sorry, Larry, just picked you ‘cause I just read this thread, and
found it interesting.)
Ok, so that was in off-topic, and you say all non-lego stuff belongs there.
Well, how about this thread? http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=11740 This little
question about POV-ray is so far from most people’s (including AFOLs) definition
of Lego related, that I submit that it is off-topic. Personally, I don’t care,
because everyone in that newsgroup is in that edge of the Lego world. But
really, he’s not asking about Lego there. The point isn’t that this is a bad
post (its not). The point is that is what happens when you mix things like Lego
and 3-D graphics rendering. And do you think we’re better off without that mix?
(I know you’re not. I own your book--signed copy! Which is why I am using this
example.)
The point is you fail to recognize the mean-heartedess in yourself. I am not
talking about the people with strong religious feelings, who just can’t stand
homosexuality because they believe God is against it. They have a right to
thier feelings, and at the very least they are honest about thier opposition.
No, Tim, I am talking about you (and many like you) who very calmly have very
logical reasons why the LGBT group should not exist. I say they are
rationalizations. I don’t think any of you would have been this forceful in
your opposition to people.parents if say 2-3 Lugnet members had asked, and then
Todd had said, sure.
You can still enjoy your hobby peacefully, Tim. But, please, wake up and smell
the discrimination. Some of it (IMHO) is coming from you.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 8 new subgroups of lugnet.people (Kids, Teens, Adults, Singles, Couples, Parents, Support, LGBT)
|
| (...) I have to say that I have seen some people opposing this move who can be legitimately interpreted as mean-hearted, and yes, that's sad. What I think is equally sad, though [1], is that people can't seem to respect that many want to enjoy their (...) (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
