 | | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) I think that is irrelevant here so I will not agree or disagree. (...) That's all fine, given that the ToU says "reason X will result in a timeout of 48 hours". However, I doubt the ToU will ever cover every possible reason for timeout, and a (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | A Radical changeof Thought
|
|
Maybe we're approaching this from the wrong direction. Forgive me if it sounds like my church background sounds like it'scoming thru, but here we go-- First there was darkness. From the darkness arose The Internet! Many thronged to this internet and (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) This wasn't in reference directly to 'the incident'. This was in reference to the perception that the administration is cloistered, 'working furiously'on a 'boldnew future' for LUGNET and will come outwith it when they're good and ready. Thus, (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) ? Sorry, could you clarify that? Every reviewing action lately has been seen, there haven't been any non public timeouts given in quite a while. (...) ? Can you clarify that? I see no signs of that! (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) So, the democratic association rules on certain tabled options and in turn passes those options agreed upon to the aristocracy? How is that better exactly? -Duane (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) I think the problem is the way it's presented. Please, don't ever tell people not to talk about it. Telling people "this decision is final, don't discuss it anymore" is very stand-offish. You're right, the decision may indeed be final, but at (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) LUGNET is not a democracy. A members association could be. Cheers Richie Dulin (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) And as part of the admin staff, what are you going to do about this 'crux'? Wishing it away will not make it go away. Whereas I may agree that 'the community' may need to 'cut some slack' (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> We haven't really seen 'em, so how can we tell if they're incorrect? It's a matter of trust. Well, a prime minister of some country got on the telly last night and talked about (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Nicely said, Larry. However, wouldn't you agree that, in specific instances (especially as we've seen recently) that there needs to be debate, especially since if there's a perceived (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
