 | | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Lenny, I never said all the people would believe such assurances all the time. But I still think it's worth providing them. ROSCO (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Thanks. For everything you said. "I can think of a hundred things I'd rather do than debate this stuff." Ya, me too! I'll see your 100 and raise you a hundred. Emotions have run high here, but your recent actions convince me I was wrong to (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Well, Lenny, Larry and I have had some conversations, especially when the LPRV was first formed, and he acknowledged that he felt that Admins should be held to a higher standard hat on, or hat off. So Larry beleives there should be a double (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: my “button pushing” opinion! ;)
|
|
(...) My miscounting was wrong, and I was wrong to say Larry did any abusive emailing. I respectfully request that (URL) post be cancelled, so that Larry no longer has to defend himself against false charges. (...) Not in my opinion. Kevin (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: my “button pushing” opinion! ;)
|
|
(...) Yeah, a lot of people. But MOST people think that Larry is suitable to be an admin. And most importantly, Todd thinks Larry is an excellent choice to be an admin - as it is Todd's choice to empower an Admin or not. -Lenny (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | my “button pushing” opinion! ;)
|
|
(...) Larry, No. I'd start to worry when (arguably justified) personal attacks on a LUGNET admin are (URL) spotlighted> on LUGNET's homepage. For that to happen once is very unfortunate. For it to happen repeatedly… I'd be further concerned when (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
Could you guys please start a new thread with all this feces? It seems this thread has fallen victim to name-calling and the other normal antics... Back on topic. Evey decently large community has a members' association. I bet a few of you who live (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Sounds like the double standard again. I was called to town for asking users to respect Admins, and everyone said there is no way to police whether people respect us or not. And now you're trying to call Larry out because he doesn't respect (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Is saying someone wigged out a personal attack? Is it beaving to a different standard? DOesn't sound like you are unpholdin' to you own rules. You commiteed to do better. Kevin (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Is that really a problem? I agree at some point *you* may wish to stop arguing, but why ask everyone else to? I think the problem with saying "The decision stands, we don't see the point of people discussing further" (or in fact ANY way of (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Well, as long as it was Scott, it was easy enough to disregard. It was just Scott, after all, noted button pusher. But when we get this mistrust from people we used to respect before they wigged out, or people we still do want to respect for (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Yeah, I don't believe this. The LPRV is a great example. The Admins gathered a group of people and said, we trust you guys! We want to know what you think! And then, seemingly out of nowhere, they started accusing the Admins of creating a (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Wow. You're right Ross, that is worded much better. That reminds me, I probably shouldn't be posting this right now without my lawyer being present. There might be some minor misunderstanding that prompts endless accusations at my character (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Why not? It was my point, that without someone saying "We've listened, we've considered it carefully, we worked our process and we worked our review process, and we don't at this time see a need to change this particular reviewing action, and (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Possibly. (...) Because it's representative. A committee of review, appointed by an appointed committee, may, in spite of good intentions, not be representative. Cheers Richie Dulin (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
