Subject:
|
Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:59:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2918 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> > So please don't tell me that it is not 'constructive to act in such a
> > manner' - you telling me is misplaced.
>
> Tim's message was not misplaced, Mark, and you are disrespecting him by
> telling him that.
Yes it was misplaced. I was not in the wrong - and Leonard's refusal to
comprehend is where the problem started, not with me.
> > There was not a darn thing wrong with my tone in my post that was
> > directed towards Todd,
>
> Perhaps nothing "wrong" but certainly disrespectful. When you said:
>
> "If you want to talk about finding your soul mate or others want to
> talk about how gay marriage was outlawed in some state then please
> put it where it belongs - and that is not among the Lego posts."
>
> you implied, quite boldly, that the groups do not belong inside of the
> .people hierarchy. This is just pure and simply wrong. The groups DO
> belong there, because that's where we decided to PUT them. It's not up
> to you to decide that or to judge that.
WRONG. 100% WRONG Todd. Really, what is hard to understand about what I am
saying. Let me pull a quote:
"the GROUP .PEOPLE SHOULD BE A SUB-GROUP OF .OFF-TOPIC"
( http://news.lugnet.com/admin/suggestions/?n=1044 )
The sub-groups of .people do belong in that group 100%, I never ever said
anything other than that. What I am saying, and have said is that the .people
group is in the wrong hierarchy. The .people group (IMHO) belong in the
off-topic group - and they be moved as they are, 100% intact to off-topic. So
that .it would look like this:
off topic ---> people ---> people subgroups (as they currently are)
got it now?
I fail to see how this is not being understood. It was clearly stated a few
times.
And sorry Todd, what you quoted was not disrespectful. I never said you should
not be posting that. All I said was that it did NOT belong mixed in with Lego
MOC, etc postings. If you honestly took that as disrespectful - then wow - I
have no idea what to tell you. That was really not disrespectful. If I told you
to take your soul mate search to the local paper want-ads, then yes you would be
correct, but that was not the case in any way. If you honestly took that as
disrespectful, and not just trying to back your admins up then I am truly sorry
you took it that way, it was not meant in that way at all. But I honestly can’t
see how you took that as disrespectful in any way.
> Yes, you are free to make suggestions and to politely question the
> decision -- but if you want to be taken seriously, then for goshsakes
> don't do it in such a bold and condescending tone. This was in part
> what Lenny was referring to when he called your tactic low and unfair.
You just pointed out Leonard did not read past the first sentence, ok - maybe he
did read it but he sure did not take the time to comprehend anything past the
first sentence in any way. And I find HIS posts as condescending, and I find his
posts of low tactic.
> > And yes I am upset here. You have Leonard and his direct refusal to
> > comprehend very simple points to thank for that. I have every right
> > to be upset over the treatment Leonard is dishing out to me.
>
> If you are upset by Lenny's replies to you, then you should ask Lenny
> for a personal apology.
I do not require any apology from him. I do not hold grudges in any way - all I
ask is for his behavior and reading comprehension to be better in the future.
> > And I was not upset until Leonard started to do his Mohammed Saeed
> > al-Sahaf impersonations.
>
> Cute.
Thanks ;)
> > I am outraged that the Lugnet Admins have acted in the way they have in
> > this thread.
>
> How about you take a deep breath and relax.
Done ;) But I seriously felt, and feel my points were very clear (even if one
word in one part could have been taken a different way - I posted it numerous
other times in a very clear manner). And that went totally ignored by Leonard,
and I was accused of attacking and trolling by your admin when that was in no
way what was done.
Look Todd – I am not in any way trying to question or put down your decision to
CREATE the sub-groups of .people. You want to have them, that’s fine with me.
People want to talk about gay marriages and such then hey that’s ok with me.
But….. I strongly disagree WHERE the .people group is located. I do not agree
that a group that talks about gay marriages being outlawed and such to be mixed
in with the Lego talk. There is no possible way you can tell me that gay
marriages talk is in-topic with Lego MOCs. And if that along with like posts are
ok in the .people group then the entire .people group should be moved to
off-topic.
Another solution would be to DEFAULT set the .people group as skip-filtered
(just as you have done for off-topic and .admin), that would essentially achieve
the same result as moving the entire .people group as a whole into off-topic.
Mark P
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
| (...) Yup. I heard you say that loud and clear. (...) Still yes. (...) It shows disrespect to post a direct reply to a random and innocent message in a group when you think that the group itself is misplaced, and not the message. It also shows (...) (20 years ago, 30-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
| (...) Tim's message was not misplaced, Mark, and you are disrespecting him by telling him that. (...) Perhaps nothing "wrong" but certainly disrespectful. When you said: "If you want to talk about finding your soul mate or others want to talk about (...) (20 years ago, 30-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
14 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
|
|
|
|
