Subject:
|
Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:23:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3070 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> 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.
Yup. I heard you say that loud and clear.
> 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?
Still yes.
> 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.
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 disrespect to other admins to continue arguing the
point with them once it's already been clearly made. (That said, I
understand that you felt unfairly attacked by Lenny. In the future, it's
probably more effective to reply more objectively and calmly when you feel
that way. Just a suggestion.)
> [...] 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.
It would've shown a lot more respect -- and tact -- if you'd've started
a brand new thread in .admin.suggestions, saying something like this:
"Hey, I've noticed a number of postings in subgroups of .people which
seem to be off-topic (e.g., non-LEGO). Perhaps the .people tree could
be moved as a subtree of the .off-topic tree? Just a thought. I realize
you probably already considered this before the groups were set up, but
just in case you didn't, I wanted to toss that out as a suggestion."
Doesn't that sound a whole lot different? And make the point just as well?
> But... I strongly disagree WHERE the .people group is located.
Your objection is noted.
> 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.
Have you set yours this way? If no, why not? If yes, how did you happen
to stumble across my post?
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
| (...) good ;) But that is not what you said I was asking for. So I am glad it is NOW yes, but I don't think it is "still yes". (...) I am sorry you took that as disrespectful. It was not the intention. More on this below (1). (...) See, I would (...) (20 years ago, 30-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
| (...) Yes it was misplaced. I was not in the wrong - and Leonard's refusal to comprehend is where the problem started, not with me. (...) WRONG. 100% WRONG Todd. Really, what is hard to understand about what I am saying. Let me pull a quote: "the (...) (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
|
|
|
|
