Subject:
|
Re: Block user X from replying to a message by user Y
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 May 2002 22:00:30 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
5112 times
|
| |
|
|
Okay.
I've been watching this for nearly a year, saying very little,
but this thread's got my goat. Baaa.
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
>
> > Larry, you're whining.
>
> And you're bickering with *me* (and a little grandstanding besides(1), truth
> be told) because you'd rather just ignore the very real problem of Scott
> Arthur and hope it goes away. It won't. You've enabled his behaviour.
Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. Larry, I have always had a great
deal of respect for you, even when we disagree--but this kind
of thing really tests me.
Grandstanding? This is LUGNET. You're asking for a radical
addressing of two users' interpersonal problem. Suz's point is
that she's got enough to do without trying to solve a problem
that you ought to be big enough to handle on your own. So
I disagree with your note [1] re: the relevance of LUGNET admini-
strative and trademark issues to whether or not Suz should be
holding users' proverbial hands.
And you making a big deal out of it is *also* enabling Scott.
And if Suz bent to your line of view, she'd be enabling
*you*. Why don't you enable or disable *yourselves?* What
you're doing by drawing (or trying to draw) Suz into it is
making LUGNET's administration a locus for your contest of
power [1], which is far, far, far, FAR more damaging to the
overall health of the community than anything the "Scott-Larry"
squabble could do.
In short: If you get a barb shoved at you, just say "I don't
appreciate that and it's unfair" and leave it at that, or better
yet say nothing. Save the mudslinging for .o-t.* where we can
ignore it if we wish.
> We all have lots of problems and we all have to balance them. That's what
> people do. This particular symptom of the problem may have been overanalysed
> to death at this point, but that does not make Scott Arthur any less of a
> long term hazard to LUGNET(tm). However it's a risk you have chosen to take,
> so... so be it.
I agree fully with Richard on this one. I don't see a Scott
Arthur "threat" or hazard to LUGNET. I know to ignore him when
he says something that does not interest me, and move on. When
people bait me, and it happens from time to time, I ignore it.
Honestly, I think you've done more harm the few times you've
risen to it than all the times you haven't and it's gone unanswered.
I think this idea that somehow "Scott Arthur unchallenged = people
accepting his opinions as truth" is not only fallacious, but it
insults the intelligence of everyone who reads LUGNET by suggesting
that we can't make up our own minds in an informed and rational
manner. And I take *great* exception to that implication.
This is nothing personal against Larry or Scott, but rather an
expression of my own frustration when this erupts outside the .o-t.*
hierarchy, and when it draws Suz away from the other 99.9+% of
LUGNET posters/members (and it really is that many) and the greater
needs of the community.
best
LFB
[1] I won't explain this concept, except to imply that it's an effort
to employ authority to gain a measure of legitimacy for one's
own views or position over another--even so much as to say "look
at admin paying personal attention to me and not you."
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
