| |
Robert M. Dye <robdye@writeme.com> wrote:
> This is my last word in this thread. God grant I'm not tempted to break
> that.
Probably mine as well.
> > > The prove it Prove It, PROVE IT! post struck me as amazingly rude.
> > >
> > > And NOT rude to TLC.
> > >
> > > To *Todd.*
>
> The way I see it, Todd does not have to PROVE anything when it comes to his
> policy decisions regarding LUGNET. It's his (and Susan's, no?) If Todd says
> there will be no more posts here of links to material he think/feels/guesses
> TLC will not want ussed that way, then there shouldn't be. He doesn't have
> to prove it, all he has to do is set policy. If he says we all have to say
> the moon is made of green cheese in order to retain our posting privledges,
> then he can do that. He does not have to prove it. We have the option of
> saying, "Hey, no thanks, I'll go elsewhere," or "Okay, fine, the moon is
> made of green cheese. now let's talk about LEGO."
>
> Todd's policy statement was not as absurd as my example, or even absurd at
> all. his reasons for policy are his, and he does not have to PROVE anything
> about them. After all, HE IS PROVIDING THE FORUM. As far as I am concerned,
> the one who pays the band gets to call the tune. No one has presented me
> with a bill for LUGNET, so I'll be happy to defer to those who DO pay the
> bills.
>
> The "PROVE IT" poster implies that he does not accept (or even see!) that
> this would have to be the case.
I think I see where you're coming from, although your core reasoning
here seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Tom was the author of
this "prove it" post you're talking about.
Todd, however, was not the person to whom Tom was responding. As
you can see here:
http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=2740
Richard Franks was, in fact, the person to whom Tom was responding.
Here's a bit of it quoted just for convenience:
> Richard Franks wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
>
> > Yes, and until I see otherwise from TLC, I consider the "illegal • 2000 scans"
> > to be "restrained and respectful use". I really DO want to hear • from TLC
> > about it, one way or the other.
>
> What do you think they will say, bearing in mind that these are • secret, not for
> public use documents?
> Oh? - PROVE IT! Quit shoving it down our throats as gospel, and
> PROVE IT. SHOW us
> the documents proving these are "secret". Are they limited
> production/circulation? Yes. Secret? PROVE IT.
So while Tom may very well have been "rude" to Richard here, this
has nothing to do with Todd. Tom was referring to a specific
comment by Richard that these scans were "secret" documents.
So, really, no demanding that the owner of the sandbox PROVE
anything, no arguing with policy, no denying that Todd has any right
or not to do what he wants with Lugnet. This entire "prove it"
tirade that has you so upset had literally nothing to do with Todd,
but was merely an emotional outburst at someone else entirely. (Not
that the fact that it was directed at Richard should make it seem
less rude to you, but really, you can see that bringing in the whole
"how dare we question Todd and what he wants to do with Lugnet"
issue based on this outburst doesn't quite work, right?
Just to make sure, I just reread the entire thread within which this
post occured. The only post by Tom that contains those words in
response to a post by Todd is this one:
http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=2859
in which Tom quotes Todd quoting him from the above-mentioned post.
I would also add that Tom even states that, having read the response
from Lego, he will respect it, although he won't agree with it.
And respecting while not agreeing is where most of us have ended up
on some of these issues.
> Again, I said how he struck me. not what he *is.* I don't know what he is,
> or what you are, having never met either one of you. You strike me as loud
> and abusive. That's just based on your posts (some of them, anyway; others
> have seemed calm, reasonable, and balanced, which leaves me thinking of you
> as more of an enigma), and does not say who you are, or HOW you are in
> reality.
For what it's worth, abusive is not what I've been aiming for. Loud
I don't mind - I'm loud in person. But abusive I don't aspire to
be. If I'm coming across that way, I'm sorry.
--
The parts you want and nothing else?
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Why pay eBay? Run your own LEGO auctions for free!
http://www.guarded-inn.com/bricks/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Enough already
|
| Um.... "Busing children...?" "Yes, '"busing" children.' Not 'busting,' 'busing.'" "Oh..... "Never mind!" ---...--- Well, then, sorry about all that. I have GOT to find a better way to decipher all these (convoluted) threads. Todd seemed (to me) to (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Enough already
|
| This is my last word in this thread. God grant I'm not tempted to break that. ---...--- (...) So...what...? Since you did not write it, it was not rude? My original post on this topic was not addressed to you. I said, speaking in general to the (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
|
72 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
|
|
|
|
