|
In lugnet.general, Huw Millington writes:
> OK, OK, the scans are gone.
Personally, I find this entire scene completely repulsive.. I love this site, I
love this community and I enjoy and appreciate every bit of effort that is put
into it by everyone (my member dues are in the mail!), I also realize that we
are basically on your dime, Todd...
But, from an encompassing and objective view of all posts re: this thread, what
this little maelstrom appears to have been rubs me the wrong way...
more or less what it has all boiled down to is the two people with the most
pull here (say what you like, but it *is* todd's server, domain, etc and we all
know that you can pretty much view todd and suz as "todd and suz", an item)
bullying Huw into "voluntarily" reversing his actions...
I'm sorry if I'm way out of line here, but I'm one person who will *not* censor
himself or his actions, and my resolve often strengthens in the face of
external pressure to modify my behavior... I feel that a member of this
community was forced to conform to the morality of other individuals...
personally I don't have a problem with what Huw did... I *do* understand about
priveledged/confidential information... but I agree with those who stated they
don't feel any truly "sensitive" information was conveyed in Huw's post/web
page
I was really upset by Suz's post stating "this isn't an issue for a vote, you
have to take action now"... basically guilt-tripping Huw into what *she*
believes is the right thing to do... and because she doesn't see it (or doesn't
*want* to see it) as an arguable issue, she didn't feel we as a community
should be polled for a consensus...
I just feel like we all signed up to be a part of a community whose terms of
use did not state "your words and actions will be monitored and approved of by
the creator/administrator"... something about the duplicitous nature of saying
"I'm not telling you what you should do, I'm just telling you that I think you
know the right thing to do" really rubbed me the wrong way..
And I firmly believe that this issue and its resolution might have been vastly
different if it were only me (or scott arthur, tamy teed, hell, even the
lovable johnathan wilson) who posed the idea for Huw to acquiesce
> :(
J
|
|
Message has 6 Replies: | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| I'm just going to pick on one thing in this long post. I don't have time to go into the deeper issues (and they are worthy of exploration, but I leave for Chicago at 4 AM tomorrow) so forgive me for jumping on this one minor point.. (...) I'm not (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
105 Messages in This Thread: (Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|