Subject:
|
Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Dec 1999 09:21:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1228 times
|
| |
|
|
Um, yeah, what he said (i.e., a METOO post). Todd - some of your posts come across
as you "handing the message down from on high". I know you don't mean to seem that
way, but you are coming across that way in some of your posts.
Let's just lay off all the preaching from either side, and wait to hear from TLC.
I PERSONALLY would prefer to see something posted on lego.com, so that we can point
people to it in the future if new "illegal" scans show up (assuming TLC says not to
post them - they may not give a damn).
Richard Marchetti wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> > Huw made a mistake, but he also had the intelligence to realize this and the
> > moral integrity to do something about it.
>
> May the gods love you, Todd.
>
> Do you have any idea how such a statement reads? From my view, very
> moralizing and very much adopting a parental voice. I'm sure you intend for
> this to be complimentary, but its quite backhanded at best. Basically, its
> about as moralizing and parental as this tedious post of mine that you are
> reading right now!
>
> =)
>
> You probably know Huw a thousand times better than I, and I should probably
> just leave well enough alone (as something of a newbie/outsider to Lugnet),
> but the tone of your words is all wrong to my eyes. I was going to write to
> you privately, but I guess its best out in the open for right now.
>
> Can't we just observe that Huw changed his mind about what he had done and
> leave it at that? I respected him the same before and after the scans scandal-
> - frankly, I'm rather ambivalent about the whole thing. Huw merely did what he
> thought best in both instances.
>
> You, Todd, have other views on the subject and I respect them as such. You
> know about things that I don't know about; you have access to information that
> I do not have access to. You may even have motives that are selfless and
> benefit us all in some way, and perhaps these motives direct your actions. I
> respect that and I thank you. But no more or less than I thank Huw or Kevin
> Loch for their participation in all this internet madness so useful to the
> rest of us.
>
> I think both you and Huw are aces! Its just that Huw doesn't talk down to you
> in public does he? At least I have not seen it. If anything, he treats you
> deferentially. If you want to assert that we are conversing, virtually, in an
> open forum without leaders as such; then I would suggest that the tone you
> occasionally adopt is counterproductive to your own goal. I hope you can see
> what I am trying to express here...
>
> I am sure that everyone's backs are starting to feel pressed up against the
> wall a little too much to keep a civil tongue. I am sorry that everyone is
> feeling stressed about the matter. Maybe its time to let the matter rest, at
> last! After all, no one expects us Lugnuts to police the internet for scans --
> if anyone cared to, its certainly TLC's job and not ours...
>
> We owe each other, all of us, more respect than to be at each other's throats
> over something soon to be made very trivial by the mere passage of a few weeks
> of time. Let's not go around calling each other "losers" and such. Do not the
> Lego ties that bind, bind us more deeply towards cooperation than enmity?
>
> I am pleased whatever the outcome. Thanks to all.
>
> -- Richard (trying, and probably failing, to respect everyone's views)
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
| (...) May the gods love you, Todd. Do you have any idea how such a statement reads? From my view, very moralizing and very much adopting a parental voice. I'm sure you intend for this to be complimentary, but its quite backhanded at best. Basically, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
116 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
|
|
|
|
