Subject:
|
Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:41:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2371 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Noeckel writes:
> Interesting…
> How you presume to know the intricacy of the situation at hand between two
> individuals!?!
I don't. I can only respond to what's been made public, and with this issue, a
heck of a lot of it has been made public.
> And what is even more fascinating is how you endeavor to draw judgment and
> call for an “apology” from this individual.
I can call for an apology because if I were in Jake's position, I would have
been quite offended by Suz's post. Besides, as I said before, its been made
public, and thus no one can expect the public to not voice their opinions.
Expecting such is silly and naive.
> And all this regarding a situation where you’re merely the ‘third-party’ and
> not privy to any form of direct information!
Oh, the posts here sure seem to be direct information. If this is a private
matter, it should have been *kept* private.
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Stembel writes:
> > I am disappointed in you, Suz.
> ____________
> ( ?QUESTION? )
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> How can you be ‘disappointed’ in the individual?
Easily. The individual is not meeting my expectations. Thus, I am
disappointed. Surely you've been disappointed when someone did something you
didn't think they'd (or hoped they wouldn't) do.
> Do you know her so innately that you’d presume to JUDGE her character
> based upon a few mere words.
I know her about as well as I know most public figures, i.e., from her words
and actions both these and those in the past. I'm not judging her character,
I'm voicing my disappointment at her actions. You seem to be infering that we
can't be disappointed in people based on words and actions; are you saying you
are completely satisfied and happy with every single action politicianshave
ever made? I find that hard to believe.
> Perhaps you found her words to be uncalled for, and thus you disagree with the
> statement, but don’t ever assume to enact any measure of adjudication upon an
> individual in a situation where you obviously aren’t a party to all the
> specifics.
I voiced my opinion based on how I felt. I was apalled at her tone and
offended by her breach of the rules, which she had set forth! Also, anything
posted here on Lugnet is fair game for any poster to respond to. If it isn't,
it obviously should not have been made public.
> > or expect the site to fade into obscurity
> Oh, the melodramatics! (This isn’t likely to ever happen BTW)
> Try to disdain from your usage of *propagandizing verbiage
> in order to vilify an opposing conjuncture.
I was not using "propagandizing verbiage" to "vilify an opposing conjuncture".
I was stating my opinion and prediction of what the future holds for Lugnet if
the admins continue to be unfriendly towards Lego and the AFOL community. You
may think it is unlikely to happen, but how much abuse are people willing to
take? I've seen way too many good people lose interest in Lego or the Lugnet
community over things that have gone on here to see it otherwise.
Jeff
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
| Interesting… How you presume to know the intricacy of the situation at hand between two individuals!?! And what is even more fascinating is how you endeavor to draw judgment and call for an “apology” from this individual. And all this regarding a (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
134 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
|
|
|
|
