Subject:
|
Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Sun, 20 Feb 2000 01:15:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
758 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in article
<38AE1E0D.F523974D@voyager.net>...
> Allan Bedford wrote:
>
> > Why is it that if someone else had done this it would likely have been • more
> > controversial?
>
> Allan wonders why I got special consideration, as it were... you're
> right, Allan. No one should get it merely because they're an old timer,
> we all should be measured by the same metrics and held to the same
> standards.
>
> But Todd and others who pointed out that it was because of my history of
> playing by the rules are also right. A reputation is an easy thing to
> damage and and a hard thing to repair. I have a good reputation here,
> and all conceit not withstanding, I earned it by telling the truth,
> playing fair, dealing honestly (I challenge you to find anyone with a
> better trading reputation, and we have some absolutely stellar traders
> in our community... (1)) and helping build community.
Larry, I must admit, I was playing devil's advocate just a bit. I have
inferred your reputation from hundreds of posts I've read on LUGNET, both
by or related to you. I was really trying to put forth the question on
behalf of anyone too shy or too new to ask for themselves. I have a thick
skin, I figured if I asked some hard questions about you, I could take the
flak. :)
I'm certain that your reputation and status within the LUGNET community are
well-earned and subject only to the cost of upkeep. :)
> So I'd say that I got the benefit of the doubt because it's known that I
> hew to the rules pretty closely even when I disagree with them, and so
> there was an expectation of good intent. And good intent was there.
>
> I was sloppy, and if I'd had more time I would have dug out the refs,
> made up a page explaining both, FTPed it to my site, and given a post
> that just pointed to that page. But the sky was falling and I had
> literally 2 min left before I had to give up my dialup for the rest of
> the afternoon.
I laugh a bit at this, only because I figure you're lucky to have any sort
of posting ability during the day at all. I cannot respond or post during
the day, so if something is really important I need to either deal with it
before going to work, or it simply waits until the end of day. :)
> I regret being sloppy but appreciate the confidence that leaders of the
> community place in me, just as I would tend to give them the benefit of
> the doubt if I saw them doing something that made me go huh.
>
> Do you need to extend that same confidence? no. You don't know me from
> Adam and you're well served by your skepticism. Keep me honest.
I'm a Libra, it's my nature to make sure that there is some sense of
balance in the world. :)
> Conclusion: we all need to give each other the benefit of the doubt a
> bit more and jump to conclusions less. (did I just jump to a conclusion?
> :-) I dunno...)
I could not agree with you more. There needs to be thought put into each
and every post that goes on LUGNET, as there needs to be thought put into
subsequent criticism of any given post.
Regards,
Allan
--
Expert Builder Website - The Megaproject Showcase
http://www.execulink.com/~apotome/expert.htm
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) Allan wonders why I got special consideration, as it were... you're right, Allan. No one should get it merely because they're an old timer, we all should be measured by the same metrics and held to the same standards. But Todd and others who (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
