Subject:
|
Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:34:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
593 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Allan Bedford writes:
> > For example, if it was just about anyone other than Larry (or maybe a few
> > others) who had posted what Larry did, then it certainly may have raised
> > a few eyebrows. How do we explain to newbies, for example, that what
> > Larry did was an extremely delicate gray-area case, probably not something
> > to be followed by example?
>
> Why is it that if someone else had done this it would likely have been more
> controversial?
I think it's because people who know Larry (and that's a lot of people) know
that he wouldn't do something questionable on purpose[1] (or probably even
accidentally, because he "doesn't make misteaks").
So it's not that it's OK simply because it was Larry and everything Larry
does is automatically OK, it's the other way around: because it was Larry,
there's a much higher probability that it was OK. Now, whether or not it
actually *was* OK (that's open to debate) is a separate issue. But because
it was Larry, and people trust Larry, it's got much less of a chance of being
controversial. That's my take on it, anyway.
> In other words... Todd, you hint in your response that what Larry did was
> *somewhat* incorrect, but because it's Larry it's really not as bad.
Well, not quite... It's not 'less bad' if Larry does Xyz than if someone
else does Xyz. Xyz (if Xyz is bad) is equally bad no matter who does it.
But if Larry happens to be the first person to do Xyz (as opposed to some
other randomly chosen person) then there's a higher chance that Xyz is OK
than bad, because statistically, Larry's behavior is very very far from
bad. That's why I think no one (except me) jumped on him for it.
> But you don't tell us why. If Larry is to be held in such high regard,
> should he not try to lead by example?
Well, that's part of the reason I thought it was worth jumping on.
> Instead it becomes, "Do as I say, not as I do." And for newbies like me
> who don't know why Larry can do something we can't, it becomes terribly
> confusing.
That's the heart of the issue (in my mind) -- newbies seeing what Larry did
and thinking it was OK. In my mind, what Larry did was _not_ OK (even if
well-intentioned), but his post was *so* borderline that I think I'm the only
one who sees is that way.
> [...]
> Again, how is a newbie to know that Larry *may* or *may not* have been at
> or near a grey area?
Exactly.
> And bear in mind that subtlety rarely if ever carries across in emails or
> newsgroup postings. All the smilies in the world put together can't
> indicated when someone's being subtle.
Yup!
--Todd
[1] Unless he was making a point. (But that wouldn't make something OK.)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| I'm probably going to take it on the chin for this, but I feel it's necessary to ask: Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <Fq34n8.ICA@lugnet.com>... (...) Larry (...) be (...) So, on behalf of all the newbies including myself I pose (...) (24 years ago, 17-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
