 | | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
(...) I think the Lugnet community needs to make a substantial effort to be inclusive, and a major part of this is how established members conduct themselves in the discussion groups. If someone is posting destructive remarks, don't reply to them in (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
(...) Three cheers for compartmentalized dorks! >;-D -John (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
John Robert-Blaze Kanehl wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Well, I doubt *all* would say that....;-) -John "8 wide or death" Neal (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My point.
|
|
(...) This old one? (URL) was just one year ago. And you still havn't learn... (...) Please... (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
(...) didn't (...) G'day Eric, Y'know, I can't remember how many times I've read that advice in regards to disruptive posts or heated discussions. Having posted in electronic forums since before there really was an internet, I've seen it a lot. But (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
(...) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this... there is *nothing wrong* with being elitist... as long as it's a meritocracy. In large part, that *is* the way things operate in a lot of groups, there are people who most people know are (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
"Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@home.com> wrote in message news:G2ovu8.n12@lugnet.com... (...) impossible (...) everyone's (...) Regardless of 'leader' status, I think that the good thing here is that we can get to know each other personally through (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
(...) I can see your concern but I wouldn't really worry about it. Although I didn't participate in the thread yesterday I did read it. To me responding to such posts is like throwing water on a grease fire and thats why I have come to avoid them. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
(...) Aye. And remember, this is a discussion forum. Some very good posts don't lend themselves to further discussion, and so don't get much (or any) follow-up. And some very crummy posts get tons of followup. (...) Not that it's wrong either. Trust (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
Tim, Wise words. It is a pity that some of these things have raised their heads before, let's hope this is the last time. The golden rule is to never say anything online that one would not say in person to anyone. I'm not saying I'm perfect (others (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
<snipped to conserve space> Tim is right, we do need to take some time and reflect. Let us 'Selah' for a time and make some constructive changes to the community to improve things. I have been participating in LUGNET for several months now and must (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My point.
|
|
(...) Certainly not, I apologise for not being clear. What I meant was, when I said I had not personally insulted you, you took umbrage because the conversation was suddenly about you and I- I meant only to widen the scope of my statements, ie, "I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My point.
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what you mean by this? Are you saying you are some sort of martyr for all of LUGNET versus me? (...) As you are a member of society. You have a obligation to think of others, and generally be a nice guy. You don't have to (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My point.
|
|
(...) No, most writers can manage to get their point across clearly without the need for emphasis, because they know that the written word doesn't carry any. (...) You responded to my post, pretty much as I predicted you would. (...) You're right. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My point.
|
|
(...) would (...) agree? (...) were (...) another to (...) *You* must find it *really* hard to read books if there are *no* pointers to the *important* words in the sentences? Perhaps *your* mother underlines them for *you*? :-) (...) you (...) (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
(...) I haven't been on Lugnet very long, but whenever someone identifies themselves as being new, I will try to welcome them and give them some comments. If someone just posts something like "Hey look at this" I often don't respond to it (unless (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My point.
|
|
(...) No, it's unfortunate. (...) Goes without saying. --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My point.
|
|
(...) In all seriousness, I don't understand your question, mostly because if it were communicated verbally, there would have been emphasis on one word or another to give me a clue what you meant. I'll assume what you meant is: "It's not what *you* (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Selçuk Göre writes: [snip for time's sake - test in 40 minutes :\ ] (...) [snip] (...) You hit it right on here. I don't think we see very much not allowing certain people to participate based on their status in the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
