 | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) Okay, I read it and left it for a few days. I'll be honest that I didn't really think about it that much in that time. But here's my thoughts. (...) Nothing wrong with being "too nice". But there is also nothing wrong with being politely (...) (24 years ago, 29-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
This seems like as good a place as any to hang my hat on this thread. I find the question horrifying. From the analogies offered about condoms in schools and needle parks, might not the question be rephrased "Are we all too drug-free?" (or the other (...) (24 years ago, 28-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Israel and the Palestinians
|
|
(...) To begin to explain, "rule of law" refers to the Enlightment concept "a government of laws rather than men." It means impartial enforcement of the law without the enforcers favoring their own friends, relatives, etc. (Another question is the (...) (24 years ago, 28-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) This is absolutely true. If you write that (or worse) to/about me, I won't forget it and you will basically forever count as worthless in my book. And I won't ever seperate that from other contributions that you might make. I think this is the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
<snip an interesting idea> Well, here's my $.02. I think there are enough catagories/groups already. I don't see how another one will do any good. How does *.debate not fulfill this already? Want to put flamewars in perspective? Try the forums over (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Israel and the Palestinians
|
|
(...) From my experience of living in Israel for most of my life, I think Israel is ruled by law. Explain why it's the "weak link"? (...) what about the recent history of Lebanon? I've served there in the army, and feel that we did what was needed (...) (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure I understand... such a "vent" group would be like any other newsgroup - you only read it if and when you want... moreso, it will not appear in any of the brief views, and cannot be xposted to or from... if it bothers people, they (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice? (new name)
|
|
(...) View supported. My suggestion is to perhaps create the following new groups... In the lugnet.lego.direct hirearchy. lugnet.lego.direct.complaints ( Polite complaints reagarding The Lego groups,products, services or bussiness practices..) (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | ratings vs. feedback (was Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
This is a digression about ratings and feedback, not on topic for the "too nice" question per se. (...) I'm not sure I totally agree. Call me elitist, but a "hey that's cool!" from Karim Nasser for a spaceship I built would mean MUCH more to me than (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) <snip> I've been hanging around RTL and Lugnet for years now. When I first heard about Todd's plan to create Lugnet I was extreemly happy, thinking foolishly that the kind of flamewars people engaged in would stay out of this place. Sadly, I (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) First I should clarify that while I used creative works as an example I did say in my post that it can apply to different aspects of LUGNET. (...) Well I would suggest, as has been stated earlier, that is what the article highlighting is for. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) A counterpoint on this is that there are people who spar pretty hard in .debate who otherwise are the best of friends. Of course there is a difference in that the culture of .debate encourages attempting to stay above the muck and _debate_ not (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice? (new name)
|
|
(...) Ooh, I'd really rather not see such venting in .general. Keep it in .dear-lego (and I'd actually like to see separate groups .dear-lego.vent and .dear-lego.constructive (for constructive criticism or suggestions). I'd really like to see the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) Not true. I do a lot of my reading from nntp. I don't see the ratings (nor can I make them). I pretty much ignore the rating system (I haven't seen any proposals of how it would be used which would really be effective, one problem is not (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) Actually, I'd argue against that idea. There are ways which comments which don't suggest change can be good: - Positive re-inforcement. If your idea is good, and you are complemented, you are encouraged to keep doing more. If you get no (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Todd, of course you have the rule, and it will be your decision at the end but since you asked for opinions, I go for a very strong NO! You have reasons to consider for doing such a thing but I don't believe it (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) OK, I have given this a while to percolate. I admit I am ambivalent. There are good (but not stunningly great) arguments advanced for, and against, the idea of a ventilation group. I won't do the three reasons exercise as I think all of mine (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: There's a traffic jam in Mudville.
|
|
(...) I carrot stop, I tell ya! (oh gosh its late) (...) Um..yeah...just keep on thinkin that ;-) (...) Here we go again. -Tim (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: There's a traffic jam in Mudville.
|
|
Pease, no more puns! "Bring your kiddies, bring your wife; Guaranteed to have the time of your life because the Mets are really sockin' the ball; knockin' those home runs over the wall!" Sigh... (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: There's a traffic jam in Mudville.
|
|
(...) Beantown..I'm a lentil bit unfamiliar with that term... :, -Tim (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: There's a traffic jam in Mudville.
|
|
I dunno.. is anybody debating in Beantown? That was decided a few weeks ago. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: There's a traffic jam in Mudville.
|
|
"Erik Olson" <olsone@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:G32M66.Bvw@lugnet.com... (...) Is that a debatable sigh? ;-) -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (URL) - Centralized LDraw Resources (URL) - Zacktron Alliance ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | There's a traffic jam in Mudville.
|
|
Sigh. (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) meltdown (...) I agree whole-heartedly. I've long subscribed to the view that praise should be public, abuse private. People should be encouraged to use e-mail if they have a problem with a particular person - why does anyone feel (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) Maybe we need off-topic.class-warfare??? 8?) ROSCO FU .off-topic.fun (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
Well, I have read all of these latest developments with some concern and thought that a few comments were in order. For the most part I am a little below the radar for the off-topic/debate crowd but I still read a pretty fair percentage of the posts (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) IMHO, it is right to expect polite behaviour in certain settings. Should a child tell off their parents? Should you tell off the judge sentencing you? Should you tell off your friend saving you a seat on the bus? Should you tell off (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice? (new name)
|
|
(...) Put that in .dear-lego, with followups to .general or wherever. Or if you don't want to specially draw attention to it, put it in .general. There's nothing that says that venting can't happen in .general. (...) I think my point got missed (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) I would argue yes. I think that's been made self evident; see Eric Kingsley's post. "good job", "me too", etc., are all great to hear when you're the one getting the praise, but: A. it doesn't help you, save your ego perhaps. B. to many (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) I don't think so, no. More below, obviously. (...) I don't think this is an issue - or shouldn't be, anyway. No one is (to my knowledge) plugged into Lugnet 24 by 7, so the constraints Lugnet imposes are not inherently carried over into other (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) I thought about recommending that the skip-filter be set for the group to automatically be excluded, but given the cookie nature of the feature, I'm not sure that's possible. I certainly think that by default no one should see the flame group, (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) I think this should be user configurable. It could be handled like the skip filters, except default to being filtered out. This also leads me to something that I've been thinking would be valuable. I wish the dots were colored or shaded or (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice? (new name)
|
|
(...) I certainly hope that there would be non-targetted venting, but I think that diluting the purpose of this group too much would be a mistake. I hope that it will be used infrequently, and adding appropriate topics/styles makes that less likely. (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
Ok, I've thought about it for a couple of days. (...) I don't know about that. Here's why: If something on Usenet truly offends me, I tend not to complain about it. Why not? Because there is no Usenet admin who can be expected to be looking out for (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes: [snippage throughout] (...) No. There is no such thing. Eric Kingsley took this completely in the direction of constructive criticism toward creative works. And he's right that the only valuable (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) Todd: I'm really against the idea of a flame-dedicated newsgroup. IMO, that would be stooping to the lowest common denominator. Civility, politeness, good manners, and measured social restraint are virtues which are seldom practiced, but which (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
OK I think its time to give Todd some real feedback on this so I will get it started... (...) Simple answer... Yes! A simple answer doesn't tell Todd what he is looking for so read on. (...) Well I am not a psycologist or a sociologist but my (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
(...) :-) Thanks for the chuckle, Steve! -John (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice? (new name)
|
|
(...) I prefer this term, also. Flaming could and would be allowed here, but even general ranting and raving not directed at any specific individual would be appropriate here. A good example of this might be: Instead of posting to lugnet.dear-lego (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Israel and the Palestinians
|
|
(...) I knew there was a reason I keep going back to see what he has to say... Figuring what, precisely, bugs you about JerryP is a pastime in itself. On TV journalists, I think their job is considered done when they have outraged, insulted or (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) It amazes me that anyone thinks it's anything of difficulty. As soon as I thought about exactly how I set up Netscape to be able to post to newsgroups (Usenet or Lugnet), I realized that there is nothing to it, so no need to test it. When I (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) I remember that, right after the original post by Brad; but also, sometime long ago, someone posted as another person in a manner to Scott, and received a similar punishment(I beleive). (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G305zG.JLu@lugnet.com... (...) & #4 (...) that (...) recall (...) I think it happened in RTL. Someone posted as Brad Justus, claiming all devote followers to be rubes. -- -Rob. (...) (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) needed to be demonstrated, we all know that spoofing is possible. I'm too lazy to dig up the exact off-topic.test posting that showed it but I recall seeing it. So why do it? ++Lar (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) Uh, too late. (URL) give him a tiny bit of credit for apologizing, but not a whole lot.) -Shiri (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) Don't ever let me catch you doing it. It's against the rules -- see #3 & #4 of the Discussion Group T&C. --Todd (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) every (...) Todd, Do you have a problem with this? I think I do. Eric Kingsley FU admin.general (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) Ok. Scott A (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) group (...) is (...) I'm not so sure, but feel free to try. -Jon (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice? (new name)
|
|
(...) I would like to politely offer another suggestion for the name of the group lugnet.vent I poffer this alternative because it is my opinion (and I am not attempting to foist my own humble opinion on anyone) that Lugnetters will, at times, need (...) (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) Yeah, but I'm pretty sure I could use your ID right now if I wanted? Scott A (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Israel and the Palestinians
|
|
(...) If anyone is interested in the history of Israel I found this site: (URL) no expert in this area, but the pages are pretty well written. Scott A (Happy to be from the UK) (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Israel and the Palestinians
|
|
(...) There are those with extreme views on the other side too Larry. (...) Yawn. Sure, the UK made mistakes in the past Larry. One could talk all day about the cause of this Larry. However, that is not going to stop kids getting shot at Larry. (...) (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Israel and the Palestinians
|
|
(...) Not a huge story in its own right. But it is easy to see how stories like this, on both sides, can soon be amplified, and then become an issue. There are those who would claim that the story is no more than further proof of some sort of an (...) (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Israel and the Palestinians
|
|
(...) Good ref. Pournelle can be a bit of a maunderer at times, a bit militaristic, a bit high on himself, but he still has insight. I take your point. Israel has definitely got themselves thinking that they are the Chosen People who can do no wrong (...) (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Israel and the Palestinians
|
|
Larry, I think you overestimate the Israeli's "rule of law". Sitting here on the other side of the world, that looks like the weak link. I've always had canny admiration for their prowess, but there's a little bit of thug on their side too. In the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
|
(...) In un-moderated usenet newsgroups, most people just skip over flame wars, trolls and spams because they get used to it. Compare with RTL, Lugnet is lightly moderated and you need to register before you can post. The registration is already a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
(...) I read the first sentence and couldn't stop laughing... Thanks for the best laugh (compliment?) all day Larry! I'll read the rest of the post as soon as I dry my eyes... John (who prefers to think of himself as a slightly evolved (...) (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Are we all too nice?
|
|
This is ultimately a CFD (call for discussion) for a new newsgroup, but also asking what I think may be an important question. It's a taboo question, so do try to keep an open mind. The question is: Are we trying to be too nice to one another? The (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.announce) !!
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
For a guy who uses WebTV, this JohnnyBlaze is pretty eloquent! In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes: <snip> (...) Great, memorable acronym! And a good summation. (...) This statement is brilliant! For anyone who is wondering (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
(...) You make a good point--it's hard to claim your opponent is cheating at checkers when he's playing chess. However, it's a cheap maneuver to say after the fact that you were playing a different game all along, especially when it looks like (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
(...) Naturally, it could be both. It's never not a crime, of course. If someone thinks it a meta-game, they clearly think quite differently from most people. Again, I don't care to judge MM's game or meta-game or tactics (or whatever you want to (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
(...) I strongly agree with this point... If I rob a bank, is it a crime?... or "a Meta-game in which I proposed to test the gullable nature of bank tellers, the resolution of low-light cameras, the competancy of local law enforcement, and the (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Would a general/pilot in WW1.........
|
|
(...) Well, that's what you get when you send someone into the air with a machine that is of dubious quality at best, and with less than 10 hrs of flying time! (boy, lives were cheap then!) James (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Mandroid (was: Re: Friendliest site on the Internet)
|
|
(...) Ya, I meant higher-level in the math sense -- different playing field -- not necessarily better or worse. Meta topics -- topics about the community and about people and how people react and behave. Nothing wrong with that per se as long as (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) I meant that in the nicest way, of course. (...) I think you left a comma out of that sentence fragment, big fella. :-) All (1) kidding aside (I should have set followups to .fun on the last post but they're set there now), I think if you (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) You want a war I'll give you a war... ;-). I don't pretend to be a good speller, I'm no good at the gramma stuff neither ;-). Never have been and probably never will be. I do try and (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) set (...) Check. Walk a mile in the other man's shoes and all that. (...) C/becuase/because/ C/to nice and/too nice and/ <GRIN> Seriously, without starting a big war, I think most of us know that you're a bit spelling challenged, Eric. And we (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
This is tough but I think its a worthy discussion... (...) With all due respect to Todd, I think Larry is right to an extent. I told Todd in a private E-mail that I thought MM was mostly full of it. MM thinks very highly of himself and I would be (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) define it by its aim. (...) Absolutely! They are, after all, the foundation of this community (or society?), so they would certainly qualify in my view. For that matter, the fact that LUGNet is a generally cohesive, friendly, and positive (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) Good point. But before we can say "No Social Engineering Allowed", we have define what it is. Could it be argued that the rules of LUGNET themselves are social engineering? Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) We might be able to define it by its aim, but we can only evaluate it in terms of outcome. The recent episode may have been a noble attempt to shame us into some sort of community restructuring, but in reality Matt's posts came off as childish (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) I think "Social Engineering" can mean many things. You can really only define it by its aim. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Friendliest site on the Internet
|
|
(...) I think it's adequate simply to call it a game, without any implication of loftier motives. Otherwise, I would suggest (to recycle a phrase used elsewhere) treemarking. (...) Goodness! That takes me back--I had just started on RTL when that (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
I think Todd got "played". (And I recently said I didn't think Todd was easy to fool) Social Engineering my foot. If that was what MM was up to, it has no place here. But I don't think it was, I think it was just another layer of deception. This guy (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
(...) *snipped some good stuff* (...) at (...) bit (...) his (...) absolutely (...) his (...) sociology. A vampire playing with Lego, thats a new one. That proves what a great product Lego really is... The "Malkavians" are everywhere and are famous (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
(...) I don't know what else to call it. Any suggestions? (...) I really only "got" what he was trying to do after he explained it carefully. I played into his trap. Any others that come to mind? BTW, I can see that you get it. Say, do you remember (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
(...) Sorry, I just left off the winkey. ;) It takes a compartmentalized dork to argue about the right place to celebrate compartmentalized dork-dom. :) Steve (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) Of course it's your call, but I don't think it's really necessary to put something like that into TOS. Current TOS is already forbids many things involved with this recent "social engineering" issue as you called. It doesn't matter too much (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) <OBDisclaimer: I am not a professional sociologist, nor do I make any pretensions of actual knowledge in the field.> Social Engineering can be applied to a much broader spectrum of science and psuedo-science than MM is using it for. Not all SE (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) Actually, that's something I considered when speaking to Matthew offline. I think my conclusion on the issue is that Matthew's approach (I.E. causing disruptions, etc) is a very fast, effective way of doing it. However, it causes unfortunate (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
(...) I recognize that you're just the messenger, rather than the purveyor of this mindset, but such "social engineering" as Matt describes it is also known as sociopathy. The fact that it can be couched in politically correct rhetoric doesn't (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
(...) (Just rereading what I wrote...) I didn't mean that to sound like everyone should have known this (what I snipped) and that Paul was wrong in what he wrote back to Larry. I just wanted to add some facts in an appropriate place to comment. No (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) I have a question (for anyone) about the phrase "Social Engineering." In your experience, does the phrase automaticaly imply causing disruptions, flamewars, etc. or can SE be done in quiet, civil ways? If the ToS for the discussion groups were (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
(...) I must say I can't think of a place, either on or off line, where that kind of "social engineering" WOULD sit well. He must be quite used to being run out of groups on a rail... Kevin ---...--- Personal Lego Web page: (URL) Park: Limited (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
(...) Lemme interject something here. :-) Matthew didn't make any mistakes -- at least not in the usual social faux-pas sense. I've been speaking a little bit with him offline in email since Saturday and he considers himself a "Social Engineer" (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
|
(...) The truly frightening thing is that the "Northern Ireland Problem" has been going on since at least Elizabethan times (ie more than 400 years). Will the "Israeli/Palestine problem" continue for as long? Kevin ---...--- Personal Lego Web page: (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
|
(...) equally? (...) Sorry, I think faster than I think at times What _is_ the answer then. If they are not willing to treat all claims equally? (...) Those guys have guns too - don't doubt it. They usually come round and shoot fathers in their beds (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
|
(...) I can't help but doubt that... otherwise, I truely believe there would have been progress in the peace process... (...) rephrase, please? I couldn't parse that last sentance... (...) I'll believe that when I'll see it. I doubt that he actually (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
|
I could use about 80% of this to describe you Larry. (...) There is no need to mother Dan, let him make up his own mind. After all, I think he has a real opinion on this, which is backed with understanding. I'm almost enjoying talking to him about (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
Paul Baulch wrote: .... (...) .... (...) Paul I can see your point, but I strongly believe that this is not a therapy club and I think most of the people here, surely including me, would not take the job. I still believe that there is a big (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
|
(...) hmmm... (...) I'm sure he does want peace. Let's not doubt that. It is the terms of peace which are important. (...) What _is_ the answer then. The they are not will to treat all claims equally? (...) the (...) trying (...) A minority of those (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dan Boger writes: <snip> After Scott's last message to me, I'm going to try to take my own advice and ignore him. He's just picking a fight with you and I advise you to do the same and ignore him in this thread as well... (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes: <snip> I dispute that MM was "retrievable" or that it's my job to try. If you persist, I will politely point out what a fool you are for trying, in a friendly way, of course. I don't reason with rabid (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
|
(...) Hmmm... it certanly doens't show that he want's peace, does it? (...) says right there, btw: Israelis, no matter how left-wing, cannot take Palestinian demands on par with their own because to accept Palestinian national rights is to deny (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) what (...) Hatter (...) lot (...) inappropriate (...) why (...) And kept it to yourself? That's a real shame. If' I'd made the connection, I would have used it constructively, to help persuade Matthew not (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: UK Happy to sign European Convention on Human Rights (was Britain's bloody... (was When is...)
|
|
(...) Avoidance. (...) Avoidance (...) I think I did. (...) I did not slag off the "US". I slagged of the policing undertaken by the US and its allies (inc the UK). (...) "SA: (...) LP: Not sure I agree that everything the US does externally is for (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: UK Happy to sign European Convention on Human Rights (was Britain's bloody... (was When is...)
|
|
(...) What was the question? (...) What's the point of that. (...) Didn't say it did. Recall I said I didn't think Israel should have been set up in the first place. Recall that I said that it was the UK that caused this mess. You haven't answered (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Israel and the Palestinians ( WasRe: When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
|
(...) always (...) or (...) Yes, but which law: (URL) Hilmi Ghazal, a Palestinian school student from Sebastiya village who was arrested in December 1998 at the age of 15, was still in detention at the end of 1999, pending trial on charges of (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
