Subject:
|
The purpose of lugnet.off-topic.debate (was Re: What is spam?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 22:15:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
655 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > From my usual source, the Libertarian propaganda (NOT spam, mind you, I
> > > wanted it sent it to me, and I, as a regular participant of this group, feel
> > > it's worthy of discussion, so people who initially label it as spam are rude
> > > or clueless, take your pick) that I get in my email...
> >
> > Come on, Larry. Look at it like whoever labeled it spam did: while YOU may
> > have requested it, lugnet.off-topic.debate did NOT request it...you posted
> > it for public consumption unbidden...that's why someone called it spam.
> > That's all (Well, and MAYBE to get your hackles up, but it wasn't me, so I
> > don't know 8?) )
>
> People initiate topics all the time. Initiating a topic is, by nature,
> unbidden, except perhaps in the larger context of the events of the day
> raising awareness. So, then, any topic that is initiated by anyone can then
> be labeled spam by any other participant? That's the result of carrying your
> argument to its logical extreme.
>
> If you think that's a correct outcome, fine but I still think it's rude to
> do so. But somehow I suspect you don't actually think that.
>
> As for doing things to get people's hackles up... this is a free speech
> forum, true, but not all free speech is value add. Is it the mark of a
> mature debater to do things just to get someone's goat? Is that an attribute
> we want to foster here?
>
> No, and no. It's not a mark I consider mature and it's not an activity I
> would choose to see fostered here.
Man, you're just lookin' for a debate (any debate!) today, aren't ya'? 8?D
I know I'll likley break my own word at some time in the future, and
probably get lambasted then for doing so, but here goes:
<way too rightous for my own good>
I read LUGNET via the web interface so that I can see the 'big picture' of
the LUGNET community. I hate not knowing what's going on in one group,
especially when it is possible for a subject to bleed into other groups.
After participating in just one .debate discussion here, I am very close to
turning on my first skip-filter.
I am now making a concerted effort to not participate in
lugnet.off-topic.debate, unless the subject has been forwarded there
naturally from a subject directly related to LEGO, as LEGO is what I am
participating at LUGNET for in the first place. I feel that this is what
.debate was put in place for originally, as a way to move the more heated
LEGO arguments out of specific groups.
I am of the opinion that lugnet.off-topic.debate should not be a place to
BEGIN subjects, unless, again, they are related directly to some aspect of
our LEGO hobby. If an individual wants to participate in political, social,
or any other kind of discussion, there are places on the Web set up
specifically for that sort of thing. Since the people who participate in
those places are expecting to debate those topics, it is completely
appropriate there, but not at LUGNET.
I do not want it to sound like I am flaming anyone in particular here. That
is not my intent. I just feel that there has been more than enough
opposition voiced to the long, drawn-out (sometimes FAR to drawn-out)
discussions in .off-topic.debate to support my beliefs. LUGNET is now, and
always should be, for LEGO first. There are some clever, intellegent,
bright, well-educated people who participate in LUGNET discussions, and
their opinions, beliefs, concerns, ideas and ideals are all valid and
important, and I appreciate all of my fellow LUGNET participants. But if you
want to discuss subjects other than LEGO, please do so in a more appropriate
forum than LUGNET. And invite me via e-mail, I just may join you there!
</way too rightous for my own good>
Let the flamewar...BEGIN!
Sincerely,
Matt
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
189 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
