Subject:
|
Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:09:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
846 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
>
> > Or better still
> > Ban lugnet.off-topic.debate, so we can get back to discussing Lego.
>
> The argument has been made in the past that having .debate as a place to
> send off topic debates is good for the rest of LUGNET.
>
> If you want to discuss LEGO, do so. Nothing is stopping you, nothing is
> making you post here, and posts here do not as a habit spill out elsewhere.
>
> Change the channel, don't call for the channel's abolishment. It is up to
> the owners of LUGNET to decide, of course.
>
> My suggestion of a binding vote, with .debate participants being the voters,
> was a totally serious one, whatever you or anyone else thinks.
>
> I seriously agree with others that have said that .debate is less useful to
> other participants with both Scott and myself in it and infighting, and
> banishing one of us may well return it to some more useful state.
>
> I of course have a preference as to which one is the more useful poster
> here, but I am biased.
>
> Scott has already said he would not abide by such an outcome.
This not true Larry. Where did I say that?
I rejected the whole foolish notion - not its outcome. If I did take part, I
would "abide by such an outcome". But I am not, so this is not an issue.
Perhaps you could run alone:
Vote 1) Larry Stays
Vote 2) Larry Goes
> I would. What
> does that tell you about the relative merits of each candidacy?
Err. Nothing other than that you would rather not debate than justify
yourself. It also tells me that you do not understand the meaning of the
word "candidacy":
candidate
noun [C]
a person who is competing to get a job or elected position.
candidacy, British also candidature
noun [U]
She is expected to announce officially her candidacy (=the fact that she is
a candidate) for president early next week.
Scott A
>
> The actual mechanism of banishment need not involve actual administrative
> action, at least in my case, as I would abide without the need for such a
> mechanism.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
| (...) The argument has been made in the past that having .debate as a place to send off topic debates is good for the rest of LUGNET. If you want to discuss LEGO, do so. Nothing is stopping you, nothing is making you post here, and posts here do not (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 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
|
|
|
|
