| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > The problem with that line of reasoning is that it still leaves him starting
> > wars and casting slime elsewhere.
>
> No, it leaves him talking to himself unless he can learn to play in a more
> friendly way.
If his mischief were confined to off-topic.debate I would readily agree.
But it is not:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=3420
He stirred up trouble in a vile and malicious way and maliciously redirected
his bile to the wrong newsgroup, repeatedly, despite several people's
efforts to get it to where it belonged, here where it would cause less harm.
And I have it on good authority that the LD auction donations he so
callously disparaged took a *great* deal of effort within LD to cause to
happen. (not the "What is Lego giving? Take a look. What do you think those
things cost them?" that he blithely dismisses them with) Further, I have it
on good authority that his vile and malicious posts caused a great deal of
personal sorrow within the LD organization, actually bringing some people to
tears over his rudeness, for which no apology or remorse was ever demonstrated.
When called on even the smallest of procedural issues he repeatedly caused
even more trouble with his truculence. (nice word, that... fits rather well
in his case)
In this case, ignoring him would have helped how? When his mischief is
confined to .debate one has a certain expectation of what sorts of posts one
would see. It is not reasonable to expect those out in .general and in
lego.direct to have that same expectation and his vitriolic posts cause
trouble, because they are not ignorable. Or would you have some sort of
general notice posted suggesting to all readers that they need to ignore
most of what he says???
He is of the same *kind* as MM. Just different in *degree*... more long term
corrosive instead of short term explosive.
No, the more I think about it, the more I think that all of LUGNET would be
better off without him. And I am certain I am not the only person who holds
that view... I'm just the lightning rod for him at present but if I start
ignoring him it is my belief that he won't change his behaviour, just find
another set of victims.
So I don't think ignoring him will solve the problem. It just means that
others get to deal with it. Innocent others who can't tolerate his slime as
well as we hardened .debate readers can.
So while HIS call for MY banishment can be viewed as a personal vendetta I
think I am justified in saying that mine is not of that sort at all. Rather,
it's for the overall health of LUGNET that I make the suggestion.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: LUGNET at risk
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GnDq4w.EJq@lugnet.com... [snip] (...) to (...) demonstrated. (...) well (...) one (...) term (...) You have made the case many times that Scott contributes nothing positive to the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: LUGNET at risk
|
| (...) In the thread Larry mentions, I questioned a company who was apparently noisily giving a token amount to the WTC charity. I questioned their motives. Tim and John claimed that perhaps I was being insensitive. Perhaps I was. I welcome both John (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
| (...) No, it leaves him talking to himself unless he can learn to play in a more friendly way. And it needs pointing out that I don't mind ALL of Scott's contributions, just some of them...esp. when you two start to go at it. (...) Larry, this is (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
65 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
|
|
|
|
