Subject:
|
Re: LUGNET at risk
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 25 Nov 2001 23:33:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
678 times
|
| |
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:GnDq4w.EJq@lugnet.com...
[snip]
> 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.
You have made the case many times that Scott contributes nothing positive to
the community, and I wholeheartedly agree.
At the same time, you continuously responding to his provocations also
damages the community - we have to wade through the nitpicky childish
debates, laden with juvinile insults and spiteful provocations to the point
of driving us mad. Many people in the community have expressed the very
same thing, and yet you fail to see that your actions also contribute to the
problem.
Scott contributes nothing, you contribute in several positive ways. If you
didn't constantly hash it out with Scott, you would be able to better use
your time to add to your list of positive contributions, instead of
contributing to the noise level by attempting to deal with Scott.
> 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.
Then stop being the lightning rod. Let him whine and drivel on his own
without you involved. He will continue to show the community what a waste
of bandwidth he is by his own actions. And hopefully, the admins will do
something about it.
> 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.
Ignoring him will make it harder to get what he wants. I don't know his
true motives, but to me it looks like a ploy for attention. And that's
exactly what he's getting, your (and our) attention.
He needs to be reprimanded, but you need to excercise restraint. If you
don't excercise restraint, I will support reprimanding you as well. It was
very nice during the time you mostly ignored him, you know...
> 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.
You are justified in claiming for his banishment. And I agree with your
points, I just don't agree with you continuing to bicker with him. You
should realize that bickering with Scott will get you nowhere, and will only
contribute to the noise level and annoyance of the readers of LUGNET. If
you want to bicker, take it offline. The bickering is also hurting the
health of LUGNET.
-Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | LUGNET at risk
|
| (...) If his mischief were confined to off-topic.debate I would readily agree. But it is not: (URL) stirred up trouble in a vile and malicious way and maliciously redirected his bile to the wrong newsgroup, repeatedly, despite several people's (...) (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
|
|
|
|
