Subject:
|
Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:55:35 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
388 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Alfred Speredelozzi writes:
>
> > I think what I did was a GOOD thing. At least in the idea that
> > some good "How do we help the community" discussion has taken
> > place.
>
> Alfred,
>
> I don't know how resolved this is in your understanding at this point. To
> those of us who are the insiders here, or at least to me, this is how it
> seemed:
I object to you labeling yourself an 'insider' in a multinational internet
discussion group. I don't know who you are, or what your relationaship is to
Lugnet (except as a poster) to Scott or Larry or to any other group. There are
many groups here, and I think there is a particular problem with the cliquiness
running through this neighborhood. You may very well have inside information
about many of the issues here, but this was a public conversation. I can only
be held responsible for the public part.
>
> 1) There was this long-running fairly disruptive fight thing going on about,
> between, and surrounding Scott and Larry.
I could see this, but I have seen these disputes come and go over the past many
months, and wanted to add my opinion to the most germaine of them.
>
> 2) There was finally, _finally_, FINALLY, some resolution even if it was an
> unpleasant and ugly resolution.
I didn't see this. Honestly, I don't know what resolution there was except
silence.
>
> 3) This guy that doesn't normally participate here just "barged" in and tried
> to stir the embers into a flame.
You have really no knowledge of my participation. I certainly participate in
lugnet. I send money to support the cause. I post occasionally, when I have
something to say, and finally I read lugnet posts almost every day. So I am
fairly insulted by being considered someone who barges in. I don't expect you
to value my opinion as a friend, but at least respect that not everyone who adds
a comment outside of his/her usual threads is an outsider!
>
> So from our perspective, your timing really sucked and it seemed like you were
> just trying to egg the fight on. I would normally assume that if you read
> the immediately significant threads and noted how long the issue had been
> burried, that you wouldn't post a note like you did because it wouldn't have
> any value to the discussion.
>
> But it's really no big deal at this point. It was just a little mistakey kind
> of thing. And Richard probably could have worded his admonition more
> invitingly.
>
> Chris
So, I understand that you were just describing your feelings at the time, and I
respect that. But I don't want to leave it unanswered.
-Alfred
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
| I seem to have done more harm than good. (...) All I meant was frequent participant of this particular news group. I guess that wasn't obvious, though I hadn't (and still haven't) come up with any other plausible meaning. (...) Just a user. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
| (...) Alfred, I don't know how resolved this is in your understanding at this point. To those of us who are the insiders here, or at least to me, this is how it seemed: 1) There was this long-running fairly disruptive fight thing going on about, (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 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
|
|
|
|
