Subject:
|
Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:18:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
138 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Tim Courtney writes:
> XFUT'ed to .off-topic.debate and .people at Rich Mazno's request. Only
> keeping it in market for this one post, for continuity so people using
> newsreaders know my reply is moving. :-)
>
> In lugnet.market.theory, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.market.theory, Tim Courtney writes:
> > > http://news.lugnet.com/market/theory/?n=2268
> > >
> > > ...which I think you are, all you are doing here is trying to publicly
> > > further your personal vendetta against Larry.
> >
> > This is what I don't get. Larry offends people. Larry acts childishly. Larry
> > engages in name-calling. But when I point all this out, I get the flack.
>
> Is my assessment of the above post correct or incorrect? It looks to me
> like you have something you don't like about Larry, so you continue trying
> to expose him for what you think he is in your own mind, without relent.
> Even with the at first polite, then aggrivated requests of others here to
> keep those issues offline.
>
> Sure, there isn't a TOS rule about you not discussing Larry here. But don't
> you think the number of people who have publicly expressed their disgust
> with this dribble are enough for you to get the clue - take your personal
> problems offline?
>
> I respect and support Larry's considerate policing efforts, and his polite
> assertion of the Guild of Bricksmiths brand name. I won't comment on
> Larry's other actions here - that's between him and the people who have
> issues with them. I can say that, allthough he and I have not gotten along
> 100% of the time, we've both grown through our interactions and work
> together aggreably and positively. Larry's a good guy.
Why keep reducing this to personalities? This is about issues - not
personalities. Stick to the issues. Forget your relationship with Larry for
now. I shall ask again:
This is what I don't get. Larry offends people. Larry acts childishly. Larry
engages in name-calling. But when I point all this out, I get the flack.
> > > Matt is totally right.
> >
> > I shall ask again: was Brian wrong? It's a simple question.
>
> You and your simple questions. Maybe its because you insist on picking
> people apart, yet can't build up a case against them?
What do you mean by that : "Build up a case against them"? Do I even try?
Would I even want to?
>
> Anyways, for your sake, I will graciously reply to Brian's message here,
> answering your simple question.
>
> In lugnet.market.theory, Brian Kasprzyk writes:
> > Interesting that you would call it a 'temper tantrum' without even knowing
> > me.
>
> It was done in spite, with no constructive point behind it, in my view.
In your view.
>
> > My whole point was simply to point out that many of us out here on
> > Lugnet(tm) ;-) are tired of Larry and his 'know it all attitude' and
> > personal way of always trying to control EVERY SINGLE thread that goes
> > beyond 4.
>
> So what? He posts a lot. Big deal, get over it.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Who are you to judge and claim 'disappointment?'
>
> Sorry Brian, anyone can claim anything they want (regardless of whether or
> not they back it up). I can judge anything I want, so can you. Get over
> that one too.
>
> > I have just as much right
> > to express my opinion as you do, with or without your consent.
>
> True. But, the point was, this spiteful post wasn't constructive. It was a
> childish foot-stamping na-na-na-na-boo-boo post.
Now you are being offensive.
>
> > I also do
> > know a lot about implied trademarks versus registered trademarks. It is
> > generally considered 'polite' to include the (tm) or (r) after names, but
> > get real, this is a forum. You could go to any of a thousand message boards
> > and see every trademarked thing under the sun and 95% of them will not have
> > the (tm) or (r) included.
>
> So? Just because other trademarks are not asserted, it doesn't mean someone
> doesn't have the right, or is being anal retentive to assert one that is
> their own, or is important to them.
You know my views on that.
>
> > The idea of a forum is to share ideas, not have
> > them critiqued by an english teacher or spend all day typing 1 post because
> > you included so many extra key strokes. Besides, most people on Lugnet know
> > exactly what group is being discussed when they see 'Bricksmiths,' 'The
> > Guild,' or 'Brick Guild.'
>
> I wouldn't say everyone does. That's too general of a statement.
Nitpicking
>
> > So, get over yourself! We all know,
> > metaphorically speaking, who you are and understand your contributions to
> > the Lego world.
> >
> > BK>
> [End quoted by Brian Kasprzyk]
>
> If you want the simple answer, no, Brian wasn't right.
>
> > One day I shall let you take a look at my inbox. But before that, take a
> > look at this thread. I am not in a minority of one. Rather than attacking me
> > personally, why not look at what I am saying? This is what I am saying:
>
> They certainly aren't posting public support. At least, you make it sound
> like your box is overflowing.... and there certainly isn't an overflowing
> number of posts in your favor here.
I've not counted them, but I expect you are correct.
>
> > Policing is here to stay. I'm not 100% happy with that (who is?),
>
> I'm not. (gasp!) I wish people were mature and responsible enough that
> policing wasn't needed. But, we don't live in an ideal world.
>
> > but it is
> > the best we can do. If policing is to work it must be done with respect, and
> > the person who does the policing should be respected in the group where it
> > takes place (a lesson you learnt the hard way I understand?).
>
> Yes, I've encountered disrespect in small tight-knit subcommunities. I
> think rather, an ATMOSPHERE OF RESPECT needs to be created, so when someone
> does step in and guide a poster on an infraction, they don't get flack.
> Regardless of who they are, or their status on LUGNET or in the specific
> subcommunity.
We disagree there.
> So, I disagree here.
>
> > I do not
> > subscribe to the "if policing causes a ruckus so be it" type philosophy - it
> > can cause more harm than good.
>
> Key word: can. If I'm doing my duty and respectfully guide someone on
> something they post, and THEY or THEIR COHORTS cause a ruckus, oh well.
> That's THEIR problem (and that problem will be corrected too). There should
> be little room for that.
That's right, stamp on their opinion.
>
> I'm NOT saying there isn't room for a well-reasoned discussion. There's
> always room for that (unless an admin has put the final word on something).
> But, backbiting for the sake of spite, or bitterness at the corrector,
> there's little room for that here. Or there shouldn't be.
>
> > Now, what part of that do you disagree with?
>
> See above.
>
> > Tim, I'm not sure I like your tone. You are very good a making all sort of
> > accusations, but you fail to answer even the simplest of questions:
>
> > http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=10067 • You wrote:
> > That is your view. But I have also noticed that you have the ability to
> > start arguments here. Do you disagree with that?
>
> No, I don't. I can, and do, start arguments. Arguments that I have a clear
> opinion on and I see others clearly disagreeing. Anyone has the ability to
> start arguments.
>
> We don't grow stronger without struggle.
Don't or can't?
>
> > http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=10072 • You wrote:
> > Exactly! Respect is a two way street. If users have no respect for the
> > policeman (as you suggest with LP) how can they have respect for his/her
> > policing?
>
> See my above comments on an 'atmosphere of respect.'
So you would let Bill Clinton lecture you on marital fedelity? Get real!
>
> > http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=10069 • You wrote:
> > An interesting description. I challenge you to look at all my posts over the
> > last couple of months outside this group and look at the amount of
> > “thorning” I have generated. Compare that to your own, and that of your
> > vigilante mate’s. I know I won't be top of the list.
>
> If you want to make a point so desparately, why not just come out and make
> it? I won't do your research for you.
It was you who made the accusation - not I.
>
> > How long before Brian's words are echoed again?
>
> Dunno. How long until you stop whining about your personal problems with
> another poster online?
Perhaps I'll "stop whining" when you stop being so personal in the manner
you wind me up? Or on a simpler level, perhaps I'll "stop whining" when you
stop replying to my posts?
Scott A
>
> -Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
83 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
|
|
|
|
