Subject:
|
Re: Seriously...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:54:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
415 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
The only issue for me was the ‘colourful language’.
|
Of course! What else are we talking about????
JOHN
|
“
Nothing to follow. Jon expressed an opinion, and a rather benign one at
that. Is this grounds for banishment? And even if insulting is grounds for
banishment, I personally have endured countless personal attacks at the
hands of RM; far worse than this! RM?s leash is far and away longer than
anyone else?s on LUGNET, and his latest attack on Jon is IMO the lowest
point to which LUGNET has ever descended. His disdain for everything this
community stands for is contemptible. ”
|
What I was responding to there was Tom’s assertion that Jon be suspended as
well. I questioned whether insults were really grounds for reprimand for
if they were, RM has been guilty numerous times in the past without
consequence (long leash).
|
Then there are many people with ‘log leashes’, which brings bac the idea that we
are all on the same playfield--it is not ‘biased’ towards any particular
individual. If everyone has the same ‘long leash’, then the word ‘long’ cannot
be applied to one individual, and not another.
| |
| |
No mention of the colourful language, but the ‘disdain for everything this
community stands for’, directed as a blanket statement to Richard’s postings
in general.
|
No, what I meant was his willful use of vile language in this particular
post in this family forum was tantamount to flipping off the entire
community. And worse, he is not concrite in the least, and arrogantly so.
These little rules by which we all agree to play (civility chiefly among
them) are beneath him.
|
That’s not the way the message reads--
“I personally have endured countless personal attacks at the hands of RM; far
worse than this!”
Stating that there are ‘countless’ posts from RM regarding personal attacks
“RM?s leash is far and away longer than anyone else?s on LUGNET,”
Stating that RM somehow has preferential treatment with regard to his postings
in general--not this specific post, mind you, but *all* his posts--that other’s
don’t appear to have.
“ and his latest attack on Jon is IMO the lowest point to which LUGNET has ever
descended.”
Stating that this last post is at the end of a series of previously
“contemptable” postings...
“His disdain for everything this community stands for is contemptible”
Which reflects, then, on the series of RM postings regarding ‘everything’ in
this community, not specifically just this one post.
| |
| |
‘RM’s leash’--up till this point, RM has had the same ‘leash’ as everyone
else. There was no usage of foul language up ‘till this point, and he got
‘reeled in’ for the usage.
|
And that brings me back to my initial point with Tom. If Jon’s little barb
is grounds for punishment, RM should have been punished many times
previously but wasn’t.
|
And I concur--barbs, to date, don’t seem to be a punishable offence, AFAIK. And
again, present company included, have posted barbs in the past, so with regard
to this, ‘he who is without sin...’
| |
RM’s utter contempt for this community by his purposeful use of forbidden
language in his ugly invective is what finally got him suspended.
JOHN
|
See, it’s the wording, I think--
“is what *finally* got him suspended”, inferring the ‘long leash’ (demonstrably
untrue), and previous records of breaking the rules, but getting away with it up
until this point.
No, for me, I read it as the ‘forbidden language is the *only* thing that got
him suspended.’
Therein lies all the difference in the world.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Seriously...
|
| (...) What I was responding to there was Tom's assertion that Jon be suspended as well. I questioned whether insults were really grounds for reprimand for if they were, RM has been guilty numerous times in the past without consequence (long leash). (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
