 | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
|
(...) I must say I can't think of a place, either on or off line, where that kind of "social engineering" WOULD sit well. He must be quite used to being run out of groups on a rail... Kevin ---...--- Personal Lego Web page: (URL) Park: Limited (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) I have a question (for anyone) about the phrase "Social Engineering." In your experience, does the phrase automaticaly imply causing disruptions, flamewars, etc. or can SE be done in quiet, civil ways? If the ToS for the discussion groups were (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) Actually, that's something I considered when speaking to Matthew offline. I think my conclusion on the issue is that Matthew's approach (I.E. causing disruptions, etc) is a very fast, effective way of doing it. However, it causes unfortunate (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) <OBDisclaimer: I am not a professional sociologist, nor do I make any pretensions of actual knowledge in the field.> Social Engineering can be applied to a much broader spectrum of science and psuedo-science than MM is using it for. Not all SE (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) Of course it's your call, but I don't think it's really necessary to put something like that into TOS. Current TOS is already forbids many things involved with this recent "social engineering" issue as you called. It doesn't matter too much (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
I think Todd got "played". (And I recently said I didn't think Todd was easy to fool) Social Engineering my foot. If that was what MM was up to, it has no place here. But I don't think it was, I think it was just another layer of deception. This guy (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) I think "Social Engineering" can mean many things. You can really only define it by its aim. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) We might be able to define it by its aim, but we can only evaluate it in terms of outcome. The recent episode may have been a noble attempt to shame us into some sort of community restructuring, but in reality Matt's posts came off as childish (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) Good point. But before we can say "No Social Engineering Allowed", we have define what it is. Could it be argued that the rules of LUGNET themselves are social engineering? Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) define it by its aim. (...) Absolutely! They are, after all, the foundation of this community (or society?), so they would certainly qualify in my view. For that matter, the fact that LUGNet is a generally cohesive, friendly, and positive (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
This is tough but I think its a worthy discussion... (...) With all due respect to Todd, I think Larry is right to an extent. I told Todd in a private E-mail that I thought MM was mostly full of it. MM thinks very highly of himself and I would be (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) set (...) Check. Walk a mile in the other man's shoes and all that. (...) C/becuase/because/ C/to nice and/too nice and/ <GRIN> Seriously, without starting a big war, I think most of us know that you're a bit spelling challenged, Eric. And we (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) You want a war I'll give you a war... ;-). I don't pretend to be a good speller, I'm no good at the gramma stuff neither ;-). Never have been and probably never will be. I do try and (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) I meant that in the nicest way, of course. (...) I think you left a comma out of that sentence fragment, big fella. :-) All (1) kidding aside (I should have set followups to .fun on the last post but they're set there now), I think if you (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
|
(...) Well I think you probably knew what I meant in that I leave final documentation to someone else, i.e. the copy the customer sees, I have to document my code for internal purposes of course. (...) Well I am not sure but I think it was the (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
