 | | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | (...) 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?)) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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?)) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) 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?)) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
