Subject:
|
Re: malicious behavior
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:20:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9454 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Allister McLaren wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Allister McLaren wrote:
| |
Indeed. So why not internalise the whole thing and move on? The Community
Policeman thing doesn’t really suit you anyway.
|
I think what Dave is driving at is that even though your actions may
technically be with the TOS, it is a question of civility. Pushing people’s
hot buttons and watching the fireworks isn’t what LUGNET is about. Lugnet
is about laughing with each other, not at each other. Maybe over on
JLUG it’s different and the gloves are off from the git-go and so you’d
better have your dukes up or go in swinging; I don’t know. And that’s fine.
But here it’s supposed to be different.
|
I’m not sure why you’re bringing Jlug into the discussion here. If I could
set the fut to lugnet.org.jlug right now, I would.
|
Only because it is the only other forum which I know you use, that’s all.
Really.
| |
But now that you have, I say you’re arguing from ignorance. There’s a far
greater sense of camraderie there than I’ve ever seen here.
|
It wasn’t my intention to insinuate that. I was making a comparison based on
tone. Style. Manner. That sort of thing.
| |
I’m getting quite weary of people crapping on about Jlug whenever one of it’s
members post here in a manner you decide is ‘uncivil’ or at least on the
border. I was a member here long before I was a member there, and I’m also a
member of several other forums, but somehow the Jlug association keeps
cropping up. Does my Jlug membership somehow invalidate my Lugnet one?
When I post here, I post as a member of Lugnet, nothing more.
|
My only point is that a JLUG “manner” if you will doesn’t always fly in LUGNET.
One needs to edit oneself when posting to LUGNET; less so on JLUG. Or am I
wrong? If I am, maybe you’d like to compare/contrast them for me. In any
event, I wasn’t arguing from “ignorance”; did I or did I not use the term
“maybe”? That was very intentional. In fact I know nothing about JLUG except
that it was formed in order to facilitate a more adult-oriented atmosphere that
wasn’t appreciated here on LUGNET. But please, correct me if I’m wrong!
| |
I say we make a new law, let’s call it Bold John’s law, similar in spirit to
Godwin’s law - anyone that brings Jlug into an argument on Lugnet
automatically loses.
|
Well, you are totally misrepresenting my reason for mentioning it. I say we
call it “Bald John’s Law” which states that the baldest debater is always the
winner. Bring it on, pal! C:^D
| |
| |
Here we try to amuse ourselves in less devisive ways. Not always
successful, but that’s the goal. I believe Dave is merely trying to steer
things towards civility. Nothing wrong with that.
|
I’m not saying he shouldn’t, but he’s made his point, and is now merely
repeating it ad nauseum. But I see that sort of shenanigans is perfectly ok
with you. Isn’t it great that Lugnet’s big enough for such a diverse
community?
|
I don’t see his posts as intentionally mischievous at all. But then, I think
I’ve gotten to “know” Dave over the years to know if they were.
But not with you. Not that I wouldn’t like to get to know you better, but I
don’t have a good feel from where you are coming. For instance: is your last
statement mocking? I can’t tell. That’s how it comes off to me, anyway. But I
was wrong about your last intent. We seem to only relate under adversarial
circumstances. Pity.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) :sigh: (URL) and (URL) (...) Are you saying he's being accidentally mischievous? (...) No, you probably can't. (...) You chose to butt in with the adversarial stuff. I figured you liked it that way. :shrug: (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) I'm not sure why you're bringing Jlug into the discussion here. If I could set the fut to lugnet.org.jlug right now, I would. But now that you have, I say you're arguing from ignorance. There's a far greater sense of camraderie there than I've (...) (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
183 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
