| |
In lugnet.org.us, Eric Joslin writes:
> As I said in another post, I am in complete agreement with everything Matt has
> said. I do not like "me too" posting, though, and if I see Matt eloquently
> defending the decision NELUG has made, I don't see the point in posting.
Extremely understandable.
> > I do not see that as arrogance at all. I believe this discussion is helping
> > the situation for Shiri, by as you said, showing support for her and her
> > cause.
>
> I have to say that this conversation has done nothing but hurt Shiri's
> position
> in my eyes.
Well, that's too bad. I only posted about 5 posts in this thread of 150(right
now), but if that's all that is required for you to form an opinion on
someone, I guess that's up to you.
I think that possibly you should take into account the hundreds of posts that
I have posted to lugnet over the past year or so, and not only the five that
I've posted in the past day. But I suppose that's hard to do in the middle of
a heated debate (and I'm not saying this sarcastically - it IS!).
> I don't see how she expected that posting a message complaining about the
> policy to such a wide dispersion was going to help her at all.
Gee, you don't? Let me explain it a bit, although I have already. I think Todd
and Richard mainly covered it, but I was frustrated, I wanted to hear some
opinions on the issue, and I wanted to be heard. Maybe if I waited twenty
minutes and thought about it more, I could've forseen this happening...
probably not, though. I don't have ESP and I can't see the future, AFAIK. I
was hoping that a post would get the attention of some people - I didn't want
to "complain" (as you put it) to one person, I did too much of that in the
past few months, and it didn't get me anywhere.
> NELUG, more
> than anything else, is a social group. If she has to force her way in, do you
> think that's going to make her welcome? Probably not.
I don't *want* to force my way in. Please read this post from last night.
http://www.lugnet.com/org/us/?n=503
> If she's not mature
> enough to realise that before clicking the "send" button, then perhaps the age
> limit isn't too far off as it stands.
If I could tell you how many times in the past 20 hours I composed an angry
message only to thrash it seconds before posting, I would. But I lost count
long ago.
-Shiri
P.S. Hehe... I'm listening to a song just now...
"We ain't done nothing wrong, we've just been lonely too long."
How appropriate! :-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) It is far from the only way I am forming an opinion on you. I might not participate in Castle World, but that doesn't mean I don't read the posts. I do remember very well having Ice Cream with you at Lizzy's. I have an opinion formed of you (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) As I said in another post, I am in complete agreement with everything Matt has said. I do not like "me too" posting, though, and if I see Matt eloquently defending the decision NELUG has made, I don't see the point in posting. (...) I have to (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
258 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
|
|
|
|
