Subject:
|
Re: Shiri - A one time thing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.people
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:05:02 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
suz@%IHateSpam%baseplate.com
|
Viewed:
|
843 times
|
| |
|
|
Jeremy,
For a guy who says he doesn't mean to revive this pointless debate,
you're talking a lot about it.
Now. saying nothing about any debate, I'll simply state that as a NELUG
member, I find your spouting off in our general direction offensive.
Your ongoing defense for spouting off isn't sitting well with me either.
I personally request that, if this thread is a contest to see who can
get in the last word, you guys re-title it and take it elsewhere.
-Suz
Sproaticus wrote:
>
> In lugnet.people, Eric Joslin writes:
> > In lugnet.people, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > > recognize when someone else is pointing out what, for all appearances, is a
> > > stupid and arbitrary policy, enforced blindly and with a willful ignorance.
> > That's not what you're doing, unfortunately. You're choosing to throw insults
> > around over a policy that was decided on for good reason.
>
> Insults...? Okaaaay, hold that thought.
>
> > I won't bother going
> > into those reasons yet again- they are well documented in several threads on
> > Lugnet. You can find them yourself, I'm sure.
>
> I found them. (1) I was quite surprised to read them, too.
>
> You claim to dislike being a judge of people, and yet you are being a judge
> in a fairly callous way IMHO. Perhaps you could find better ways to limit
> entry into such an exclusive club, that would help reduce the "legal
> liability" problem even more.
>
> You could ban people with certain health conditions, for example, so you
> won't be liable for an ambulence call and all those pesky questions, if
> someone were to fall ill suddenly.
>
> Perhaps a ban on all persons with certain political affiliations so you
> wouldn't be liable for the consequences of any violent pro-life/pro-choice
> arguments that pop up.
>
> I know, you can bar for life anyone who's even considered buying K'Nex or
> MegaBlox.
>
> These make more sense than barring entry to minors on the excuse that they
> can't legally vote yet or because there are vague and murky guardianship issues.
>
> > You have the right to express your opinion, and I have the right to defend
> > myself and others in NELUG when we are referred to as "stupid" and "willfully
> > ignorant".
>
> Mmpf stuffing words in my mouth. Tastes kinda like chicken.
>
> I said that the policy appeared to be stupid and appears to be enforced with
> willful ignorance. I never said that the members of NELUG are stupid and
> willfully ignorant. If that's insulting to you, fine. I will make note of
> the fact that you did find it insulting and disrespectful and somehow allows
> you to put words into my mouth, and so I will use softer words for you if
> you wish.
>
> But when you attributed the personal insult to me, it was soooo tempting to
> let it stay.
>
> Believe me, it isn't my intent to denigrate you or NELUG for your choice in
> this matter, but I can hardly express my opinion of your treatment of Shiri
> without doing so a little. And I don't mean to revive this pointless
> debate, since I stand little chance to change your minds and a big chance of
> pissing off Shiri. But -- come on people! I'm sure there are bigger things
> for you to fret over than whether your group is too good for some people.
>
> Cheers,
> - jsproat
>
> 1. http://news.lugnet.com/org/us/nelug/?n=785 among others, searched for
> "NELUG minors"
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Shiri - A one time thing?
|
| (...) Insults...? Okaaaay, hold that thought. (...) I found them. (1) I was quite surprised to read them, too. You claim to dislike being a judge of people, and yet you are being a judge in a fairly callous way IMHO. Perhaps you could find better (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.people)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
