| |
XFUT'ed to .off-topic.debate and .people at Rich Mazno's request. Only
keeping it in market for this one post, for continuity so people using
newsreaders know my reply is moving. :-)
In lugnet.market.theory, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.market.theory, Tim Courtney writes:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/market/theory/?n=2268
> >
> > ...which I think you are, all you are doing here is trying to publicly
> > further your personal vendetta against Larry.
>
> This is what I don't get. Larry offends people. Larry acts childishly. Larry
> engages in name-calling. But when I point all this out, I get the flack.
Is my assessment of the above post correct or incorrect? It looks to me
like you have something you don't like about Larry, so you continue trying
to expose him for what you think he is in your own mind, without relent.
Even with the at first polite, then aggrivated requests of others here to
keep those issues offline.
Sure, there isn't a TOS rule about you not discussing Larry here. But don't
you think the number of people who have publicly expressed their disgust
with this dribble are enough for you to get the clue - take your personal
problems offline?
I respect and support Larry's considerate policing efforts, and his polite
assertion of the Guild of Bricksmiths brand name. I won't comment on
Larry's other actions here - that's between him and the people who have
issues with them. I can say that, allthough he and I have not gotten along
100% of the time, we've both grown through our interactions and work
together aggreably and positively. Larry's a good guy.
> > Matt is totally right.
>
> I shall ask again: was Brian wrong? It's a simple question.
You and your simple questions. Maybe its because you insist on picking
people apart, yet can't build up a case against them?
Anyways, for your sake, I will graciously reply to Brian's message here,
answering your simple question.
In lugnet.market.theory, Brian Kasprzyk writes:
> Interesting that you would call it a 'temper tantrum' without even knowing
> me.
It was done in spite, with no constructive point behind it, in my view.
> My whole point was simply to point out that many of us out here on
> Lugnet(tm) ;-) are tired of Larry and his 'know it all attitude' and
> personal way of always trying to control EVERY SINGLE thread that goes
> beyond 4.
So what? He posts a lot. Big deal, get over it.
[snip]
> Who are you to judge and claim 'disappointment?'
Sorry Brian, anyone can claim anything they want (regardless of whether or
not they back it up). I can judge anything I want, so can you. Get over
that one too.
> I have just as much right
> to express my opinion as you do, with or without your consent.
True. But, the point was, this spiteful post wasn't constructive. It was a
childish foot-stamping na-na-na-na-boo-boo post.
> I also do
> know a lot about implied trademarks versus registered trademarks. It is
> generally considered 'polite' to include the (tm) or (r) after names, but
> get real, this is a forum. You could go to any of a thousand message boards
> and see every trademarked thing under the sun and 95% of them will not have
> the (tm) or (r) included.
So? Just because other trademarks are not asserted, it doesn't mean someone
doesn't have the right, or is being anal retentive to assert one that is
their own, or is important to them.
> The idea of a forum is to share ideas, not have
> them critiqued by an english teacher or spend all day typing 1 post because
> you included so many extra key strokes. Besides, most people on Lugnet know
> exactly what group is being discussed when they see 'Bricksmiths,' 'The
> Guild,' or 'Brick Guild.'
I wouldn't say everyone does. That's too general of a statement.
> So, get over yourself! We all know,
> metaphorically speaking, who you are and understand your contributions to
> the Lego world.
>
> BK>
[End quoted by Brian Kasprzyk]
If you want the simple answer, no, Brian wasn't right.
> One day I shall let you take a look at my inbox. But before that, take a
> look at this thread. I am not in a minority of one. Rather than attacking me
> personally, why not look at what I am saying? This is what I am saying:
They certainly aren't posting public support. At least, you make it sound
like your box is overflowing.... and there certainly isn't an overflowing
number of posts in your favor here.
> Policing is here to stay. I'm not 100% happy with that (who is?),
I'm not. (gasp!) I wish people were mature and responsible enough that
policing wasn't needed. But, we don't live in an ideal world.
> but it is
> the best we can do. If policing is to work it must be done with respect, and
> the person who does the policing should be respected in the group where it
> takes place (a lesson you learnt the hard way I understand?).
Yes, I've encountered disrespect in small tight-knit subcommunities. I
think rather, an ATMOSPHERE OF RESPECT needs to be created, so when someone
does step in and guide a poster on an infraction, they don't get flack.
Regardless of who they are, or their status on LUGNET or in the specific
subcommunity.
So, I disagree here.
> I do not
> subscribe to the "if policing causes a ruckus so be it" type philosophy - it
> can cause more harm than good.
Key word: can. If I'm doing my duty and respectfully guide someone on
something they post, and THEY or THEIR COHORTS cause a ruckus, oh well.
That's THEIR problem (and that problem will be corrected too). There should
be little room for that.
I'm NOT saying there isn't room for a well-reasoned discussion. There's
always room for that (unless an admin has put the final word on something).
But, backbiting for the sake of spite, or bitterness at the corrector,
there's little room for that here. Or there shouldn't be.
> Now, what part of that do you disagree with?
See above.
> Tim, I'm not sure I like your tone. You are very good a making all sort of
> accusations, but you fail to answer even the simplest of questions:
> http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=10067 • You wrote:
> That is your view. But I have also noticed that you have the ability to
> start arguments here. Do you disagree with that?
No, I don't. I can, and do, start arguments. Arguments that I have a clear
opinion on and I see others clearly disagreeing. Anyone has the ability to
start arguments.
We don't grow stronger without struggle.
> http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=10072 • You wrote:
> Exactly! Respect is a two way street. If users have no respect for the
> policeman (as you suggest with LP) how can they have respect for his/her
> policing?
See my above comments on an 'atmosphere of respect.'
> http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=10069 • You wrote:
> An interesting description. I challenge you to look at all my posts over the
> last couple of months outside this group and look at the amount of
> “thorning” I have generated. Compare that to your own, and that of your
> vigilante mate’s. I know I won't be top of the list.
If you want to make a point so desparately, why not just come out and make
it? I won't do your research for you.
> How long before Brian's words are echoed again?
Dunno. How long until you stop whining about your personal problems with
another poster online?
-Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
83 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
