Lir didn't have to be banned. S/he could have kept within the fold instead of becoming a lost sheep.
Look at me. I'm a wild and crazy guy (with apologies to Steve Martin), but I've managed to avoid being banned, even though I've had sharp disagreements with nearly everyone here. Why just the other day, Mav said, "With friends like you who needs enemies?"
The atheists think I'm a "nut" because I believe in God, or worse, because I'm a member of the Unification Church. The Democrats think I'm too pro-Bush; gay rights advocates despise my anti-homosexuality views. And I just got raked over the coals for the umpteenth time over [[global warming]].
But I've survived, despite periodic calls for demotion or banning, because I GO ALONG TO GET ALONG. Anyone can order me around: I am a "servant of servants", like Joseph in Egypt (see Genesis). This is so important that I'm going to draw a box around it!
***************************************** * Lir/Vera needs to pick their battles, * * which means knowing when it's time to * * drop a point and move on to the next * * task. -- Uncle Ed * *****************************************
I miss Lir. Their contributions, when on target, were often nothing short of brilliant. But an obnoxious genius is not welcome anywhere. Lir has to learn how to avoid antagonizing people.
Okay, I'm not the world's *greatest* example, but after all the dust has settled, even Mav has said, "You'll always be Uncle Ed in my heart."
Ed Poor Wikipedia rights: sysop, developer Other hats: mailing list admin
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Lir didn't have to be banned. S/he could have kept within the fold instead of becoming a lost sheep.
His/her recent long note to Jimbo suggests she/he may be ready for a trial return. but posting while banned & playing around with multiple IDs isn't encouraging
The atheists think I'm a "nut" because I believe in God, or worse, because I'm a member of the Unification Church. The Democrats think I'm too pro-Bush; gay rights advocates despise my anti-homosexuality views. And I just got raked over the coals for the umpteenth time over [[global warming]].
I'm still trying to work out if your comment of "when a lady acts in an ungentlemanly way a gentleman always apologizes!" is meant to be tongue-in-cheek....
tarquin wrote:
I'm still trying to work out if your comment of "when a lady acts in an ungentlemanly way a gentleman always apologizes!" is meant to be tongue-in-cheek....
I missed that one. If we take away the "old fashioned" sex roles implied, I think that the general sentiment is very useful to wikipedia. We should all stand ready to apologize, as stepping on toes is so easy to do in the heat of discussion and debate, particularly on emotional pages. And it's VERY important that we all be ready to apologize for our own wrongdoing, even if the other person won't.
(And sometimes, if we take a deep breath, we will realize that the other person doesn't really owe us an apology after all.)
I'm sure in real life we've all seen the situation of two people in an argument who both desperately want to make up and move on, but insist for whatever reason that the other person has to "go first". If he'll apologize, then I will. It's unfortunate, but it's an easy trap to fall into.
I hope Adam is listening here.
--Jimbo
I hope Adam is listening here.
Adam/Lir/Vera/Bridget has apologized repeatedly, though. I think it would be fair to do the following:
1) Place a time limit on the current ban, e.g. March 2003; alternatively 2) Set out clear conditions which she can meet to be unbanned immediately.
Otherwise you open the door for all kinds of abuse. It should certainly not be the authority of individuals who were offended by Lir's behavior to keep up the ban. And I do not think we should have indefinite bans -- we can extent the ban period for repeat violations, though.
Regards,
Erik
IF he is unbanned, and IF he continues his usual obnoxiousness, I will leave. It's that simple. Zoe Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:> I hope Adam is listening here.
Adam/Lir/Vera/Bridget has apologized repeatedly, though. I think it would be fair to do the following:
1) Place a time limit on the current ban, e.g. March 2003; alternatively 2) Set out clear conditions which she can meet to be unbanned immediately.
Otherwise you open the door for all kinds of abuse. It should certainly not be the authority of individuals who were offended by Lir's behavior to keep up the ban. And I do not think we should have indefinite bans -- we can extent the ban period for repeat violations, though.
Regards,
Erik