[PLUG] PLUG vs. PLUG

[Robby Russell]

Cliff Wells wrote:
> Brian Beattie wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 15:24, Cliff Wells wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Better yet, try getting at least the semblance of a life and stop 
>>> worrying about such silliness.   Perhaps if PLUG didn't concentrate 
>>> on this kind of thing so much then there wouldn't be a PDXLUG.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> This is good advice Cliff, take it.   
>>
> Yes, guilty as charged.  I've tried to ignore this but it baits my 
> tendency to argue.
> 
>> Your argument is silly, the PDXLUG folks split because they wanted
>> everybody to follow there vision of what the group should be
>> doing/talking about.  People here could not be bothered so they left. 
>> After the left the SNR of this group improved significantly (for a
>> while).
>>  
>>
> No, they split because, as their website explains, they wanted a less 
> formal, less topic-oriented users group.  One where people with a common 
> interest (Linux) could meet and discuss whatever they want without 
> getting told they were OT.  Perhaps at least some of this was due to 
> personality conflicts or whatever.  Frankly, it doesn't matter.  They 
> chose to form their own group and have every right to do so.  Still, to 
> expect that people in PLUG can publicly slander their group without a 
> response is "silly".
> 

as that would be the case if the situation were on the other list, which 
it isn't out of respect of those on the list. However, you (Mr Haskell) 
opened up the discussion so you feel some sort of ownership to the argument.

So, to sum up all the lessons learned here.

1. PLUG never changes...

2. 'Portland Linux User Group' is a DBA (I was unaware of this...)

3. Owner of said DBA has been stated in public that he doesn't find 
anything wrong with our naming conventions.

4. People here and elsewhere like to get involved in conversations that 
they know little or nothing about and only add fuel to an old fire.

5. PDXLUG is NOT PLUG.