[PLUG] PLUG vs. PLUG

[Cliff Wells]

Dan Haskell wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Robby Russell wrote:
>  
>
>>Hiring?:-p
>>
>>If you're offering to come help at the Clinic, I'll take you up on that.
>>We are an inclusive group - we'll take anyone who is interested in Linux.
>>    
>>
The sad fact is that this exact conversation has done much more damage 
to PLUG than PDXLUG ever will.  Many skilled Linux users will be 
disinclined to help with some of the *useful* things PLUG does simply 
because they find the people who are involved to be abrasive and petty.  
You can count me in that group and I know of at least a few others who 
think that PLUG is a joke, not because of what they do, but because of 
*this* frivolous argument.   Most people simply don't care that there 
are two Linux user groups.  It seems likely that many people would be 
inclined to be involved with both, or would pick the one that best 
suited their goals and personalities.   Most people in the open source 
community consider choice to be a *good* thing.

>>We've been doing our best to use PDXLUG when we refer to ourselves and 
>>in NO WAY claim to be the sole LUG in town.
>>    
>>
>
>I appreciate that and consider it a good start. Now if you could just come
>up with a better expanded name, we'd be home free.
>  
>
You don't appreciate it or you would have let it go by now.  This is 
what I was referring to when I said that PDXLUG (and Robby in 
particular) has gone out of his way (and under no obligation, btw, other 
than pure politeness and wanting to avoid this retarded argument) to 
make reasonable changes to placate people.  Still, that isn't enough, 
you want more.   I have a better suggestion: since PLUG's mailing 
address is in *Corvallis*, why doesn't PLUG become become CLUG and solve 
the problem for themselves?

Regards,
Cliff