To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 8001
8000  |  8002
Subject: 
Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:25:31 GMT
Viewed: 
540 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
I'm not sure I do want to speak to him, but I'm also not sure about how is
banning came about. I pointed out posts earlier which (I think) were worse
than his. So why were they allowed, when his "input" is not?

Below is a copy of a message I have just written to Matthew via e-mail.
If Matthew does show up here today, please try to keep things as civil as
possible.

--Todd

_____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:24:33 -0400
From: Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com>
Organization: LUGNET - www.lugnet.com
To: moulton@hscis.net, moulton@innw.net
Subject: posting

Matthew,

There is some concern that your posting to LUGNET has been blocked without
giving you ample opportunity to respond and/or defend your position.

I think that your concerns are very important issues, but the way you
brought them up wasn't in a manner to which the community is accustomed.

I have removed the block for lugnet.admin.general, where you are free to
participate in discussions relating to the concerns you have raised, so long
as you avoid insulting people or causing additional flamewars.  It is OK
with me if you flame, insult, or criticise me or LUGNET in
lugnet.admin.general, but please do not flame, insult, or criticise other
people there.

Thanks,
--Todd



Message has 2 Replies:
  (canceled)
 
  Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
 
Todd, I can understand your intention to being fair, but do you really think this is necessary for this case? Do you really believe that someone could have an acceptable excuse and/or explanation for such a situation? I suggest letting him scrawl (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
 
(...) But you would still have read at least read a message in order to reply to it? But I take your point. (...) I'm not sure I do want to speak to him, but I'm also not sure about how is banning came about. I pointed out posts earlier which (I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

17 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR