Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:09:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2520 times
|
| |
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G2ps0v.7xy@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > I think webpage updates need be few and far between. I do not know if • Todd is
> > > able to limit the number of posts MM can make to (say) once a • month/week?
> >
> > If you're actually suggesting that this guy be allowed to post here AT • ALL
> > (outside of this group for a very short period of time until you overly • nice
> > people come to your senses and realize what a pointless waste of time • this
> > farce of an apology is) then you need to take a break from playing • devil's
> > advocate because you aren't just suggesting a course of action contrary • to
> > what may seem to be the popular opinion, you're suggesting something that • is
> > 100% wrong and unacceptable.
>
> I'm tending to side with Mike here.
>
> I remember the RTL instruction scans incident all too well. Matt has • glossed
> over that, but my recollection (Ka On Lee posted a deja reference to it) • was
> that anyone that said ANYTHING that suggested that maybe what Matt was • about
> to do wasn't a completely brilliant idea or who said that maybe BrickShelf
> didn't "suck" but actually was a good thing... had the flame turned on • them by
> Matt.
Well if you think it will be productive, perhaps we should crawl over
everyone's past, and use it against them. Perhaps we should draw up a table
of the 10 most inflammatory posts for both here and RTL... and have those
guys tossed out too. I have just done a reach on LUGNET for:
b*st*rd - 35 hits
f*ck hits 3 hits
Lets start by having everyone of those posters thrown out of LUGNET?
Scott A
>
> Nothing has yet convinced me that there has been any fundamental change in
> Matt's underlying attitude or propensity to do it again. Yes, RTL isn't • here.
> Yes I don't believe in prior restraint, but this isn't prior restraint. • What
> Matt did HERE is bad enough to banish him from HERE, with no offsetting
> positive contribution to make up for it (some of our group do tend to • flame a
> bit but it's lower intensity over longer periods, instead of one fast • blast).
>
> Ultimately it's Todd's call. Kudos to him for looking for community
> consensus... but it's his call.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) Scott, do you think this is an appropriate example? I never care much some f words in a post, since I'm using bad language in my everyday life, (but still trying to not use them in my post here since TOS banned them) but is this the key (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) I'm tending to side with Mike here. I remember the RTL instruction scans incident all too well. Matt has glossed over that, but my recollection (Ka On Lee posted a deja reference to it) was that anyone that said ANYTHING that suggested that (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
122 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
