 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Still a violation and not just *my personal* interpretation. We already covered this the last time JoJo pulled this stunt. Quoting that word will not be tolerated. The rules are what they are. LUGNET is run the way it is run. Do not violate (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Well, the relevant part from (URL) is this: "His attempt to run around the suspension by posting exclusively in admin.general..." Len identifies Richard's choice to post exclusively in admin.general (which he was explicitly required to do) as (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Your interpretation. If the >'s were still in the post, and I didn't do any editing at all, and the entire post appeared with mine, then where does that get us. Furthermore, you are ignoring the greater issue where we say "Profanity bad! Must (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) One message from Larry is "all hell"? Tempest/teapot. Mountain/molehill. Though AFTER your post, a pale rider on a pale horse trotted by followed by with his entourage, which I suppose qualifies. :-) (...) I must say that I regard the (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) This post was a violation of the ToS, regardless of where it was posted, even if only to admin.general (URL) it occured after he was warned that he needed to comply with the ToS or else. Hope that clears up your confusion. (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
