 | | Re: wish's - Contest canceled
|
|
(...) This was meant as a Jibe. (...) While it is true that he has canceled the contest, the very creation of such a vicious attack shows, IMHO, a distinctly closed minded and petty mindset. I do acknowledge that he canceled the contest, but only at (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Poll: Do you think Lugnet Admin is a good job match for Larry?
|
|
(...) I'd call a cheap shot. It's not up to us to say how LUGNET is supposed to be run.... there are rules, and in the case this no doubt relates to, the rules were followed to the T. If people can't deal with the rules they should pick up their (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: In support of Larry
|
|
(...) Tim, With respect, you are being obsequious. Can people not draw any conclusion from the fact that Larry has probably had more spats with more people than anyone else on LUGNET? Can they not make a judgment based on his willingness to flout (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | Re: Poll: Do you think Lugnet Admin is a good job match for Larry?
|
|
(...) This kinda reminds me of that Star Trek:TNG episode, when Data was 'acting captain' aboard, I beleive, the Endeavour... His first officer asked to be transferred because, and this is from meory so it'll be wrong... "Just as I don't believe (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: In support of Larry
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Not directed at you, Tim ('cause I like you and all...) but I wonder how people would have felt if someone told Jefferson, et al. the above--"Don't go attacking those British lords in (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | Re: wish's - Contest canceled
|
|
(...) **snip** (...) Yeah, I thought the guidelines might have been spelled-out already but didn't know where. Now that I think of it, I remember that Larry answered my earlier question about timeout policy. But now that you mention it, I have a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: In support of Larry
|
|
(...) I think most people know I'm not much of a "me too" guy. But sometimes, you just have to say, ME TOO! Larry's work has been dilegent and has profoundly contributed to our community. Larry's work in all the aspects of the community that he has (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | In support of Larry
|
|
I'm ashamed of all the Larry-bashing that's been taking place. If you've only interacted with the man online (which I believe is the case with some of his harshest critics), you have no perspective on who he really is. Hence, you're really not (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.people) !
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) This hasn't been discussed on the list, and I'm sure there are probably a variety of opinions, but I'll offer mine. Overriding the FUT of an article alters the article's metadata item known as the "Followup-To" header. While this is not part (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
|
(...) Hmm. Can an admin veto his/her own suspension? ;) Scott A (21 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
