 | | Re: Changes at LUGNET HQ
|
|
(...) by (...) ending (...) expect (...) will (...) I don't think enough could be said in praise of the efforts of Todd and Suz. LUGNET has been a huge success since its inception. They have run LUGNET with a professionalism that would be the dream (...) (25 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
|
(...) As it turns out, I've just received word that JAL *has* been banned. You can consider me to be "voluntarily banning" myself as well until this is changed, although I would consider it to be more of a "this is ridiculous and I'll have no part (...) (25 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
|
(...) <snip list, including me> OK. (...) OK. I was completely unaware that the term I habitually use was considered offensive. Now that I've been made aware, I'm voluntarily banning myself. James (25 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
|
(...) No, there isn't. Both have exactly the same effect- obsceneties in a Lugnet post, violating the ToS. Like I said, I understand that (and understand why) Jessie is unpopular, but banning him from Lugnet for something that other people have done (...) (25 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
|
(...) Just a note here - Frequently, mild obscenity is let slide by because whenever someone calls the abuser on it, it pretty much invariably turns into a huge fight. Slippery slope? Yup. Ethically lax of me (and others) to let it slide? You (...) (25 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
