 | | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
I'll reply to this, but really without considering Jesse at *all*. I agree that this should be an issue, on some level... (...) You could say so, yes... (...) Right. I think one of the three applies to every single case I can think of (which aren't (...) (25 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kyle D. Jackson writes: <snipped for brevity, not for quality> (...) <more snippage, but still good stuff...go read it> (...) Kyle, You bring up some good, thought-provoking points here. I can tell you really have been (...) (25 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | I think we stepped in something.
|
|
G'day folks, Note 1: I decided to compose this post because of the events of late concerning Jesse Alan Long. If you don't want to read something that will make your head hurt, skip this ;] Note 2: I am not arguing with any actions that have been or (...) (25 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Changes at LUGNET HQ
|
|
(...) Glad to hear you'll still be around. Sorry if "transfer of responsibilities" was inaccurate, my misinterpretation of Suz's post. (...) Notice that my "regret is that we have yet to meet". There'll be a time and a place, even if I have to come (...) (25 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
|
(...) Grrr... talk about mixed metaphors... I think I was making some sort of mix between self-confident and, umm, conceited? <sheepish grin> (Wait, let me check I got *that* word right... yep) Beats me. I don't know *what* I was thinking... going (...) (25 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
|
(...) <Snipped Banned Topic> (...) I would not like to see JAL's privileges permanently revoked. His language does not seem to be a repetitive problem as with other people who regularly post. I have to admit that what was posted did violate the TOS (...) (25 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
|
(...) Hi, I think that people were using the term "ban" because it was in the thread title that I started. I wasn't sure what word to use in place of "privileges revocation" so I guess the term stuck. You are right, of course, and the term is very (...) (25 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
|
(...) JAL was not "banned" (that's a very loaded word) and as far as I'm aware, neither Suzanne nor I ever used the word "ban" or "banned" to him. What happened earlier is that the server has been instructed to reject messages sent with his known (...) (25 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
|
(...) I have to say I agree with Eric on this one but beyond agreeing I will give my 2 cents. First of all I will admit some ignorance in terms of JAL's history because I stopped reading .space because of all the bickering. I will just say this, it (...) (25 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
|
(...) I think that was Eric's point, at least sort of. Lots of people slip up (Eric, please correct me if I misrepresented you but that's what I thought you were implying). People ought to be told that they slipped up and given a chance to correct (...) (25 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
