 | | Re: Seriously... —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | Is Jon going to be banished too, even if not for as long a period? If not, then banishing Richard is a farce. Jon violated ToU also. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Seriously... —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Seriously? Jon wasn't even addressing RM! Any equivocation between these two is the farce! JOHN (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | You must have skipped the post I saw... He may have been ADDRESSING someone else, but he was insulting Richard. Perhaps you need to follow the thread again. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Seriously... —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) Nothing to follow. Jon expressed an opinion, and a rather benign one at that. Is this grounds for banishment? And even if insulting is grounds for banishment, I personally have endured countless personal attacks at the hands of RM; far worse (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) Hear, hear! -Tim (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't think that Hoppy needs an apologist (especially one named Kooties), for he's usually quite able to defend himself... But I've been here, in o.t.-d, thru most major discussions over the years, and yes, sometimes his passions show thru (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Of course! What else are we talking about???? JOHN (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) " Nothing to follow. Jon expressed an opinion, and a rather benign one at that. Is this grounds for banishment? And even if insulting is grounds for banishment, I personally have endured countless personal attacks at the hands of RM; far worse (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) What I was responding to there was Tom's assertion that Jon be suspended as well. I questioned whether insults were really grounds for reprimand for if they were, RM has been guilty numerous times in the past without consequence (long leash). (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | | | | (...) I don't follow RM from group to group like you may, but his insults SEEM TO ME to be confined to .debate. As you know (or if you don't, it's time to leave, you really are as clueless as RM states), .debate has a different level/tolerance of (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl wrote: snip (...) 'Tis a strange day when Tom and I concur on something :) Dave K (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Chris Phillips
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) With the possible exception of .rtltoronto! - Chris "Oh, you're looking for an argument? This is Abuse. Arguments are the third door on the left." (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Yeah, those so-'n-so's there in rtlT are just brutal at ripping into you! Hate that place! Dave K (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) (snip) (...) (snip) (...) Okay, Tom, I think I see your point now. Your issue is that the entire exchange took place outside of .debate. So you think that Jon's comment would have been fine in .debate, not not outside of it (where it occured). (...) (21 years ago, 22-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) Then there are many people with 'log leashes', which brings bac the idea that we are all on the same playfield--it is not 'biased' towards any particular individual. If everyone has the same 'long leash', then the word 'long' cannot be applied (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I saw it... I saw the whole thread. When I read Jon's post I thought... "hmm.. Jon's stated what many of us know to be true and put it into one neat package... that's not going to be received well by Richard but I expect just about everyone (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Joakim Olsson
|
| | | | | "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:HopF1M.7y8@lugnet.com... Snip (...) neat (...) just (...) it (...) the (...) Well.. I have no interests in either way of WHO is getting banned and WHY.. or not... but if something is (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) From the ToS (discussion group section): 5. (do not) Post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, or indecent information of any kind, including without limitation any (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) Indeed. But one can be both truthful and abusive…. perhaps “tact” & good manners should be a posting requirement? ;) More generally, people who are castigating Richard for breaking the TOS and/or being offensive should think carefully about (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The same goes for Jon. Scott A Have you had a look at Arthurs Seat Yet? (2 URLs) (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Joakim Olsson
|
| | | | | | "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:HopMIA.1JF5@lugnet.com... (...) The ToS (...) so I (...) I must confess that I rarely read the parts of ToS that contains rules that apply to conduct and behaviuor (Part 5) as I (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) This was exactly my thought. Further, Todd has already established that he is extremely tolerant of disagreements and does not like to police them, I've seen far worse than Jon's message in the past, and as John Neal points out, Richard has (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Chris Phillips
|
| | | | (...) Although I think Richard let his anger get the best of him when he made the post in question, I think some of these demands are a bit unreasonable. If he were required to do all these things, you might as well just censor his post because you (...) (21 years ago, 22-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) You don't get a pass because you're an "angry young man"... (...) No, I'm telling him to abide by the ToS, and explicitly acknowledge that it applies to him and acknowledge that he erred and wronged EVERYONE, not just Todd, and make up for it (...) (21 years ago, 23-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Chris Phillips
|
| | | | (...) Maybe you use a different web interface than the rest of us do, but I am always signed in as a member, and my posts are not accepted unless I check the box on every post. Your other points are well taken. It seemed from your earlier post that (...) (21 years ago, 23-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Seriously... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote: signed in as a member, you explictly check once in a blue moon) (...) I don't *think* I do, but maybe there are some differences, I'll have to ask Todd. (...) That's really strange because I'm not (...) (21 years ago, 23-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Seriously... —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) It's a cookie thing, I think. If you are required to check the TOS every time posting as a member, or required to enter your posting info every time, try resumbitting your posting set up while logged in as a member. James (21 years ago, 23-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
