Subject:
|
Re: Timeout (was Re: "Some pigs...")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:12:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5376 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Jamie Obrien wrote:
> Hi, brave move, though i don't believe the line should have involved just ken
> here. What i find strange and possibly disturbing was in the following:
>
> > Unless and until more facts are provided by LEGO or Ken (if and when he
> > returns), this issue is concluded.
>
> "(if and when he returns)," maybe their was no intent, but wouldn't it have been
> better to just have "(when he returns)," because otherwise it may seem you think
> or are encouraging his not returning. Maybe it's just me, but doing a little
> translation work has made me look a little deeper at possible menaings like
> this. It's probably nothing. Maybe just my lack of mind. There was no negative
> implication there, regardless, he will be welcomed back? We all have our blips.
As with all timeouts, Ken's return after the timeout period has expired is
subject to indicating understanding of why the timeout occured, and an agreement
to abide by the ToS. The choice on whether to abide by the ToS is completely up
to Ken, who is welcome back to LUGNET as a contibuting, valuable member of our
community so long as he chooses to abide by the ToS. There is no intent to
refuse him access. Since the choice is Ken's, and no one else can speak on
whether he will agree or not, the "if and when" was technically accurate,
although as you say, it might appear to show a bias that was not intended. Ken
is welcome back after the timeout.
Thanks for letting me clarify that,
Kelly
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
71 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
