Subject:
|
Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:01:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
304 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
-snip-
| |
Richard’s complaint, I believe, wasn’t that the TOS shouldn’t apply to him
but rather that the TOS was by its very nature an inefficient policing
instrument that is, at times, seemingly unevenly applied.
Regardless of one’s opinion of Richard, it would be incorrect to accuse him
of demanding special treatment for himself.
|
I’m not sure if he was demanding special treatment, as much as he just ignored
the rules and then said the rules shouldn’t apply (whether to him specifically
or to the whole of lugnet). The point is that he questioned the need to follow
the rules.
I seriously doubt he was trying to make a comment about how evenly the rules are
applied, because then he should have argued for closer application of them -
including upon himself. His attempt to run around the suspension by posting
exclusively in admin.general showed his contempt for the ToU and the way Todd
was trying to run Lugnet. Evenness of rule application wasn’t the issue, it was
rule application at all.
-len
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Well, I was responding to the phrasing in (URL) this post> in which you wrote If you refuse to acknowledge that the ToS applies to you (a la Marchetti), then you will be suspended until you acknowledge it. I inferred from this (perhaps (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
