 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Do you insist on a speeding ticket every time you speed, or else repeal of all speeding laws? This "sometimes the admins spot it and sometimes they don't" is a red herring in my view. We spot what we spot, and we spot what people bring to our (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) K, you are sooooo talking to the wrong guy about this one. If it were up to me, right now every bridge, every overhead sign, everything along the highway system, would have a photo radar installed. Give me 10 grande to install the first,then (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | (canceled)
|
| | | | | | Shame on you. (Re: Bye, bye LUGNET & hello world.... )
|
| (...) Essentially, that sounds like a highly subjective judgment. This thread makes it apparent that a number of members have concerns about the Admins' judgment in this area. I think we would be prudent to reconsider our whole approach to this (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) IMHO, I think the policy is fine. IMHO again, I think the problem that keeps popping up has to do with the (enforcement) mechanism. Seperate the policy from the mechanism. Examine each seperately. Look for alternative ways of enforcing the (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) And you very well know as a libertarian that one is not responsible for other people's actions. If someone sprays grafitti on a wall, yet I take a picture of that, I am not responsible for the grafitti. Just as if I quote a person who has (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) True but irrelevant. You quoted, which was your choice. Therefore it was your action, your transgression. All else is smoke. (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Your interpretation. If the >'s were still in the post, and I didn't do any editing at all, and the entire post appeared with mine, then where does that get us. Furthermore, you are ignoring the greater issue where we say "Profanity bad! Must (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Still a violation and not just *my personal* interpretation. We already covered this the last time JoJo pulled this stunt. Quoting that word will not be tolerated. The rules are what they are. LUGNET is run the way it is run. Do not violate (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Deep down I'm extremely worried about the future of this website. When we have an issue like this, where well intentioned people (not me, mind you--I have an apparent issue realizing where I screwed up) who point out very valid concerns about (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) What a class act... I suppose the Admins will tell us that Larry's post doesn't technically violate the new (URL) posting guidelines>: Repeated abusive language or personal attacks, i.e. bringing more heat than light to a discussion... also (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX) !!
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote: <snip> (...) I'm more than willing to give Larry the benefit--when passions are high, things get said in 'the heat of the moment'. That said, the consistant way in which the issue is overlooked and in (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) The current process is unweildy, but it's what we've got now. This issue, among others, is helping to define what the policy and process *should be* rather than what they are right now. But as it stands, that's what it is, and that's what we (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote: ?<snip> (...) I won't speak for others, but I believe that the admins have the right and responsibilty to enforce the ToU. It is, after all, your house--should your ToU in your house require all people (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (this is a repost with some inappropriate language and phrasing removed) (...) You posted a post that contained a word that clearly violates the ToU. It matters not whether you quoted it, or what context you used it in, that particular word is one (...) (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Take a deep breath. Go for a walk. (...) I certainly find this paragraph combative. It certainly is name calling, and questioning of manhood. (...) In some ways it is similar. (...) You have my permission to take a break. In fact I recommend (...) (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Hmm. Can an admin veto his/her own suspension? ;) Scott A (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
