Subject:
|
Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:58:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
870 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> > I confess that I haven't scoured Richard postings in admin.general, but did
> > he really show contempt for the TOS there? How so? Did he post auction
> > bulletins and political rants? He may have, for all I know, but I wasn't
> > aware that he'd done so.
>
> This post was a violation of the ToS, regardless of where it was posted, even if
> only to admin.general
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=11853
>
> and it occured after he was warned that he needed to comply with the ToS or
> else.
>
> Hope that clears up your confusion.
Well, the relevant part from http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12294 is
this:
"His attempt to run around the suspension by posting exclusively in
admin.general..."
Len identifies Richard's choice to post exclusively in admin.general (which he
was explicitly required to do) as the cental issue without referring to the
content of those posts. If the issue is, in fact, that Richard used
inapropriate language in a particular post in admin.general, then that might
have been articulated more clearly.
Incidentally, I agree that post11853 *was* in violation of the TOS re:
profanity, and I'm quite sure that Richard accepts Todd's subsequent choice to
revoke Richard's membership.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) This post was a violation of the ToS, regardless of where it was posted, even if only to admin.general (URL) it occured after he was warned that he needed to comply with the ToS or else. Hope that clears up your confusion. (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|