 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | (...) 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 —David Koudys
| | | | | (...) 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 — Kelly McKiernan
| | | | | (...) 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 —David Koudys
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | | |
