|
|
 | | 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
|
| Bingo! This one didn't seem to raise any eyebrows at all, but drop an f-bomb and you're banned until you recant. The enforcement mechanism obviously needs some tweaking : ) Like David K. said instituting a filter is about as even handed as we can (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| Bye. Just remeber, the loss is entirely yours. I'm just curious, do you have a driver's licence? If so, when you got it, you agreed to obey all of the traffic laws, including the speed limit. So, if you get caught for speeding, are you going to stop (...) (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
|
| (...) Well, the relevant part from (URL) 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 (...) (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
|
| (...) One message from Larry is "all hell"? Tempest/teapot. Mountain/molehill. Though AFTER your post, a pale rider on a pale horse trotted by followed by with his entourage, which I suppose qualifies. :-) (...) I must say that I regard the (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
|
