|
|
 | | 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, 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
|
| (...) 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, Ken Dowd wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> As a Christian, I used to 'take offense' to OMG. But over the last decade, I write (and say), "Oh My Goodness!" so that's how I choose to read OMG now. You'd have to do something pretty (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Interesting point - the difference between profanities and vulgarities. Here on Lugnet mild instances of taking God's name in vain occur seemingly without making a blip on the radar. But, personally, I find a post like, "OMG! That MOC is (...) (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
|
| 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)
|
|
