 | | CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Adam Howard
|
| | | Followup-To: lugnet.admin.general This is a Call For Votes (CFV) After much discussion it has been decided that an open public vote needs to be made about this situation. The vote is at the end of this message. Please read the Problem Summary and (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Question about the CFV —Paul Sinasohn
|
| | | | | I find it interesting that this does NOT come from the LUGNET administration. If the administration doesn't agree to abide by the outcome of the vote, what is the point of taking it? And has anyone found out how old J. Wilson is? IMHO... There (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | (canceled) —Adam Howard
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Question about the CFV —Adam Howard
|
| | | | | | | | Sorry Jonathan, Jonathan is 18 and from Australia. (Not Austalia :) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Question about the CFV —Paul Sinasohn
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) OK, Thanks, Adam, for that info. Certainly an 18-year-old is much different than a 12-year-old in this situation. Also, after I posted my question about the vote not originating from Todd, I saw Todd's not about the hsitory of L-Cad and how it (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Question about the CFV —Greg Majewski
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 18?!?! When I first read his posts, I automatically thought he was around 10 or 11. I am dead serious, that's the saddest part :-( Greg Majewski citrusx__@yahoo.com (URL) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | (canceled) —Jamie Obrien
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Question about the CFV —Adam Howard
|
| | | | | | | | Hi Jamie, I was apologizing for the spelling error. In the US we spell Australia with an r. Do you spell it differently? Adam Jamie Obrien <jamien@interworx.com.au> wrote in message news:37b9437a.629203...net.com... (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | (canceled) —Jamie Obrien
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Question about the CFV —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | (...) He's old enough to be studying at a university. (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | I found a simpler solution to JW's posts. I delete them if I see them. If he improves, fine. If not, in the trash it goes. Scott Sanburn (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Greg Majewski
|
| | | | | | | (...) No, you're missing out! I occasionally read his posts for a quick laugh or two. [1] Greg "..A year later, I was transferred to the moon, worse pay, better hours.." Majewski citrusx__@yahoo.com (URL) Though they usually end up with me shouting (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | | I know, but with politics and work getting most of my anger, a quick delete works for me. The quote to Onyx (sp?)?) did it for me, I guess. Scott Sanburn (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Adam Howard
|
| | | | | | | Hi Scott, Please Note: You don't have to participate in the vote, however the outcome will be decided by those who do participate. So please participate one way or the other. Your vote will count. Thanks, Adam Scott Edward Sanburn (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | | OK, for some reason, I love to vote on things (I.E. voting in elections and the like) but for JW, seems like a waste. I will do so soon, however! BTW! (Back to Work) Scott Sanburn (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) LOL! :o) (...) Heh....that sounds like a good stress relief device :P I wonder if this could go down in the books as 'Wilson Therapy.' ;o) -Tim <>< (URL) timcourtne ICQ: 23951114 Commonwealth Edison: What do you do with OUR power? Get paid to (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | | (...) I only sent it to tore himself (at least acording to the message in my sent mail folder I did) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | | (...) mail folder I did) And that makes it OK? It was still extremely rude whether you sent it to Tore or posted it. It showed no respect for Tore at all. Eric Remove ".nospam" when replying by E-mail. The New England LEGO Users Group (URL) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | (...) Wow, sounds a lot like "darn, I can't believe other people saw that and now I might be held accountable for it." Or in other words, "I'm sorry I got caught." (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | | | | (...) He actually took the time to answer my questions, therefore he does not consider the post rude and since it was meant only for his eyes that means that the opinions of the rest of the group as to the rudeness of the post do not matter as the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Tom McDonald
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Tore (...) Agreed to all of Eric's above points. (...) Going solely by what Tore posted, no, he was not rude. Mercy triumphs over justice (but each has its place), so let's take these following points one at a time, not as a convoluted lump, (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) The message was posted by me. my newsreader seemed to stuff it up and post to .geek as well as mailing it to tore so the message was posted by me but it should never have been so therefore it should not have been seen by people on this group. (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) So because of some lacking on your part in technical skill or knowledge, which certainly comes as a surprise to everyone reading this, the message got posted to the group and everyone saw it. Deal with it. It's still rude, whether you INTENDED (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Greg Majewski
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Wow, you must be REALLY frustrated with all this :-| (...) You're missing the entire point of what 80 million people have already told you, "But it WAS posted." You are basically saying, "Well, if I hadn't have posted it, people wouldn't have (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Tom McDonald
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Though this last sentenced looks quoted, I assume that you Greg "author of zany sigs :-)" Majewski wrote it. I'm not frustrated like a lot of folks (for obvious reasons) but where the future of an individual with regard to a community is at (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) According to the NNTP headers in the message, it was posted by you to lugnet.off-topic.geek on Tuesday, August 3, 1999 at 11:16:38 GMT, from studun26.murdoch.edu.au, using Netscape 4.03 for Win95. Still baffled? (...) Apparently you posted it (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Tore (...) Jonathan I just don't think you "get it". I have been giving this vote alot of thought and was inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and vote for probation and take a "wait and see" approach. Now I am not so sure. When you (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Linc Smith
|
| | | | | | | | Hmmmm. I think there is already a vote being held to get Piggy. Maybe we might take a break for a while and wait until the results come out. I believe that JW's "defense" of his action started with the _statement_ (...) I did) most of the key (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | | | | By the way, Linc, it's nice to hear from you. It seems like it's been a while. -John Van Linc Smith <ldsmith@pfc.forestry.ca> wrote in message news:FGM8Fy.3EH@lugnet.com... (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Linc Smith
|
| | | | | | | | (...) while. (...) Summer is the field season, and I am not able to read/contribute as much as I would like. I have been around a day here and and a day there, but mostly lurking. Is it ever neat to have a close community like Lugnet that notices (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) No no no my friend. You cannot say in the least that your post was not rude or that it was cancelled out in effect by Tore's kind reply. Just because Tore himself didn't react at you doesn't mean it was rude. Posting mishaps happen, and (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Please move this discussion to lugnet.admin.general (was: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Oops! Adam, the 'Followup-To' header needs to be part of the message header, not the body of the message. (...) The above message should have been posted with the 'Followup-To' header set to a lugnet.admin.general. (But don't get mad at Adam; (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Once again, please move this discussion to lugnet.admin.general (was: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Once again, please do ***NOT*** reply to any message on this thread without making sure that you are posting a reply to lugnet.admin.general *ONLY*. It was an *accident* when Adam posted the original CFV message that the Followup-To field was (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Rob Doucette
|
| | | | | Adam Howard wrote in message ... (...) SNIP (...) I don't follow the .cad groups so I've been missing all the fun on LUGNET, but luckily the brass balls have been clanging away on RTL: -Rob. (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yeah, that's the kind of person we all want to deal with on a regular basis. He's very "pissed" at John D. indeed. What arrogance, and so recently, too. (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Found on DejaNews: John DiRienzo's reply to JW's message... (...) --Todd (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | | Yup. That's the one that put me over the top. -John Van Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:37b9a9c9.816282...net.com... (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | How about a 1 post per day limit to the cad.* heirarchy as a probationary condition? This would force Jonathan to more carefully consider what he posts, and would give everyone a break from the deluge of sometimes rude or irritating posts. Is this (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Ryan Dennett
|
| | | | | | | I like this idea, but maybe two messages, one in the morning one in the evening. This way it makes it easier, because you can reply to things that came in during the night, and then to things that came in during the day. I think we ought to hold off (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | That sounds like a good idea because: 1) Jonathan is Jonathan. No matter how hard he tries, he will not be able to function in a mature manner in LUGNET because *HE IS IMMATURE* That's no crime, he's just young. And a little dense. But who among us (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Naji Norder
|
| | | | | | | | | | | I don't read most of the newsgroups that have complained, and so I don't feel it is my place to vote in the matter. However, as a suggestion, perhaps it would be more feasible to ban him from Lugnet and then see if he _VOLUNTARILY_ cleans up his (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) On the other hand, the other day, I saw Jonathan ask a reasonable question in a polite way. Someone else had already answered, but given the politeness of the question, I was willing to add a comment to the answer already given. I think the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Naji Norder
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) feel (...) _VOLUNTARILY_ (...) his (...) he (...) shows: (...) but (...) way (...) use? (...) about (...) the (...) Agreed. Since I spoke up against him, here I'll speak up for him. He did ask nicely about the different Lego retailers in the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Thanks for noticing, and thanks for the braces, which arrived today. I MEANT to leave them at your house, it wasn't an accident. All part of the master plan. Macaroni is staged for shipment. Also thanks for proving your imperfection by posting (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Correct on all above. (Tim grovels at the feet of the great Lar) :P (...) Good point. Though I fully support the current vote, it appears that either way his actions will continue to back himself further into a corner. Personally his actions (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | (...) He's said he would change before, in other ways, and hasn't. He apologized for his rudeness and said he wouldn't do it anymore a few days ago, then spent the last two days trying to defend a rude message he sent to Tore by arguing that since (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Technically feasable: yes. Worth the time to implement: not IMO. --Todd (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I like this idea too. I made a comment a little while ago about "amishnet"; I was actually kind of serious. One of the definining beliefs of the amish (and what largely seperates them from the background I come from, mennonite) is that (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Tyson Brower
|
| | | | | | | (...) posts, (...) irritating (...) I agree with VanZwieten (great AWing BTW) some kind of posting cap instead of a complete ban, at least gives him the opportunity to show a willingness at making better posts. -Ty (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | (...) How about we give Todd a break? Kick him (JW) out or don't - don't ask Todd to spend his very valuable time hacking into his code to come up with something like this. I'm sure Todd COULD do it, but boy, the things he could be doing instead - (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Agreed in the specific, a numerical limit per day is low value add. Todd should not do it, IMHO. Disagree in general with the proposition "there exist no high value add things that could be coded to effect a partial or total solution to this (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) ^^^...^^^ Er, that was a freudian slip. I meant to say probatIONing one user. But it was a planned slip, not a misteak, because I don't make those. (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Of course, not 'O' great one. ;) Scott Sanburn (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Mentors (was: Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Strongly agreed! (URL) actually, it wouldn't be all that difficult to implement if (a) we used the 'Approved-By' header for this and (b) the mentor was able to edit raw NNTP messages to add this header. That's really the only sticky bit on the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Mentors (was: Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yes. The web being as universal as it is today, it doesn't bother me much that the volunteer moderators have to do their tasks via a web interface you provide. That's the only minus really. On the (minor) plus side is the fact that you don't (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Mentors (was: Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I like the "Approved-By" approach, because of the obvious strength of not being web-dependent. But I think that in this case the web interface offers a lot of benefits -- it'd be easier to have multiple mentors, the interface could be nice and (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Mentors (was: Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) someone with mail with subjects like "WTF are my Lugnet posts?!" Seriously, though - possible to do it via the web? Say I'm a mentor - I go to a specific URL, give a username/password, then am presented with each of the messages I need to (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Sorry. :( (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | | | | Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message news:slrn7rjncj.3vr....UTK.EDU... (...) posts, (...) irritating (...) Agreed. (...) Except that it is a worthwhile discussion to have, in that similar problems are likely to occur in the future. (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | (...) I like this idea, but I think a self-regulated restriction would be better than a system-imposed limit, for several reasons: 1. Todd doesn't have to develop the solution. 2. It's a simple, measurable way for Jonathan to show (in)compliance. 3. (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) I like this idea as well. But I think we should wait on the results of the vote first - because he has gone over the edge with his antics (as far as I'm concerned) and I'd like to see a break where I don't have to worry about his posts at all. (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) I'm not sure I buy this. What value, exactly, does a signature bring? It seems decorative, and the value is mostly to the appender being able to make: (...) political statements or statements about their belief systems (...) more information (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | | | | | Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:37BAC40E.8DA1F2...ger.net... (...) I think it's mostly a netiquete problem which compounds JW's other netiquete deficiencies. Maybe it's just nice to know there is a real person behind the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Having a sig does nothing, imo, to make a message more personal or make it clearer that a person had something to do with it. My newsreader injects sig.txt into my messages every time I post on - I have nothing to do with it. (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) I think I'm with Larry on this one. While a .sig is certainly traditional, I wouldn't go so far as to call it required by netiquette. (Especially in cases like lugnet, where there's not much fear of the header info being lost.) And actually, (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Jeff Boen
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) as i pointed out to todd in a personal email days ago.. it's true.. people do overlook certain netiquette-breaking rules, depending on the overall picture you've painted of yourself and your demeanor... i never deal with titlecase when writing (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Of course not. It's ridiculous to think that people should be forced to use a sig. Your name's in the header, both handle and real name if you use one. What possible reason could we as a community come up with to justify forcing anyone to use (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Patricia Schempp
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I have also found the sig issue confusing. I used to use one, but the people i send e-mail to all the time got sick of it very quickly, as did I. And, I am too lazy to change it all the time. Besides, long rambling sigs are more of an (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Paul Sinasohn
|
| | | | | | | | | I agree with Larry P. on the signature issue - it IS nice to have, but I'm not sure it's super-useful, at least when using the web interface to read LUGNET. I ususally don't put a full signature on messages... just my name and sometimes a comment. (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Me neither. IMHO, having or not having a sig is a very personal choice, not a mandate by any stretch of the imagination. Probably only about half* of all the people on the net even use sigs. Personally, I don't use a sig because I find it much (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Maybe someone can enlighten me, but I always considered "--Todd" to be the electronic equivalent of a "signature." (...) I agree here. It's the content of the posts, not the form, that really causes upset. (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Oh. OK, yeah, I guess in the context of news posts, it could be considered an electronic equivalent of a real-life signature. But I thought we were talking about sigs (a.k.a. signature files). --Todd (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | [Hey! I remembered to trim the rest of the newsgroups header this time!] (...) I've gotta agree with the other follow-uppers on this point: lack of a signature is no reason, or even part of a reason, for disciplinary action. I feel the same about (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Sig a probational condition?, philosophy of what we are doing (was Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | I just reviewed this subthread's responses and I didn't see a single person, so far, who felt that use of a sig was mandatory, so I'm not sure I'd either - be all that upset about it the larger scheme of things... or - make it be one of the terms of (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Sig a probational condition?, philosophy of what we are doing (was Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <37BB20F7.439C93D1@v...er.net>... *snip* (...) Seconded. *snip* (...) Hear Hear. Frank (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | | | (...) Because of the way I access the internet I am unable to use a signature. (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) You might be able to, after all. According to your NNTP headers, You appear to be using Netscape 4.03 for Win95: X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) I'm not too familiar with that version, but I know that 4.5 has sig-file capability: In the (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) point releases generally don't add much functionality. I'm running 4.04 and easily generate the below, so certainly 4.03 has the capability as well, when used to do news or mail. So maybe there's another reason? But like I said, sigs are small (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I know how to do it but the owner of the system I use wont let me set one up. (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Look into multiple profiles. Netscape will let you have as many profiles as you wish and you can choose among them, the sig file used is driven by which profile you select on startup. (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Still, if it's not his system, the owner may be weird about things like this and not want it changed. It may not be worth the trouble. (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Naji Norder
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) up. Signing a post is easy. At the end, when you're ready to send, type the following: [return] [return] "J" "o" "n" [return] And then send the message as usual. If you prefer, you could spell your first name out. Personally, I think anything (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Hmmmmm.... my sigs have evolved over time. They started out being the main sure-fire way someone could find out the number to S@H and the web address of the specials page. I wouldn't call that wasteful junk. Now they point people to one of two (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Christian Holtje
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Of course, he might be using *lab* computers, where he shares his setup with everone else. In that case, you can set up the preferences on a floppy, including your bookmarks and such. I believe there is a user app that will let you do that. (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | | | (...) That shouldn't keep you from signing your messages. When posting from the web interface, I sign by adding "--Bram" to the end. If I'm emailing, I use a complete signature. There's nothing stopping you from typing your name at then end of a (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | | | | (...) Aaah. now I see Like this: JW (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Richard Laing
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I wonder if anyone else watching from the sidelines is finding this as absurd as I am? Insisting on how someone should sign their postings? (if at all). Any messages I get in Eudora clearly indicate who they are from before I even open them. (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Heh. Well I think Bram might've been suggesting was more like this: --Jonathan When he said, "the same way you would sign a letter," he meant a written letter, not signing with letters. (I think. :-) --Todd (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Well, either way, I think those two extra letters added quite a bit of meaning to the post. :) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Ryan Dennett
|
| | | | | | | | (...) writes: (...) posting from (...) If I'm (...) stopping you from (...) would sign a (...) this: (...) a written (...) Funny, Todd :-) I really don't think it matters which way he signs it; we know what JW means. :) Ryan "You have to stick to (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | (...) There is also no reason to even think about requiring that, is there? Nobody really thinks typing a few extra characters manually at the end of a post or e-mail makes the thing any more or less personal, do they? It really ISN'T like signing a (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) These are three separate questions, right? Not mutually exclusive alternatives? Until reading TimC's message, (URL) had thought the votes were going to look like this (for example): a. All lugnet.* groups ==> No b. Just lugnet.cad.* groups ==> (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Tom McDonald
|
| | | | | | (...) I voted as Todd indicated, where (a), (b) and (c) are each separate points. Perhaps the organization of questions could have been better. Just given either (a) or (b) above, I saw that just by answering yes on (b) would mean redundancy if my (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Ahh, but #2 and #5 do achieve different results! In #2, the hope is that if (a) doesn't pass, then perhaps (b) or (c) still might. In #3, if (a) doesn't pass, then that's it...all or nothing. * In #2, you're saying, "Yes, I would personally (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Tom McDonald
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yeah, now that you splained it, it does! But it did need splaining then. You definitely were right to ask. And now, maybe I should recall my vote and alter it before it's too late. I *can* do that right? (...) But even if #3 is adopted, all it (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) OK, then why was voting the "should XYZ happen" conditional upon the response to the "personally be happier if XYZ"? Steve (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | CFV Clarifications and REVISIONS —Adam Howard
|
| | | | Hi everyone, I've finally noticed the concern about this growing so I'd like to throw out some clarifications: (I chose Todd's message to reply to because he seemed to address most of the concerns.) Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: CFV Clarifications and REVISIONS —Tom McDonald
|
| | | | | (...) [snipped Adam's explanation] I think I understood his explanation to mean that I read it as he intended. <Tom puts his index finger between his lips and wiggles it up and down> *bbbbbbbb* But still, after reading that my brain hurts! I (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: CFV Clarifications and REVISIONS —Greg Majewski
|
| | | | | | (...) Wango-Mango, definitely! Greg "Pass me some more o' that ole Wango-Mango spirit.." Majewski citrusx__@yahoo.com (URL) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: CFV Clarifications and REVISIONS —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) (25 years ago, 21-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: CFV Clarifications and REVISIONS —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) If everyone think that a, b, and c are mutually exclusive choices, yes, then it's clearly stated -- except it's not clear whether a would cascade into b; it doesn't specify that. It doesn't specify whether voting for a also implies voting for (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
