 | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) Interesting guess, but wrong. Here are the threshold breakers: (URL) [1] Yes, I have permission to republish these comments here. It's part of (...) Thanks for your input. You may be right about it being a bad idea to post feedback comments as (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Not really a guess. (...) (URL) you did not disallow him for more than an hour after you read the "threshold breakers", in the intervening time you read and replied to his denigration(1) of you? Further, I can't remember anyone being excluded (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Interesting "conclusion" then; still wrong. (...) Sometimes I read chronologically and sometimes I read reverse-chronologically. My newsreader sorts everything by time, and gives me a near-live feed, so if I happen to be sitting at the screen (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) But you would still have read at least read a message in order to reply to it? But I take your point. (...) I'm not sure I do want to speak to him, but I'm also not sure about how is banning came about. I pointed out posts earlier which (I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Let s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) My perception is that the banning occured because: 1. there was clearly a single individual who was fanning the flames of a flame war which had potential to severely impact Lugnet's mission 2. the individual communicated pretty clear threats (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Below is a copy of a message I have just written to Matthew via e-mail. If Matthew does show up here today, please try to keep things as civil as possible. --Todd ___...___ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:24:33 -0400 From: Todd Lehman (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | (canceled) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Play? I am the devil's advocate. :-) It can be a bit one sided here at times. Scott A (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Indeed. Politeness, civility, and camaraderie is *so* boring, really. :-) ++Lar (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | Todd, I can understand your intention to being fair, but do you really think this is necessary for this case? Do you really believe that someone could have an acceptable excuse and/or explanation for such a situation? I suggest letting him scrawl (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | Scott A wrote: <snip> (...) Scott, actually I like some grinding gears just inside some other regular ones, so I like reading your posts, but MM is completely out of any comparison I think (actually I'm sure). It's not the just this or that post (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
