 | | Re: Let s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
