 | | It is time to ban JAL. —Joel Kuester
|
| | | Hello, I have been reading a lot of the posts from Jesse Alan Long, and paying attention to the arguments going on there since they started. I have posted very rarely in response to him, mainly because I feel it has gone on far too long, as most (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL from Lugnet. —Joel Kuester
|
| | | | | (...) this is the type of twisting of words that is common from JAL. This is exactly why diplomacy does not work. We have tried being nice, and he isn't stopping. (...) JAL has only argued more when we practically begged him to share his MOCs with (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.people)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL from Lugnet. —Jesse Alan Long
|
| | | | | | (...) What can I do to say I am sorry if I have violated three different areas of your rules? I did not mean to violate the rule about profanity but even so, rules have been broken by other people and I believe that there may be some bias on Lugnet (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL from Lugnet. —Stephen Rusnak
|
| | | | | | "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:GHM5oE.KCH@lugnet.com... <snip> (...) areas of (...) even so, (...) be some (...) to this (...) This has nothing to do with the laws of Mass. or Tenn. LUGNET is a privately owned (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Kirby Warden
|
| | | | | Well, if we're going to start banning people from Lugnet for cussing, I'll be more than happy to do a little research and pull up all the delinquents that I can find, and it won't be overly difficult to find a couple. However, I think that banning (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Joel Kuester
|
| | | | | | (...) hi, To be honest, if there is anyone else who used this language, I would be all for banning them. Especially if when they were approached on the issue they tried to dodge responsibility for it and then blamed someone else, and then stated (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | (...) I don't think banning (forever) someone would be appropriate, for using a bad word in his post, not to insult someone, but just as an example, and also apologizing for this afterwards. If I remember correctly, the practice was warning and (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | (...) Many people have violated this particular ToS and not been banned. In the past, folks who have posted obscenities (and been called on it, frequently they aren't) have simply been made to understand that NO posting of profanities is allowed, (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) Just a note here - Frequently, mild obscenity is let slide by because whenever someone calls the abuser on it, it pretty much invariably turns into a huge fight. Slippery slope? Yup. Ethically lax of me (and others) to let it slide? You (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) No, there isn't. Both have exactly the same effect- obsceneties in a Lugnet post, violating the ToS. Like I said, I understand that (and understand why) Jessie is unpopular, but banning him from Lugnet for something that other people have done (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | (...) <snip list, including me> OK. (...) OK. I was completely unaware that the term I habitually use was considered offensive. Now that I've been made aware, I'm voluntarily banning myself. James (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) As it turns out, I've just received word that JAL *has* been banned. You can consider me to be "voluntarily banning" myself as well until this is changed, although I would consider it to be more of a "this is ridiculous and I'll have no part (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) He broke the Terms of Use Agreement. (URL) S. Lehman | LUGNET Admin <todd@lugnet.com> (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) JAL was not "banned" (that's a very loaded word) and as far as I'm aware, neither Suzanne nor I ever used the word "ban" or "banned" to him. What happened earlier is that the server has been instructed to reject messages sent with his known (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Joel Kuester
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Hi, I think that people were using the term "ban" because it was in the thread title that I started. I wasn't sure what word to use in place of "privileges revocation" so I guess the term stuck. You are right, of course, and the term is very (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Duane Hess
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) <Snipped Banned Topic> (...) I would not like to see JAL's privileges permanently revoked. His language does not seem to be a repetitive problem as with other people who regularly post. I have to admit that what was posted did violate the TOS (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, I was hoping someone wouldn't waste their time building just that list. Seriously, where does it get us? You missed my instances of a certain 3-letter word...are you sure you don't want to make a LUGNET page listing all of the violations (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think that was Eric's point, at least sort of. Lots of people slip up (Eric, please correct me if I misrepresented you but that's what I thought you were implying). People ought to be told that they slipped up and given a chance to correct (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Grrr... talk about mixed metaphors... I think I was making some sort of mix between self-confident and, umm, conceited? <sheepish grin> (Wait, let me check I got *that* word right... yep) Beats me. I don't know *what* I was thinking... going (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I don't know... If Larry is proclaiming that he's not self-conscious (ie, self-aware) then by criteria already established here on LUGNET.OT, he can be slaughtered as a feed animal without generating any moral crises. So how does one cook a (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I wouldn't bet on him being rare, did you already forget Lindsay's finds of his namesakes all over the place? -Shiri (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Yes (...) No... as in, no I did not say I wasn't self aware. At least not that I am aware of. Although I may have misquoted Shiri on what it was she actually said... (...) If you think you can, you would be best served in doing so when I am (...) (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hmm, does that mean you could grill up some Lar Misteaks? ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Oh, that's painful! It's rare to see such a juicy pun. You'd better be careful though, or Larry may sear you in the flames of a reply. Matt (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Jude Beaudin
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Larry has never done anything fowl. Anyone who says so is a piece of jerk chicken. Jude (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I leave .o-t.pun for 5 minutes & you guys fillet up with all these great puns! Well done!! ROSCO (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yes, he's quite the seasoned punster, isn't he? Marinated, even. ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | | | Just a small FYI: (...) (URL)But given your talk above about it being "ethically lax" of you to "let it (...) Well, I don't. Witness what Stephen mentioned about his daughter. ((URL) I was outraged to hear this. I know 7 year olds who throw that (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | | (...) I have to say I agree with Eric on this one but beyond agreeing I will give my 2 cents. First of all I will admit some ignorance in terms of JAL's history because I stopped reading .space because of all the bickering. I will just say this, it (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: It is time to ban JAL. —James Bush
|
| | | | (...) I never was fond of JAL i the first place. People try to be nice to him but he just twists there words against them and tries to make them look like the jerk and glorify himself. His constant ramblings about all of his great MOCs are very (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
