 | | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) <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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) <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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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)
|
