Subject:
|
Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:10:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3436 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, James Brown writes:
>
> > 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 betcha. Worth the fight? Nope.
> >
> > However, there is a distinct difference in degree between saying "that's a
> > dumb --- thing to do" and what Jesse posted.
>
> 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 and not been
> banned for is hypocritical to the point of being offensive.
>
> If Jessie is to be banned, then I would expect a similar treatment to be
> extended to:
<snip list, including me>
OK.
> Whew! There's more than I thought there would be, and I'm getting tired of
> cutting and pasting. You can find plenty more by just doing a simple search on
> "naughty words" in
> Lugnet's search engine. In the interest of full disclosure, my name came up
> once too:
> http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8069
>
> But given your talk above about it being "ethically lax" of you to "let it
> slide" when someone posts, I was shocked to find that you are one of Lugnet's
> biggest pottymouths. I find your habitual commisions of the same ToS
> violation to be FAR MORE offensive than Jessie's.
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
