Subject:
|
Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:53:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
870 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, James Brown writes:
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 Eric? You could do continual upkeep on it, at least
until you were the last one posting to the groups.
> > 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.
Oh! Come on! There is a difference in using the word to describe the action
and calling someone by the word. You'll notice that mine ae both ways. If we
are going to start examining each post with a PC microscope, we'll never get
anywhere. James...quit sulking and post something. *GEEZ*
> As it turns out, I've just received word that JAL *has* been banned.
Now that's to bad. I never advocated banning Jesse...is this a temporary or
permanent thing? While I think e-mailing LUGNET admin about instances like
the post where Jesse used the unfortunate words is fine, and via e-mail, you
can advocate all the bans you desire, I feel that asking for it publicly, on
the boards, in kinda' in violation of the ToU as written...you know, where
we're not supposed to impeed anyone from using LUGNET? It's pressure on the
poster (a threat) and admin (perhaps feeling the need to bow to see mob
mentality to keep the peace).
> 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 of a community that is run like this" kind of a thing.
*GRUMBLE* Eric...you need to quit sulking too. And anyone else out there who
is considering not posting for either reason. Just knock it off. It's no
better than the attention-seeking grandstanding that Jesse was doing all along.
Of course I was heavily involved in this last round of JAL crap. And when I
(once again...I should have learned by now) tried to write reasonable,
salient posts to him, or for his benefit, he blew things all out of
proportion. But, I was giving him yet another chance then, and even another
after the cursing incident, by ignoring his unfortunate choice of words.
You know what, after a few weeks of cooling down, I probably would have
attempted yet ANOTHER try at communication with Jesse. Maybe I'm just a
glutton for punishment. Maybe I'm a fool. I don't know. But it is what he
deserved. As a poster on LUGNET, some attention and an opportunity to glean
help from what someone else has written to/about him, it's what he deserved.
God knows many tried...most failed...but they tried. I feel especially bad
for the likes of Tim, who's name has really been dragged through the muck
here for his e-mail attempts to help Jesse.
Look at what Geordan did. Advocating for Jesse, based on a week worth of
e-mail. That's the LUGNET spirit (and from a young person who has already
had a second chance for violating the ToU, I might add). And you know what,
Geordan was getting fed-up with Jesse too...but STILL kept trying...
I don't know where things will go from here...I hope everyone can get their
heads screwed on straight and start to see the LEGO for the bricks.
Matt
(P.S. I still say that if a word can be used on the Simpsons at 6:00 in the
evening, it should be OK here...)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
