 | | 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
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: Changes at LUGNET HQ
|
|
(...) Well, it won't be seamless -- there are a lot of coding and legal issues to be worked out -- but I don't expect anything to break. It's not really a "transfer of responsibilities" either, but offloading much of my workload. I'll still be here, (...) (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.
|
|
(...) 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: Changes at LUGNET HQ
|
|
(...) If I had never responded to a post with a "mee too", now would be the time to start. Well-said, Ed. And a huge bucket o' thanks to both Todd and Suz. Cheers, - jsproat (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Changes at LUGNET HQ
|
|
(...) by (...) ending (...) expect (...) will (...) I don't think enough could be said in praise of the efforts of Todd and Suz. LUGNET has been a huge success since its inception. They have run LUGNET with a professionalism that would be the dream (...) (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.
|
|
(...) <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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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: Ongoing Battle in posts
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tanya K. Burkhart writes: <snipped all of a well said (and timely, inasmuch as it NEEDED to be said) post that I agree with, except for one line> (...) Almost no one... those members logged in to the web interface don't get (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Ongoing Battle in posts
|
|
Note: This is a fire-it-and-forget-it post. I will state my opinions here, right, wrong, left, upside-down, backwards, or otherwise, and likely not respond to any replies. I would like to bring up several points that several people in our community (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It is time to ban JAL from Lugnet.
|
|
"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.
|
|
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)
|
