 | | 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)
|
