 | | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
(...) Chicken 8?P (Like I'm not doing the same thing? I'll try to form one now, here...) (...) I know...I was just making extreme, general (and well known) cases... Think about this...my 2 year old daughter can PLAY with the computer, but she'll (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
(...) I've been thinking about this. My jury is still out on this one..., in other words I'm wimping out on forming an opinion ;] In general I believe everybody should get the same treatment. However sometimes, specifically if it will help the (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
(...) You bring up a very interesting question. Online situations unfortunately have an serious handicap in human relations in that you don't get any visual or verbal clues. In another online forum, which is an adjunct to a face-to-face forum, I am (...) (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
I'll reply to this, but really without considering Jesse at *all*. I agree that this should be an issue, on some level... (...) You could say so, yes... (...) Right. I think one of the three applies to every single case I can think of (which aren't (...) (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kyle D. Jackson writes: <snipped for brevity, not for quality> (...) <more snippage, but still good stuff...go read it> (...) Kyle, You bring up some good, thought-provoking points here. I can tell you really have been (...) (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | I think we stepped in something.
|
|
G'day folks, Note 1: I decided to compose this post because of the events of late concerning Jesse Alan Long. If you don't want to read something that will make your head hurt, skip this ;] Note 2: I am not arguing with any actions that have been or (...) (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Changes at LUGNET HQ
|
|
(...) Glad to hear you'll still be around. Sorry if "transfer of responsibilities" was inaccurate, my misinterpretation of Suz's post. (...) Notice that my "regret is that we have yet to meet". There'll be a time and a place, even if I have to come (...) (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.
|
|
(...) <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.
|
|
(...) 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.
|
|
(...) 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)
|
