To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 9759
9758  |  9760
Subject: 
Calling for banishment?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Sat, 24 Nov 2001 20:23:01 GMT
Viewed: 
243 times
  
I'm stuck here, because I'm more honest than most. Were the shoe on the
other foot, Scott would have no qualms about saying he'd never do it again,
even if in his heart of hearts he knew he might.

Yes I violated Scott's privacy a teeny teeny bit. I fished his email address
out of a year old post to use it to unsubscribe from a newsletter he said he
didn't want to get, and he didn't sign up for and that he considered junk.

Certainly I *said* I did it (when I didn't have to do that, it could have
been done completely anonymously and  no one would have known, but that's
not my style) because I take responsibility for my actions, even if they are
rights violations of others. And I'm prepared to suffer the consequences for
this, as I am for everything I do.

Banning me for that one privacy violation is a bit much, don't you think?
Some punishment, POSSIBLY, is justified, for what I did... And should I do
it again, maybe some additional punishment.

But banning? Nope. That Scott calls for that is evidence of a big problem
with *Scott*, not me.

No, I think a better case could actually be made for banning Scott.

He's a chronic troublemaker who starts rows and sows disagreement wherever
he goes, maliciously crossposts and redirects discussion where it doesn't
belong, and who contributes little positive to the day to day flow of things
here.

He has a long history in this regard as well, it's not some recent development.

Once in a while he dredges up an answer to a question, yes, but would you
miss him all that much if he was gone? I doubt it.

Ban Scott Arthur. On balance it's a much better suggestion.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Calling for banishment?
 
I'm not going to bicker with you in the group. I'll discuss facts. But there is nothing to be gained by addressing the garbage below. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Apology.
 
(...) ... and he his doing do whilst casting insults, untruths and *knowing* it breaks the ToU here: ==+== See, I march to my own metronome, and the violation of his privacy rights when weighed against the harm he causes here on a daily basis with (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.general)

3 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR