Subject:
|
Re: Calling for banishment?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:34:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
667 times
|
| |
|
|
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
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Calling for banishment?
|
| 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
