|
|
 | | Re: LUGNET members association
|
| (...) Yeah, I don't believe this. The LPRV is a great example. The Admins gathered a group of people and said, we trust you guys! We want to know what you think! And then, seemingly out of nowhere, they started accusing the Admins of creating a (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
| | | | | Re: LUGNET members association
|
| (...) Wow. You're right Ross, that is worded much better. That reminds me, I probably shouldn't be posting this right now without my lawyer being present. There might be some minor misunderstanding that prompts endless accusations at my character (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: LUGNET members association
|
| (...) Why not? It was my point, that without someone saying "We've listened, we've considered it carefully, we worked our process and we worked our review process, and we don't at this time see a need to change this particular reviewing action, and (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: LUGNET members association
|
| (...) Possibly. (...) Because it's representative. A committee of review, appointed by an appointed committee, may, in spite of good intentions, not be representative. Cheers Richie Dulin (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: LUGNET members association
|
| (...) I think that is irrelevant here so I will not agree or disagree. (...) That's all fine, given that the ToU says "reason X will result in a timeout of 48 hours". However, I doubt the ToU will ever cover every possible reason for timeout, and a (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
|
