|
|
 | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| Uhh - I've been seeing that != in a couple of posts. Would some tech jargon junkie remind me what it means? -- Cheers ... Geoffrey Hyde "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3aa4059f.183521...net.com... (...) was (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
| (...) As an evolution of the idea, how about something like an "insurance points" system where transgressions earn you points, and time takes them away. I would hate to see someone who was a real jerk as a kid make it to 4th offense, and then come (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) <snip> I'm confused here, I sincerely meant my lead as a thank you to Rose, and I took your "I'll second that" as just that, an agreement and your own thanks as well. What am I missing here? Why would you think anyone would mistake what you (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) (Responding to my own post.) YIKES -- it just occurred to me that what I wrote above might be mistaken as a condemnation of what Rose did. On the contrary, I actually meant it as a _complement_ to Rose. I thanked Rose this morning via private (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
| (...) I always found (when I did this for a living) that automatically suspending service for a non-response worked wonders. And that was for internet service in general. Waiting 24 hours for a response, then suspending service until a response came (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
| (...) Ahh. Yes. This is for the annoying kind of stuff and the illegal really bad stuff needs that reservation...thanks. (...) I meant for that to be covered under "requiring a response of acknowledgment of receipt." I guess if someone didn't (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
| (...) Yes, it's nice & clean. There's only thing I would recommend doing/adding: 1: stressing (somewhere) that these are 'typical' responses & general procedure, but that LUGNET reserves the right to bypass these guidelines in extreme cases. (If, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
| One thing that the Discussion Group Terms & Conditions here lacks is any predefined list of actions to be taken if someone commits a transgression of the T&C. Here is a proposal... This is not active site policy but instead a proposal for a future (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) agreeing that it was, in addition to being a flog, a brag. IMHO. IOW, brag + flog != flog Not that that makes it any better or worse. Just clarifying what I meant. ^^Todd (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) I suppose I wasn't totally clear in what I wrote earlier. Yes, I personally happen to feel that what (not ++, that's not part of his name)Lar wrote was a flog (IMHO), but I also added that I thought it was more brag than flog. To make an (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) I'll second that. --Todd (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) I either lied or changed my mind. You decide. (...) Todd has been known to chance his mind, yes. Until he does, let's agree that by his definition, this was a flog. He said so in (URL) Lehman wrote: (...) Since Todd's definition is pretty much (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| I thought you weren't going to debate this? (...) Granted, but I do get to question the definition and point out where I think it's awry. Which is what I'm doing. (...) And Todd never changes his mind? Seemed to be != is, necessarily. (...) So (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) Unfortunately, you aren't the one who gets to define "flog" here. Todd is, and he weighed in and agreed that it seemed to be a flog. So, accept that the post in question was considered to be a flog, and probably shouldn't have been made in the (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) It must be a cultural thing - in the UK being called a brag really is an insult. I suppose we are a modest bunch. - nobody likes "the bray of bragging tongues." (...) I doubt a lawyer would advise you to break the law as the rules are "wrong". (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| Thank you, Rose, for taking the time to dig up the links to all of these posts... it was very thoughtful to put them in one place for folks to look at. Before reading the rest of this post, people may actually want to go review them again as my (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| I'd like to kick off a discussion about the current state of the newsgroup structure here -- missing groups, unnecessary, groups, annoyingly or confusingly named groups, etc. The goal of this discussion is to come away with a list of practical (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.announce, lugnet.org, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.loc.us, lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.off-topic.debate) !!
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) to (...) of (...) is (...) challenged. (...) Oh, Lar. You have had auction posts in Train that were "pseudo" information/auction posts. I personally feel that you toe the line on some of these and thus (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: IOLTC the final word!!!!!!!!
|
| (...) Hmm, thoughts on how to make a simple statement which has the necessary effect... One thought would be to disallow market posts in the "theme" groups. That would leave some holes in other groups, but most of those other groups wouldn't attract (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) It's Lar. ++ is the signature lead in, not part of the name. Thanks. (...) Yes, I am specifically saying that I disagree that it was intended to be such. Everything in it was put there to back up my assertion (boast) that the doodlebug is a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
|
