| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) writes:
> [...]
> If the community held a vote, and reached a consensus on what to do (via at
> least a 2/3 majority), I would honor the community's decision to remove JW's
> posting privileges (to whatever groups were decided upon), if it came down
> to that. The vote itself (at the discretion of the community) could of
> course be further restricted to, say, a 3/4 or 4/5 majority (or higher),
> thus making expulsion a bit more difficult.
> [...]
BTW, if the group does decide to hold a vote on this, I'll be sitting on the
sideline -- I won't be casting a vote on this.
For the record, however -- and this is only my opinion having followed this
very closely since its inception -- I do think that this has gone on far too
long; that the group has already given JW more than enough chances to shape
up over the past several months; that the group has shown JW extraordinary
levels of kindness and tolerance, only to have it thrown back in the group's
face; that JW has failed to defend his wildly unorthodox approaches; that JW
has done more harm than good to the group and its future; and that there
remains little hope that the situation could anytime soon be ameliorated
without either a magic spell or a drastic measure by the group.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) Well, yes and no, right? * Yes in the sense that "ostracism" means (1) "a method of temporary banishment by popular vote without trial or special accusation practiced in ancient Greece" and (2) "exclusion by general consent from common (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
146 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
