 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | (...) I'd prefer to (...) This is exactly why Lugnet has not published a list of no-no words. But really, is there anyone here who doesn't know that f**k is a bad word? I think the only two words that would get you an email from an admin are f**k (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET —Ray Sanders
|
| | | | | (...) Perhaps some folks would rather be explicitely controlled than to be scolded. I think it is partially a psychological expression. One the one hand "we don't put up with this here and we do whatever is necessary *immediately* to modify (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET —Derek Schin
|
| | | | | (...) Well, I'm pretty sure LUGNET isn't draconian; at least, I'm fairly certain that admins aren't running around lopping lugnetter fingers off for violating the ToS. However, I'd definitely describe the system (as put forth by Lar in his email to (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | In lugnet.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote: **SNIP of some good stuff illustrating why it's kind** **of silly to decry LUGNET as an "Orwellian" entity** (...) Just a minor point--I don't believe that Richard ever publicly declared a belief that the (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | (...) You missed the point of my post Lenny. I contend that not everyone thinks that the word you mentioned above is "bad" in every context. There shouldn't be a silver bullet policy that put you into "bad" territory just for writing a word. In (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
