| |
In lugnet.loc.au, Peter Callaway writes:
> > In lugnet.loc.au, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> This comes back to an issue I raised a while ago.
> http://www.lugnet.com/admin/terms/?n=86 (and follow the thread through)
>
> > > Write me when you've (collectively) decided that you (as a group) feel
> > > assured that Mark can and will play fair (by the rules) and I'll turn his
> > > posting privileges back on, based on your good word as a group.
It's difficult to vouch for someone who lives 1000km away (lots of miles!)
Surely a stiffer penalty would have been to ban him from everywhere except
loc.au or even just Brisbane.
> However, to get back on-topic (or where I want to take this topic), my initial
> comments a month ago were that the most frequent users of loc.au (largely, but
> not necessarily only, Australians) don't mind these sorts of posts in the
> loc.au group. I personally welcome them as I tend not to frequent the market
> groups due to lack of relevance, since they are mainly dominated by US-related
> market issues, and you could argue that a post about sales/auctions in
> Australia are relevant to the loc.au group.
>
> As a regular contributor to the loc.au group I would rather we petition Todd
> to alter the T&C's to allow market posts in the loc.au group rather than
> collectively vouch for MarkH not violating these same T&C's again.
This is the key issue here. Not what Mark will/will not do, let's just move
the goalposts.
Here's the wedding ceremony clause: anyone from loc.au who is averse to
market-related posts should speak now or forever...
> If things got out of hand we could always revert back, but I doubt this would
> happen given the distinct lack of market activity in Australia (but that's
> another issue ;-)
>
> I don't want to see a loc.au.market group created as we already have too many
> groups under loc.au for the number of regular contributors (although we are
> growing :-). If Todd feels it is necessary to create this group, then I would
> suggest closing a few of the other sub-groups and maintaining only the
> state/territory groups.
One ng per state is definitely enough, otherwise most will be talking to
themselves.
>
> Comments, anyone???
Mark's not the messiah(he's just...),he does have the no.2 collection in Oz.
I cant see the sandgroper optometrist siblings posting in the future.
pete.w <aquanaut@optusnet.com.au>
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
17 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
