 | | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Something needs to be done. All of our e-mails are displayed here based on trust. If members here feel they have the right to abuse that trust, what sort of place will this become? This person has taken my details from this forum, and used (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) I found the following: Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Scott: (...) I don't see anything where he said he didn't want to actually recieve the email. I mean, I can imagine wanting to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) No. Remove "think". He SAID it. Either it is true, or he's a liar. (I am not going to argue epistemology with you on this) My mistake was twofold (1) First, forgetting that he's a consistent liar and thinking that I'd be doing him a service in (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) And that's what made you think he didn't want it. (...) Sure it can. But only if my reasoning is faulty. Point being that people aren't necessarily rational. If I'm mentally retarted perhaps I'll come to that conclusion. And perhaps as such (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | how to lie with statistics
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur twists reality thusly: (...) I post a lot. So any metric ought to be on a per post basis. That winnows it down significantly. Else we're saying that Johnny one post gets the nobel peace prize because his one (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) No. Because he SAID he didn't want it. (...) Actually, I apologised for neither of these reasons. I apologised because in hindsight it was a violation of his privacy to unsubscribe him, even if he *wanted* it done, which he said he did, just (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Yes you did. You acted because you *thought* that he didn't want it. And now you apologized. Which is *supposed* to mean that you agree that in retrospect, your action was incorrect in some way. Assumedly because you understand in hindsight (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) No, judge the outcome. He said it was junk. He said he didn't subscribe to it. He said he didn't want it. I acted based on that. I acted to ensure he wouldn't get something he said he didn't want. The *outcome* is he's not getting it any more, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Doesn't that invalidate your apology? Aren't you just saying "I'd do it again in a heartbeat?" Do you have the right to excersize that power over Scott's email account, regardless of whether or not he wants it? Maybe if you asked him (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Junk mail (was: Apology.)
|
|
(...) Your analogy is false. (...) You should share your perspective, then, in admin.terms, where this issue has been raised. I'm prepared to be ToSsed over it, as I've admitted that my anger at Scott when he lies about receiving junk email is so (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
