 | | Unsubscribe from the LP newsletter
|
|
I checked. Scott is not subscribed to the LP newsletter under the current email tag on his post: eh105jb@mx1.pair.com... but he WAS subscribed under a tag that was in use some time ago. Not any more. Note that I only tried one address, I don't have (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | infringement of my privacy
|
|
(...) What gives you the right to delete that? Did I even imply I wanted you to? Is this the kind of thing you normally do? I see this as a gross infringement of my privacy. I demand an apology. (...) I think I have 3 id's on Lugnet. One I can no (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Apology.
|
|
I apologise. It was forward of me to try to assist you and I regret any inconvenience it may have caused you, because your words did not match your desires, and I made the mistake of taking you at your word, something I promise I will be more (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
Larry, You invade my privacy. You act on my behalf without my permission. You then, to top it all off, dress insults and weasel words up as an apology. What is one to think of you? Do you have no self respect? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Unsubscribe from the LP newsletter
|
|
I wonder if Todd &/or Suz intend that members should use the e-mail addresses of posters in this way? I expect not. Is it even within the TofU? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Junk mail (was: Apology.)
|
|
(...) Well, many people I know still complain about junk snail mail, but can't be bothered putting a "no junk mail" sign on their letter box. They just throw the junk straight in the recycle bin. Maybe they think one day they'll get something (...) (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)
|
| |
| | 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: 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.
|
|
(...) 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. 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.
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | 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.
|
|
(...) 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: Junk mail (was: Apology.)
|
|
(...) Sigh. Where have I lied now? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Did I say I do not want it? Did I really say that? Where? (...) I assume you unsubscribed me from here: (URL) the test on that page: "Use these forms to manage *your* subscription to announce@lp.org, the Libertarian Party's news, updates and (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Did I say I do not want it? Did I really say that? Where? (...) I assume you unsubscribed me from here: (URL) the test on that page: "Use these forms to manage *your* subscription to announce@lp.org, the Libertarian Party's news, updates and (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Where did I say that? Where? (...) Where did I say that? Where? (...) Where did I say that? Where? (...) Where did I say I wanted to unsubscribe? All junk mail is this “Unsolicited commercial mail”. Unsolicited means not asked for - it does (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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.
|
|
(...) "consistent liar" can you justify that? You really are slime. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Perhaps he should have. (...) No. What would the point of that be? I'll even admit I subcribe to "talk.politics.libertarian " for the bile. (...) I did not. (...) Thank you. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
My My, someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.... I normally stay out of debate, I don't need anymore crap in my life, though you brought this into the public forum where I do read, and of course, I had to go back and look at the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Dave sums it up: (URL) did what he did *knowing* it breaks the ToU here. He did what he did *knowing* it was a violation of my privacy rights. He did what he did in his usual belligerent manner: ==+== See, I march to my own metronome, and the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Actually, I think you're both wrong. I just reveiwed the terms of use, and there is nothing in there about e-mail addresses, except the requirement to have a valid one in your posting ID. So if you still feel that Larry violated your privacy, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) I refuse to support the banning of one member of Lugnet over a dispute with another member of Lugnet unless both parties are banned together. So I think you should be more careful of the things you are seeking to achieve because you will end (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) I believe you are incorrect. First, if it's against the spirit of the ToU for a spammer to harvest email addresses against the will of the participants, it's against the spirit of the ToU for an UNspammer to harvest a single email address (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Possibly. It's a very grey area. (OBDisclaimer: I'm only really arguing this to refine my understanding of what the ToU might mean in a fairly grey area.) (...) It is unreasonable to hold Lugnet's ToU to any authority beyond Lugnet, so the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Larry, by your own measure, you are a bare faced liar. Calling me a "liar" without being willing to justify it in any way does nothing but emphasis that point. You are deluded. You need help. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
Hmm.. this is interesting. Are you saying that you did not write this: "Ban him. Scott A FUT lugent.admin.general x-posted to .general, as this is an issue which concerns us all... or at least is should." (...) Personally, I think Scott should be (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) 1. I set follow-ups to admin.general: (URL) Tamara replies to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general: (URL) I replied to Tamara's post without noticing the FUT & I apologise: (URL) James gives me a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
