 | | 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: 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)
| |
