 | | Re: Apology. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | (...) 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. —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) 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. —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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. —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Apology. —Alfred Speredelozzi
|
| | | | | | 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. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Apology. —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
