| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron wrote:
| |
I completely agree he was rabble rousing and fully aware of it. Also
arguably as egregious with its “in your face” attitude was his flaunting the
fact that he was posting with a dead email address and not providing a good
one.
|
I think it would be instructive for you and everyone else that is concerned
about this matter (all 3 of you :-) ) to review Todd’s original
post especially the last
sentence: “However, in the process I expect you in turn to respect the ToS”
...and then think about how one would go about meeting that expectation, were
one inclined to do so.
My analysis of Richard’s responses in that thread and elsewhere is that he’s not
so inclined (to want to demonstrate that he intends to comply, or to, in the
long run, actually comply.). For if he was he would have already been explicit
in his statements, that he recognises he’s wrong and recognises that if he does
it again he’s gone. Instead he rejected all of the conditions that I proposed,
which include those.
| |
If I were Todd he’d get the ban for a significant but finite period, and by
accepting his posting reinstatement privileges he would be agreeing that he
cannot violate the TOS again or else face a permanent ban. All of your
requirements that he understands he broke the rules and cannot do it again
would implicitly apply.
|
As I said before, I think explicitness is called for, in the face of past
behaviour. This is not his first time out here or elsewhere, you know. He has a
history of taking badly to being questioned about motives or intent or
willingness to comply with rules, even by those empowered to do so, and even in
the face of complaints.
But it’s all moot, I expect.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
