--- Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> >So, I ask again, what are the objections to making the Yahoo archive
> >private?
>
> I know a few people who lurk by reading the Yahoo archive.
>
All the lists I am on are yahoo friendly, but I can't seem to get this one to
work a
At 06:52 PM 6/17/03 -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote:
Doug wrote:
So, I ask again, what are the objections to making the Yahoo archive private?
I know a few people who lurk by reading the Yahoo archive.
And in the words of the Zen hot dog vendor: "Change must come from within."
-- Ronn! :)
God b
Doug wrote:
So, I ask again, what are the objections to making the Yahoo archive
private?
I know a few people who lurk by reading the Yahoo archive.
Reggie Bautista
_
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
htt
Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 10:26:56PM +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote:
>
>> Suggestion to Nick: Set up a filter that automatically rejects any
>> message with that particular keyword in it. Probably reduce list
>> traffic by half,
>
> Nick, I am against this.
Me too!
Regards, Ray.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Erik Reuter
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 6:20 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Interpreting language (was RE: A friendly request JVB)
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 20
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 10:26:56PM +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote:
> Suggestion to Nick: Set up a filter that automatically rejects any
> message with that particular keyword in it. Probably reduce list
> traffic by half,
Nick, I am against this. We shouldn't restrict what people can say in
their messa
Ray Ludenia wrote:
> Suggestion to Nick: Set up a filter that automatically rejects any message
> with that particular keyword in it.
Duh..
I mean any message to the list, not to Nick personally.
> Probably reduce list traffic by half,
> but would remove an awful lot of aggravation as new peopl
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> The current spate of multiple copies of multiple messages to the private
> accounts of everyone on the list started after _one_ mention of Jeroen in a
> list message. Is it realistic to expect that no one will ever mention his
> name again, even in a neutral or even posi
At 03:43 PM 6/15/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
--- Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 01:08 PM 6/15/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> >You still don't get that form jeroen (and other's) perspecitve what was
> >done to him did appear to be abusive.
[Ronn!:]
> Did you read the copies of h
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Gary Nunn
...
> He made a peace offering. Regardless of how he worded it, it is a peace
> offering none the less. He specifically said that he was not making
> threats, but merely having insight into what
Erik wrote
> It seems you are a sucker for whining.
> You are being naive.
> That's all I'm going to say to you about this.
Erik, you are clearly an intelligent person and I have always enjoyed
reading your posts - even when you are being abrasive, so please know
that this next comment was
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 10:57:52PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote:
> Erik, you also accused me of making the situation worse by encouraging
> his (Jeroen's) behavior. I may not be the most intelligent person
> on this list, but I fail to see how giving someone the benefit of
> the doubt is encouraging bad
Jan wrote
> > Can we all just agree to his proposal and end this thing?
Erik replied
> No. For the last time, Jan, his proposal amounts to
> blackmail. I and others have explained this. YOU, Jan, are
> making this worse by encouraging his behavior. Since you are
> so fond of extrapol
- Original Message -
From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: Interpreting language (was RE: A friendly request JVB)
> While every person must be responsible
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 03:43:13PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> How far down does one have to go, before you let them starT to climb
> back up?
He CAN "climb back up". You are not listening, Jan. I posted one way he
can do it (others agreed or mentioned similar ways he could show that he
made an ef
--- Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 01:08 PM 6/15/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> >You still don't get that form jeroen (and other's) perspecitve what was
> done
> >to him did appear to be abusive.
>
>
> Did you read the copies of his messages I sent you off-list? Do I need to
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 03:22:08PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> You can see how some people would find offensive what other do to be
> curtious. Can you not extrapolate from that point?
Can you not see that encouraging threats and harrassment is a bad
policy?
I'm not sure why you assume you are th
I haven't commented on-list about this latest incident
because I truly don't like confrontation, and I
usually try to avoid what I think might escalate
tensions as well.
I don't like having expletives SHOUTED at me, or
threats, especially when I've done nothing to deserve
such treatment; I made s
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan,
>
> All I can say is: uh. You are right that we live in separate worlds.
> Almost every sentence you wrote is from a different reality than I live
> in. Nick was perfectly right and reasonable in everything he wrote.
That's kind of the point.
At 01:08 PM 6/15/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
You still don't get that form jeroen (and other's) perspecitve what was done
to him did appear to be abusive.
Did you read the copies of his messages I sent you off-list? Do I need to
send you copies of the rest of the messages he sent to the list i
Jan,
All I can say is: uh. You are right that we live in separate worlds.
Almost every sentence you wrote is from a different reality than I live
in. Nick was perfectly right and reasonable in everything he wrote.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
Jan wrote:
> You still don't get that form jeroen (and other's) perspecitve what
was done
> to him did appear to be abusive. Can you not step outside your
norms, outside
> your own feelings and history? Can you not stretch to view anothers
> perspecitve? Maybe that skill is something you learn when
I could have responded to any number of posts but I am responding directly to
this one becouse it is the easiest to include everything I wish to say.
I would like to note here that I strongly disagree with JvB's ideas and
opinions on almost every political topic and many other topics as well, and
Erik:
When I've wanted to search various mailing list archives, I've found it
extremely annoying when the archive is private. I don't like it.
Besides, there is more than the Yahoo archive to consider (mail archive,
which cannot be private).
and Nick wrote:
It wouldn't help. The list is fundamen
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
...
>I just don't believe
> > he'll stay away from the list like he says he will. As long as he has
> > access to the archives on Yahoo... I believe that he has the
> will to stay
> >
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 10:31:47AM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> So, I ask again, what are the objections to making the Yahoo archive
> private?
When I've wanted to search various mailing list archives, I've found it
extremely annoying when the archive is private. I don't like it.
Besides, ther
Michael Harney wrote:
I just don't believe
he'll stay away from the list like he says he will. As long as he has
access to the archives on Yahoo... I believe that he has the will to stay
away if he wanted to, but I don't see him wanting to, especially as he makes
another plee to be let back on-
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Jan Coffey
...
> I believe Jeroen to be sincere, and I would like to add my own caution.
Sincerity is not the only issue in a situation like this. I don't think a
community is obligated to tolerate some
By the way, Gary, I have read your messages and I am quite disappointed
at the attitudes shown. You are making things worse. Don't encourage
harrassment by making concessions to it. Don't interpret demands and
veiled threats as goodwill.
Please?
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http:/
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:19:46AM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote:
> We could certainly pick apart his words and interpret them in many
> different ways,
As you apparently do.
> but lets view this recent development as a potentially positive and
> good thing instead.
I rather prefer reality, myself. Wh
From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I don't know that I trust him to live up to his end. As long as he has
access to the list archives, I don't trust him to truly leave the list
alone. I am fine with the suggestion. The way I see it, the list was
already living up to that until he rang b
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 10:33:57AM -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> > We must have read different messages. What I read was, "do
> what I want
> > you to do, or else [despite the fact that I have
> consistently refused
> > reasonable requests from numerous others to stop my own
> various poor
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 10:33:57AM -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
> We must have read different messages. What I read was, "do what I want
> you to do, or else [despite the fact that I have consistently refused
> reasonable requests from numerous others to stop my own various
> poor behaviors], and if
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 10:15:12AM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote:
> I have read the replies to this email, and I am a bit disappointed at
> the attitudes shown - justified or not.
>
> This seems to be a sincere and reasonable suggestion, so my personal
> reply is simply. "yes, please".
>
> Does it re
Jeroen wrote.
> I recommend that you accept this offer -- otherwise things
> can and probably
> will only escalate even further (no, that's not a threat,
> that's insight
> into how conflicts can escalate) and nobody stands to gain
> anything from
> that. Don't demand apologies; this is
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 04:06:19AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
> Let him take down the page and _permanently_ stop harassing us and
> I'll never mention his name anywhere, ever again.
Well said, Jon. The statement quoted above goes for me, too.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://w
From: Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A friendly request JVB
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 19:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Before you go and trash this message, I would request that you read i
Jan Coffey wrote:
Fine, an occasional forward is not a problem, at least in my
opinion.
> ---
> I'll leave you alone if you leave me alone. This means that you will
> cease complaining to any and all companies I do business with (ISP's, hosting
> compan
Kevin wrote:
> So because his name was mentioned, he has to start spamming people
NOT on
> his normal mailing list.
>
> Yep, he's right, it's all our fault.
>
> Kevin T. - VRWC
> Spare me.
I'm in agreement - the spamming wasn't started by anyone on this list.
I complained to his ISP only when he
That's all fine, but I'll make the big mistake here: he started it this time.
From Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 16:07:58 +0200
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Plonkworthy?
> The listmember informed me that my "intollerance" was reminiscent of J
Before you go and trash this message, I would request that you read it to the
end.
Jeroen van Baardwijk has something he would like to say to this list.
I don't know what the rules are about this sort of thing, but I think that
you will agree that if there are such rules this should be the except
41 matches
Mail list logo
