--- Jon Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In an attempt to answer this post, I did an "I Feel
> Lucky" search for "Hacking Defined" on Google:
>
> >From the Michigan Department of Natural Resources:
>
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12143_15425-35430--,00.html
>
> "Hacking" De
--- Jim Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Debbi
> >Galactic Moderate? Maru
>
> See, that's your problem. No one in the Four
> Galaxies listens to the moderates, you should know
> that! :-)
Well, even we Moderates are entitled to our
middle-of-the-road opinions! Heck, we can even poke
fu
Jon wrote:
In an attempt to answer this post, I did an "I Feel Lucky" search for
"Hacking Defined" on Google:
>From the Michigan Department of Natural Resources:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12143_15425-35430--,00.ht
ml
"Hacking" Defined
- Original Message -
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
> Ah, I thought you were only referring to my recent demands that :
>my posting
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
>>>I must once again insist that he be removed from his position.
>>
>>You make a lot of demands.
>>
>>Just an observation.
>
>Not that many, really. There are only a few demands, that get >repeated from time to
>time.
Hmm. Let's look at the past year.
Jim observed:
>
> J. van Baardwijk wrote:
> >I must once again insist that he be removed from his position.
>
> You make a lot of demands.
>
> Just an observation.
And, according to my newly installed mail filter (thanx to Julia and
The Fool, apologies to the list reiterated), he's still spoofing
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
>I must once again insist that he be removed from his position.
You make a lot of demands.
Just an observation.
Jim
___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
Jeroen said:
> As it obvious that he cannot be trusted with list-admin powers, I must
> once again insist that he be removed from his position.
Given that it's running on his server, I consider that unlikely. Again,
I'd suggest that if you'd like the list run some other way then you
should consid
William Taylor wrote:
>The Episiarch would never make donuts. He'd open up a dimensional
>portal and steal them right off of the Krispy Kreame's racks.
You know, if an episiarch could get me a regular supply of Krispy Kremes, I'd adopt
one of the shaggy lunatics tomorrow!
Assuming, of course,
In a message dated 12/6/2002 10:03:55 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Oo .Startide Rising battle plans.
> >
> > Time to wake the alien!
>
> Why? Does he need to make the donuts?
>
> (I swear, as soon as I read that last line, I had a flashback t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> damn.
>
> I thought this post might be about the Men at Arms military books.
>
> Oo .Startide Rising battle plans.
>
> Time to wake the alien!
Why? Does he need to make the donuts?
(I swear, as soon as I read that last line, I had a flashback to
damn.
I thought this post might be about the Men at Arms military books.
Oo .Startide Rising battle plans.
Time to wake the alien!
William Taylor
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Bradford DeLong wrote:
> >The nature and extent of this "attack" is being grossly exaggerated.
> >Arnett immediately assumed the worst, but the truth is that the
> >alleged "hacking" was very limited. In fact, I doubt it even
> >qualifies as "hacking". All I did was go to th
Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Bradford DeLong
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 11:14 PM
To: J. van Baardwijk
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
>At 11:31 06-12-2002 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
>
>>I'm disturbed by his bein
At 11:31 06-12-2002 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
I'm disturbed by his being blocked at chello.nl, but I'm more
disturbed that the list server was attacked from that isp.
The nature and extent of this "attack" is being grossly exaggerated.
Arnett immediately assumed the worst, but the truth is tha
- Original Message -
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 5:17 PM
Subject: RE: Admin: Server access blocked
> At 13:11 06-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
> >I'd like to make it c
- Original Message -
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
> At 11:31 06-12-2002 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
>
> >I'm disturbed by his b
>Debbi
>Galactic Moderate? Maru
See, that's your problem. No one in the Four Galaxies listens to the moderates, you
should know that! :-)
Jim
___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 02:12:06AM +0100, Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten
wrote:
> Some people can handle when their buttonss are consciously being
> pushed by others and realised they are being baited and act
> accordingly, some can't.
And some people need to learn how to handle being teased (especia
Julia Thompson wrote:
> Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
> >
> > Julia Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
> > >
> > > > So just for the record I also clearly remember Erik for one being particularly
> > > > nasty and very childish in harrasing Jeroen even after several re
Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 06:53:41PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> > Did this happen since the list was moved onto Nick's mccmedia.com
> > server?
>
> That's irrelevant, because the posts she is referring to were not
> equivalent to what Jeroen was doing anyway. I made a few
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
>
> Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> > Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
> >
> > > So just for the record I also clearly remember Erik for one being particularly
> > > nasty and very childish in harrasing Jeroen even after several repeated requests
> > > from a lot of l
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 06:53:41PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> Did this happen since the list was moved onto Nick's mccmedia.com
> server?
That's irrelevant, because the posts she is referring to were not
equivalent to what Jeroen was doing anyway. I made a few teasing posts
in response to som
Julia Thompson wrote:
> Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
>
> > So just for the record I also clearly remember Erik for one being particularly
> > nasty and very childish in harrasing Jeroen even after several repeated requests
> > from a lot of listmembers to cut it out and leave Jeroen alone. St
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
> So just for the record I also clearly remember Erik for one being particularly
> nasty and very childish in harrasing Jeroen even after several repeated requests
> from a lot of listmembers to cut it out and leave Jeroen alone. Strangly enough
> that never had a
--- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 6/12/02 4:34 am, Deborah Harrell at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > But her post _does_ express the 'prairie chicken
> > effect' nicely...
>
> What is the 'prairie chicken effect' ?
Sorry, that wouuld be quite obtuse if you hadn't read
the "
> -Original Message-
> From: J. van Baardwijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 2:47 PM
...
> This is not correct. Arnett wants me to "demonstrate a willingness and
> ability to refrain from personal attacks, harassment, etc.", but he
> persists in refusing to t
Jon Gabriel wrote:
> >From: Jean-Louis Couturier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
> >Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:43:27 -0500
> >
> >At 21:26 2002-12-04 -0600, Marvin wrote:
> >
> >>At this point I'd say that
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Jean-Louis Couturier
> ... and never once apologized for his
> obvious error. So, I think the
> > pig-headedness that you're commending him for is seriously
> misplaced, at
> least on the nuclear fro
"K. Feete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To be honest, I was considering defending Jeroen, until I started
getting the endless stream of emails
I still can't figure out what's going on
... none of you are kids - in fact, most of you are twice my age -
For God
From: Jean-Louis Couturier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:17:30 -0500
At 11:31 2002-12-06 -0500, Jon wrote:
> IIRC, and I believe I do so quite correctly since I remember voicing my
objection to his attitude
> on the list, Je
on 6/12/02 4:34 am, Deborah Harrell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But her post _does_ express the 'prairie chicken
> effect' nicely...
What is the 'prairie chicken effect' ?
--
William T Goodall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/
___
ht
At 11:31 2002-12-06 -0500, Jon wrote:
> IIRC, and I believe I do so quite correctly since I remember voicing my
objection to his attitude
> on the list, Jeroen was the very first >person to mention nuking
Afghanistan. He wasn't advocating
> that we do so, but instead posted that he assumed that
From: Jean-Louis Couturier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:43:27 -0500
At 21:26 2002-12-04 -0600, Marvin wrote:
At this point I'd say that if someone disagrees, it's his obligation to
say so.
Marvin Long
Austin, Te
At 21:26 2002-12-04 -0600, Marvin wrote:
At this point I'd say that if someone disagrees, it's his obligation to
say so.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA)
OK then, I disagree. This whole situation is giving me the creeps.
Unlike most people,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:37:46PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> p.s. I have PMS -- how's *that* for a disclaimer?
A more practical disclaimer than most that I've read...
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
> Partly because I find open conflict very
> difficult - and disturbing - to deal with. [Duh.]
Me too. In the chat yesterday, I promised to write an email
that would at least *attempt* to smooth things over. I've
been working on it all day, and I'm still not satisified
w
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> K. Feete wrote:
>
> > Maybe it's just that between school and bad work
> habits coming back on
> > me and a truly incredible streak of bad luck I'm
> closer to a nervous
> > breakdown than I've ever been,
>
> Interesting preface for someone who goes on
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:44:40PM -0500, K. Feete wrote:
>
> > Maybe it's just that between school and bad work habits coming back on
> > me and a truly incredible streak of bad luck I'm closer to a nervous
> > breakdown than I've ever been,
>
> Interesting preface for so
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:44:40PM -0500, K. Feete wrote:
> Maybe it's just that between school and bad work habits coming back on
> me and a truly incredible streak of bad luck I'm closer to a nervous
> breakdown than I've ever been,
Interesting preface for someone who goes on to offer advice...
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>I begin to understand why Jeroen was singled-out to
>be the victim-of-the-day. Some reasons are obvious:
>he *was* a listowner, so our meme of challenge
>authority took control. Others are subtle.
>
>And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing,
>lawsuits, a
- Original Message -
From: "Gary Nunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 5:05 PM
Subject: RE: Admin: Server access blocked
> > Speaking of childish, isn't doing more than tit-for-tat (i.e., rejecting
&
> Speaking of childish, isn't doing more than tit-for-tat (i.e., rejecting
> each one back to him just once) childish? :) Wouldn't it be a lot more
> effective to set up some sort of system that just bounces everything he
> sends you back to him, so you never have to worry about it after setting
Debbi said:
> I just got TEN of these in a row - what is going on?
Some might view it as a mailing list equivalent of the French
Revolution. Others may well consider it escalating childishness.
Rich
GCU Who Will Be Our Napoleon?
___
http://www.mccmed
--- "Adam C. Lipscomb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
I just got TEN of
I wrote:
> That should be "lose," of course. Darn that Nyarlathotep.
Erik replied:
Darn that WHAT? I can't find it in my dictionary. Maybe I'm missing a
play on words?
Nyarlathotep is one of the "elder gods," along with
Cthulhu and others, in the stories of H. P. Lovecraft.
In a message wit
"Adam C. Lipscomb" wrote:
>
> Please accept my apologies for this - I have started sending at least
> 5 replies to Jeroen for every spam I get, and he has apparently,
> through a simple (and childish) trick, ensured they come to the list
> as a whole.
Speaking of childish, isn't doing more than t
> From: J. van Baardwijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> >But what about attempts to hack the server?
>
> That is something that happened *only* because Arnett
> willingly violated
> list policy again, so he has no right to take any action
> against me anyway.
Isn't that a bit like saying tha
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> You are a very evil person...
I try, thank you.
[blinks innocently]
> My point is that it's not fair to ban Jeroen without
> the consent about the list rules. We didn't agree to
> what would be the list rules, and which was the minimum
> set of
"Adam C. Lipscomb" wrote:
> Please accept my apologies for this - I have started sending at least
> 5 replies to Jeroen for every spam I get, and he has apparently,
> through a simple (and childish) trick, ensured they come to the list
> as a whole.
I don't think it was intended as a trick. And
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote:
> > That should be "lose," of course. Darn that Nyarlathotep.
Erik Reuter wrote:
> Darn that WHAT? I can't find it in my dictionary. Maybe
> I'm missing a play on words?
Nyarlathotep was the name of a chaotic god-like character
f
Erik wondered:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Reggie >
Bautista wrote:
> > That should be "lose," of course. Darn that
> > Nyarlathotep.
> Darn that WHAT? I can't find it in my dictionary.
> Maybe I'm missing a play on words?
http://www.deliverance.mcmail.com/lovecraft/nyarl
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:37 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Gabriel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:32 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
>
>
> >From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subje
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote:
> That should be "lose," of course. Darn that Nyarlathotep.
Darn that WHAT? I can't find it in my dictionary. Maybe I'm missing a
play on words?
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
__
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:52:47 -0600
- Original Message -
From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Admin: Serve
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>
> Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> >> Why was he suspended in the first place? AFAIK,
> >> it was for some reason that *did* have a precedent
> >> before, from other people.
> >
> > Who else has repeatedly posted offline email in its entireity?
> >
> Jeroen.
>
> And wtf does the
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Alberto Monteiro
...
>
> My point is that it's not fair to ban Jeroen without
> the consent about the list rules. We didn't agree to
> what would be the list rules, and which was the minimum
> set of
- Original Message -
From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
> Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> >> Why was he suspended in the first place?
I wrote:
If I make a really big mistake and
cause a customer to loose several thousand dollars
worth of business, I could get seriously reprimanded
or possibly even fired.
That should be "lose," of course. Darn that Nyarlathotep.
This, by the way, would count as a really small mistake. :-)
M
Sorry, I meant to include this in my previous email
but it got deleted somehow.
Alberto wrote:
Jeroen's behavious was no different than any other
listmember, except for magnitude or intensity.
But magnitude and intensity make all the difference.
Many U.S. cities have noise ordinances. With so
Alberto wrote:
> Jeroen's behavious was no different than any other
> listmember, except for magnitude or intensity.
> If there's no law against drinking alchool, then
> there's no law against getting drunk
That's true, but, at least in the US, there are laws
against being drunk & disorderly i
Alberto wrote:
If there's no law against drinking alchool, then
there's no law against getting drunk
This is a flawed analogy.
In the U.S. at least, there's no law against drinking
alcohol, and no law against getting drunk, but there
are laws against driving while drunk and many
jurisdictions ha
Dan Minette wrote:
>
>> Why was he suspended in the first place? AFAIK,
>> it was for some reason that *did* have a precedent
>> before, from other people.
>
> Who else has repeatedly posted offline email in its entireity?
>
Jeroen.
And wtf does the list have to worry about something th
- Original Message -
From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
> Reggie Bautista wrote:
> >
> >> And his behaviour in the past da
Ritu Ko wrote:
>
> PS - Apologies for all those repeated messages guys.
> My Outlook seems to be acing up.
>
No problem. The server will block any repeated message.
Or not? O:-)
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/br
Reggie Bautista wrote:
>
>> And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing,
>> lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very
>> tasty target! Who's better to be harassed as someone
>> who screams and shouts?
>
> So you don't think there should be consequences for
> his actions?
>
Y
Dan Minette wrote:
> 2) You could start a good discussion with that 100k exposition on the
> morality of pacifism that you've been owning me. .
And which one would that be?
All I can see in my drafts folder is an unfinished 11k mail on a war
that looks nigh inevitable. :)
And since it took
Alberto wrote:
My point is that it's not fair to ban Jeroen without
the consent about the list rules. We didn't agree to
what would be the list rules, and which was the minimum
set of restraint that listmembers should show before
being suspended
And even 40 messages per day can't be considered
m
Richard Baker wrote:
My worst case scenario involves giant asteroids, gamma ray bursts,
all-out nuclear exchanges, plague, famine, brain-eating zombie
infestations, leaves on the line, and Steps reforming.
Have you been hacking into my home pc and reading my new novel? :-)
Reggie Bautista
GSV N
Alberto wrote:
I begin to understand why Jeroen was singled-out to
be the victim-of-the-day. Some reasons are obvious:
he *was* a listowner, so our meme of challenge
authority took control. Others are subtle.
And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing,
lawsuits, and forged headers, make
"Marvin Long, Jr." wrote:
>
>> PS: I am _also_ a meme-stereotype. If everybody is
>> against Jeroen, then I must stand to be the Defender
>> of the Lost Cause :-)
>
> Does that mean you don't actually disagree with
> Nick's decision, but are only protesting pro forma
> in your role as
unsubscribe jeroen-l
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
- Original Message -
From: "Ritu Ko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:37 AM
Subject: RE: Admin: Server access blocked
>
> Rich wrote:
>
> > unsubscribe jeroen-l
>
> Me too.
>
Two comments on
Rich wrote:
> unsubscribe jeroen-l
Me too.
Ritu
GCU Please
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Rich wrote:
> unsubscribe jeroen-l
Me too.
Ritu
GCU Please
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> PS: I am _also_ a meme-stereotype. If everybody is
> against Jeroen, then I must stand to be the Defender
> of the Lost Cause :-)
Does that mean you don't actually disagree with Nick's decision, but are
only protesting pro forma in your role as Of
unsubscribe jeroen-l
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Rich wrote:
> My worst case scenario involves giant asteroids, gamma ray bursts,
> all-out nuclear exchanges, plague, famine, brain-eating zombie
> infestations, leaves on the line, and Steps reforming.
>
> Rich
> GCU And The Universal Adoption Of Imperial Units
And the wombats?
Ritu
GCU You Ca
Alberto said:
> Worst case scenario will be things getting out of
> the Cyberspace, like Digimon 3.
My worst case scenario involves giant asteroids, gamma ray bursts,
all-out nuclear exchanges, plague, famine, brain-eating zombie
infestations, leaves on the line, and Steps reforming.
Rich
GCU
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> Things would be different if I were the list-tyrant.
> I would ban everybody who sent messages using the
> horrible imperial units
So you admit that not all imperial units are horrible? Never thought I'd see
the day!
Ray.
___
Ray Ludenia wrote:
>
>> Which is why I think this will escalate
>> to Jeroen's final ban - another symptom that the list
>> is dying.
>
> The symptom that the list is dying is that yet again
> we are involved in endlessly discussing one particular
> person and his actions and other's
>
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> Which is why I think this will escalate
> to Jeroen's final ban - another symptom that the list
> is dying.
The symptom that the list is dying is that yet again we are involved in
endlessly discussing one particular person and his actions and other's
reactions. Enough
Ritu Ko wrote:
>
>>> But isn't that assuming that his cause is lost? :)
>>
>> Of course it is a lost. It will escalate forever.
>> Probably it will end up in splitting the list in
>> two - the best scenario, the other scenarios are
>> worse.
>
> It would end up *splitting* the lis
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> > But isn't that assuming that the rest of us are
> > incapable of disapproving of the deeds without
> > hating the doer? :)
> >
> Yes. Which makes Me the only Saint in the list :-P
Ahem.
It would, if it were true. It *isn't* true, so you *aren't*. :P
> > But i
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:50:19AM -0200, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> Maybe I confused the terms. Is there any precise definition?
Probably not as precise as you want. But I think the usual use of
"harass" implies repeated, unwanted action or attention (in some manner)
and with intent to harm.
Tea
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
>> And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing,
>> lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very tasty
>> target! Who's better to be
>> harassed as someone who screams and shouts?
>
> Actually, it is the reverse. What better pe
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:53:46AM -0200, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing, lawsuits, and
> forged headers, make him a very tasty target! Who's better to be
> harassed as someone who screams and shouts?
Actually, it
Ritu Ko wrote:
>
>> I begin to understand why Jeroen was singled-out to
>> be the victim-of-the-day.
>
> Was he?
>
Yes.
>> And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing,
>> lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very
>> tasty target! Who's better to be harassed as someone
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> I begin to understand why Jeroen was singled-out to
> be the victim-of-the-day.
Was he?
Admittedly I have only been re-subbed here for a few months, I have not
had much time to devote to Brin-L mail but I seem to have missed the
singling-out.
> And his behaviour in t
David Hobby wrote:
>
>>> This is an action that I take only with GREAT
>>> reluctance. However, neither Julia nor I is
>>> willing to endure harassment of this kind.
>
>> I imagine that you have collect a lot of interesting
>> material for your study of internet communities and
>> how
- Original Message -
From: "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:39 PM
Subject: RE: Admin: Server access blocked
> A while ago an escalating series of temporary bans - a week, two weeks, a
> mont
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Nick Arnett wrote:
> I hope that helps somehow. I'm always open to suggestions on how to make
> the difficult trade-off between list governance and free-ranging discussion,
> self-determination as a group, etc.
A while ago an escalating series of temporary bans - a week, two
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Jim Sharkey
...
> If we are talking about a permanent ban, then I'd have to
> disagree. As much as I think he doesn't know when to just say
> he's sorry and admit he might have been wrong in his appro
Marvin Long, Jr. wrote:
>At this point I'd say that if someone disagrees, it's his
>obligation to say so.
If we are talking about a permanent ban, then I'd have to disagree. As much as I
think he doesn't know when to just say he's sorry and admit he might have been wrong
in his approach, I s
AIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Admin: Server access blocked
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:39:03 -0500
Not that this will be a surprise to anyone, but I completely support
Nick and Julia.
Jon
GSV ...For The Good Of The List...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mai
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, David Hobby wrote:
> I guess that I support Nick's action, anyway I gave up and
> killfiled Jeroen for keeps weeks ago. We keep kicking around ideas
> on easy ways to collectively deal with individuals who do
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, David Hobby wrote:
> I guess that I support Nick's action, anyway I gave up and
> killfiled Jeroen for keeps weeks ago. We keep kicking around ideas
> on easy ways to collectively deal with individuals who don't
> respect etiquette. But until we do come up with one tha
> Nick Arnett wrote:
> >
> >This is an action that I take only with GREAT reluctance. However, neither
> >Julia nor I is willing to endure harassment of this kind.
...
> I imagine that you have collect a lot of interesting material for your
> study of internet communities and how they deal with a
Russell Chapman wrote:
Sonja
GCU smileys are our friends
And that's the best news I've heard all day... I'd hate to miss out on
your next plumbing adventure. I'm waiting to hear that having sorted
out the water supply, the drains are all broken, or the floor has
collapsed, or any of those mi
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
