Re: Ospreys (Was: RE: Admin: Server access blocked)

2002-12-09 Thread Deborah Harrell
--- 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

Re: Galactic Moderates (Was Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked)

2002-12-09 Thread Deborah Harrell
--- 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

Re: Ospreys (Was: RE: Admin: Server access blocked)

2002-12-08 Thread Reggie Bautista
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-07 Thread Robert Seeberger
- 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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-07 Thread Jim Sharkey
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.

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-07 Thread Adam C. Lipscomb
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-07 Thread Jim Sharkey
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! ___

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-07 Thread Richard Baker
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

Re: Ospreys (Was: RE: Admin: Server access blocked)

2002-12-06 Thread Jim Sharkey
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,

Re: Ospreys (Was: RE: Admin: Server access blocked)

2002-12-06 Thread Medievalbk
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

Re: Ospreys (Was: RE: Admin: Server access blocked)

2002-12-06 Thread Julia Thompson
[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

Re: Ospreys (Was: RE: Admin: Server access blocked)

2002-12-06 Thread Medievalbk
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Marvin Long, Jr.
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

Ospreys (Was: RE: Admin: Server access blocked)

2002-12-06 Thread Jon Gabriel
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Bradford DeLong
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Robert Seeberger
- 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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Robert Seeberger
- 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

Galactic Moderates (Was Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked)

2002-12-06 Thread Jim Sharkey
>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! ___

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Erik Reuter
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Julia Thompson
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Erik Reuter
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Julia Thompson
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

Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Deborah Harrell
--- 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 "

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Nick Arnett
> -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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten
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

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Nick Arnett
> -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

Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Robert J. Chassell
"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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Jon Gabriel
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

Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked

2002-12-06 Thread William T Goodall
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Jean-Louis Couturier
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Jon Gabriel
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-06 Thread Jean-Louis Couturier
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,

Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Erik Reuter
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:

Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Steve Sloan II
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

Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Deborah Harrell
--- 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

Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Julia Thompson
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

Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Erik Reuter
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...

Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked

2002-12-05 Thread K. Feete
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Robert Seeberger
- 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 &

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Gary Nunn
> 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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Richard Baker
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Deborah Harrell
--- "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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Reggie Bautista
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Julia Thompson
"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

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Horn, John
> 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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Marvin Long, Jr.
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten
"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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Steve Sloan II
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Adam C. Lipscomb
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

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Miller, Jeffrey
> -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: >

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Miller, Jeffrey
> -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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Erik Reuter
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/ __

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Jon Gabriel
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Julia Thompson
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

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Nick Arnett
> -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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Dan Minette
- 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?

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Reggie Bautista
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Reggie Bautista
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Adam C. Lipscomb
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Reggie Bautista
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Alberto Monteiro
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Dan Minette
- 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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Alberto Monteiro
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Alberto Monteiro
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

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Ritu Ko
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Reggie Bautista
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Reggie Bautista
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Reggie Bautista
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Alberto Monteiro
"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

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Ritu Ko
unsubscribe jeroen-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Dan Minette
- 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

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Ritu Ko
Rich wrote: > unsubscribe jeroen-l Me too. Ritu GCU Please ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Ritu Ko
Rich wrote: > unsubscribe jeroen-l Me too. Ritu GCU Please ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Marvin Long, Jr.
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Richard Baker
unsubscribe jeroen-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Ritu Ko
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Richard Baker
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Ray Ludenia
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. ___

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Alberto Monteiro
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 >

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Ray Ludenia
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Alberto Monteiro
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

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Ritu Ko
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Erik Reuter
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Alberto Monteiro
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Erik Reuter
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Alberto Monteiro
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

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Ritu Ko
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-05 Thread Alberto Monteiro
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-04 Thread Dan Minette
- 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

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-04 Thread Marvin Long, Jr.
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

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-04 Thread Nick Arnett
> -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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-04 Thread Jim Sharkey
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

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-04 Thread Jon Gabriel
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

RE: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-04 Thread Jon Gabriel
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-04 Thread Marvin Long, Jr.
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

Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-04 Thread David Hobby
> 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

Re: Assumptions Re: Admin: Server access blocked

2002-12-04 Thread Russell Chapman
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   2   >