William Beaty wrote:
> Whoa! That seems precipitous. He did not seem so bad to me.
>>
>
> It was temporary, but may be permanent.
Well, it isn't for me to tell you how to run things but . . .
I hope you issue a polite warning before you ban someone. As you said,
perhaps he did not read the ru
On Wed, 29 May 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Whoa! That seems precipitous. He did not seem so bad to me.
It was temporary, but may be permanent. Crackpot or no, if someone simply
cannot lower themselves to obeying the one basic rule here, and absolutely
will not apologize or even admit to slight
t;>
>>> I too would welcome them back provided they build the spice model, then
>>> they exchange models and report back as to either an error in the model, or
>>> that there are differences in the models which would explain why the
>>> disagreement.
>>>
reement.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> -Mark Iverson
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:52 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andr
I support that ideas.
As you decide anyway.
2013/5/29 Eric Walker
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Perhaps you can invite him back after a bit? Also maybe Abd? I miss him.
>>
>
> I miss Abd too. I wish he would not post walls of text. But he always
> has good counter
gt; disagreement.
>
> ** **
>
> -Mark Iverson
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:52 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed
>
Iverson
From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed
Jed, I vote to keep him off for a while. Perhaps you missed his insults
toward me and others on the list.
What I find
: vortex-l
Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 4:04 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed
William Beaty wrote:
multiple violations of rule 2.
(I suspect that he didn't read the rules before subscribing.)
Whoa! That seems precipitous. He did not seem so bad to me.
Rule 2. NO SNE
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> William Beaty wrote:
>
>
>> multiple violations of rule 2.
>>
>> (I suspect that he didn't read the rules before subscribing.)
>>
>
> Whoa! That seems precipitous. He did not seem so bad to me.
>
>
> Rule 2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision,
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Perhaps you can invite him back after a bit? Also maybe Abd? I miss him.
>
I miss Abd too. I wish he would not post walls of text. But he always has
good counterarguments to make to rain on one's parade. This is a useful
service.
Eric
I had to go through the past few threads that I honestly wasn't following
to see what was meant. Yeah... I wouldn't have tolerated him as long as
Bill did. It seemed he lived to say, "Oh Really?"
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> William Beaty wrote:
>
>
>> multiple vio
William Beaty wrote:
> multiple violations of rule 2.
>
> (I suspect that he didn't read the rules before subscribing.)
>
Whoa! That seems precipitous. He did not seem so bad to me.
Rule 2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is
banned. Debunking or "Pathological Skepti
multiple violations of rule 2.
(I suspect that he didn't read the rules before subscribing.)
(( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.co
13 matches
Mail list logo
