[PLUG-TALK] The Banning.

Russell Senior seniorr at aracnet.com
Thu Feb 5 02:12:34 UTC 2004


>>>>> "RE" == Russell Evans <russell-evans at qwest.net> writes:

RS> Frankly, if PDXLUG agrees not to ban people either, then I'd vote
RS> to remove the ban and assume that the deterence of Mutually
RS> Assured Destruction would solve the problem.

RE> So you used PLUG to promote a personal issue?

RE> Being banned from a mailing list is a personal issue. It does not
RE> involve PLUG at all, yet you, ( you since you are making this
RE> statement ) are using PLUG as a whole to try to promote your
RE> personal issue? WTF

No.  

As I think the part after "and" makes clear, I mean that if PDXLUG is
_as vulnerable_ as PLUG is, then PDXLUG "trouble makers" will be less
likely to "make trouble" on the PLUG list.  The "them not banning
people" is sort of equivalent to the anti-ballistic missile treaty
(i.e. "I won't try to shoot down your messages"), _not_ because I
particularly want to participate on their list but was denied.

Does that satisfy your WTF?

-- 
Russell Senior         ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
seniorr at aracnet.com




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list