|
281. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:19:47 AM
And this is all thanks to everyone's best friend, Seguine.
No harm could possibly come from her "non-malicious" slip. Why, no one would ever think of spamming her revelations indefinitely...
But really-- what possible harm could come from what she did? She'll never do it again. 282. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:20:19 AM no, the point is that BullE and Hark didn't stop doing what they were doing because they were being banned. That was at most an inconvenience, once you examine the level of devotion these people displayed toward their activities OL. IT isn't hard to figure, folks. You can spend a minute to log into a new mail address at Notmail or Yahoo or whateverelse.com and be RIGHT back. No, these people quit because they got bored. 283. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:22:54 AM
As far as a "Kangaroo Court"--
the evidence is well known. Seguine could provide all the spin she likes, but her buddies (and, I must say, the Judge) is providing enough spin as it is. 284. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:23:54 AM BTW: in my memory BullE definitely DID come back after the Paradigm incident. I remember at least three posts under IDs of his that he'd been outed on before. So banning-as-punishment really doesn't work, because the person can always come back. They can come back even if you only allow 'legit' email addresses. Whether or not you can sit and say 'in the present circumstances it's the best we can do' is irrelevant. It doesn't fricking work.
285. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:25:24 AM Re: 283: Well, Ace, one could certainly say the same thing about you and your 'advocacy' over the last three days. 286. glendajean - 9/20/1999 5:25:25 AM Angel -- I don't remember Paradigm coming back and repeating his behavior over and over after he was banned. I assume Squids came back (he said so in tt). But he never issued the other fraygrants name again after he was banned.
287. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:26:10 AM
I think we probably should allow only "legit" e-mail addresses. Why not?
That might not completely solve it, but it goes a long way. 288. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:27:24 AM And, no, I don't subscribe to the notion that you should run and plug your finger in the dam even though it won't stop the flood. The point is to go get a boat, because floods happen, and to try to find a way to live that isn't so susceptible to something that will ALWAYS unfortunately happen in ANY forum where anonymity is allowed. 289. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:27:31 AM
Hey Angel Genius:
What do you think about your "judgement" that the cipher was "too short a code sample to solve" now?
No point erring on the side of caution, after all. 290. glendajean - 9/20/1999 5:28:16 AM Sorry, but your boat and flood metaphors washed right over me. 291. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:28:18 AM
Once again I'm getting angry at Angel.
I wonder if this gives me the right to out some very sensitive information about him? 292. glendajean - 9/20/1999 5:29:02 AM No, it means calm down and come back when you're not angry. 293. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:29:25 AM GJ: I wasn't here for Squids, though it's my impression that he came in more than once and posted info and had it deleted and his new name stricken. And it kept up til he got bored, or repented, or whatever the hell he did.
I can assure you, however, that BullE did return. Tobey008 and Momof3, among others, were ids that he used in the past, and they were ids that posted after Paradigm's banning. 294. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:29:39 AM
Glenda:
I don't know. Coral suggested that it was okay if I was in a "heated, fast-moving" discussion. 295. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:31:02 AM Actually, Ace, I saw one person post a list of several different first names that would have fit into the cipher. So even though I will no longer allow ciphers, my original point stands and if you need to argue it with someone, find someone else. I'm content to let it speak for itself. 296. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:33:01 AM GlendaJean: It washed right over you?
Right. anyway, the point is that it's stupid to stick to a half measure that you know doesn't work in the end. You're wasting energy that you could spend trying to find other solutions that WILL work. 297. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:33:10 AM
Angel:
The point is that you were dead wrong, and that you made an arrogant, erroneous, and indefensible "judgement" which hurt Cal. You haven't apologized to her for your arrogance. You've admitted that, PERHAPS, you ought to have deleted the "cipher" sooner.
Ciphers are fair game, though, aren't they? 298. glendajean - 9/20/1999 5:35:37 AM Not only do I not recognize those two monikers, I think it is safe to say that they didn't paralyze the fray like Paradigm did. So banning worked in all those instances. When they returned, they quit the offensive behavior. 299. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:38:58 AM When in doubt, dissemble?
IAC, I'm going to voluntarily end this conversation and save us another five hundred posts worth of your righteous, opportune outrage. I may be back later so if you've something different to add, I won't be hard to find. 300. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:39:45 AM
So even though I will no longer allow ciphers
You should no longer be allowed to host threads, at least not without a Baby-sitting co-host to monitor you.
|
