Thus spake Smitty on the 10 day of the 01 month in the year 2003:
> Paul, there never would have been "friction" if you would have honestly and
> consistently applied your own rules, be any of them captious or not. Instead
> you exempted yourself from them. I think it is interesting that you have not
What rule, specifically, did Paul break? Some examples of your
allegations would give you some credibility.
> been given any warnings for your infractions here. You seem to be saying
Again what infractions? Some examples would be appreciated.
> that Dave and I are "in bad" to this list. So, you don't want Dave knocking
> SLUG on the list, fine, I agree, but on the other hand, you have no trouble
> with knocking Dave and I. You have a double standard here, Paul, and in my
> own defense, I want this known.
Any examples of him applying SLUG rules inconsistently?
I recall something happening a few weeks (or days) ago where Paul did
accidently marginally break the letter of one of the rules. IIRC, he
apologized profusely. I don't /ever/ recall Paul breaking the spirit
of the list rules.
> This thread is a continuation of the earlier hostile ones. I say it is time
> all parties stop adding to the situation and the thread REALLY ends here.
> Smitty
I don't think it's unreasonable to keep it running long enough to allow
you to back up your seemingly unsubstatiated allegations.
-- Matthew MoenP.S. Before sending this post, I decided I should re-read the SLUG rules. It had been a while since I had read them. There were no real suprises. It's more or less a boilerplate for the overwhelming majority of the LUG's out there.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 13:18:03 EDT