On Saturday 11 January 2003 09:48, you wrote:
> 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.
Two recent examples: Paul posted a job to the list, then offered a tee-shirt
for sale. Review the threads and you will verify this for yourself.
>
> > been given any warnings for your infractions here. You seem to be saying
>
> Again what infractions? Some examples would be appreciated.
Stated above.
>
> > 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?
Again, see above for two recent examples.
>
> 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.
The allegations have been substantiated. This thread should have been
terminated many days ago.
Smitty
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 13:18:06 EDT