Reminder of Code of Conduct - and ban imposed.

Just a reminder that this list is subject to the Debian Code of Conduct and the Debian mailing lists Code of Conduct. The FAQ will be republished in a day or so to remind regular readers. In the interim, Curt has been banned from all Debian lists. As ever, it is expected that people will

Code of Conduct reminder [WAS Re: Alpine/Gmail/Imap expert needed.]

g as a member of the Debian Community Team. I would like to remind you - and all involved in this discussion - of the Debian Code of Conduct and mailing list code of conduct. One thing that is asked of all of us is to be respectful and constructive. I think the above two paragraphs are not construc

Re: Code of conduct reminder.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 20:43:46 + Andy Smith wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 05:52:20PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:18:18AM -0400, David Peacock wrote: > > > I'm seeing a shocking and disappointing amount of disrespect and > > > vulgarity of late fr

Re: Code of conduct reminder.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 4:51 PM Andy Smith wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 06:52:57PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > Could we please finish the package managers thread at this point? > > Do you include in that the sub-thread of that where the OP is > (still) attempting to get Synaptic to w

Re: Code of conduct reminder.

Hello, On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 06:52:57PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > Could we please finish the package managers thread at this point? Do you include in that the sub-thread of that where the OP is (still) attempting to get Synaptic to work, and also the sub-threads this generates as the OP

Re: Code of conduct reminder.

Hello, On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 05:52:20PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:18:18AM -0400, David Peacock wrote: > > I'm seeing a shocking and disappointing amount of disrespect and vulgarity > > of late from several parties. If there is no active moderation possible, > >

Re: Code of conduct reminder.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:18:18AM -0400, David Peacock wrote: > Hi folks, > > Just a friendly reminder of the code of conduct that we agree to be bound > by when we participate in this list, pasted below for convenience, but > originally from here [0]. > As a semi-moderator o

Re: Code of conduct reminder.

On 21 Jun 2023 17:52, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: Since "shocking", "disrespect" and "vulgarity" are pretty subjective measures (they are still very legitimate, though), it would be nice and constructive if you gave people the chance to understand what you are taking issue with. Otherwise, we have n

Re: Code of conduct reminder.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:18:18AM -0400, David Peacock wrote: > Hi folks, > > Just a friendly reminder of the code of conduct that we agree to be bound > by when we participate in this list, pasted below for convenience, but > originally from here [0]. No need to quote the th

Code of conduct reminder.

Hi folks, Just a friendly reminder of the code of conduct that we agree to be bound by when we participate in this list, pasted below for convenience, but originally from here [0]. I'm seeing a shocking and disappointing amount of disrespect and vulgarity of late from several parties. If

Code of Conduct reminder [WAS Re: ipv6 maybe has arrived.]

of being a liar, capital letters written in frustration ... can I respectfully suggest that all parties end this thread here? The Code of Conduct requests people to be postive and constructive in criticism. This thread has sometimes fallen below this standard - can we gracefully retire this now? Andy Cater [For and on behalf of the Community Team]

Quick reminder to those on the list - Code of Conduct and FAQ apply.

Hi people, Just a very quick reminder: there's an FAQ here once a month and also that this mailing list is governed by the Debian Code of Conduct. Please be respectful: please be collaborative - useful, positve communication - and please don't use bad language. It doesn

Re: [CODE OF CONDUCT REMINDER - WAS Re: Re: Why did Norbert Preining (having maintained KDE) left Debian?]

ong with other abuses, are not welcome" from the mailing list code of conduct. I agree that this thread has become rather off-topic for this list. > If you read Andrew's post, the first line says to "readers and posters".  It does say that. However, his choice of quoting

Re: [CODE OF CONDUCT REMINDER - WAS Re: Re: Why did Norbert Preining (having maintained KDE) left Debian?]

gt; Language is to help us understand each other. Obviously someone does >>>> not >>>> want to admit to this basic rule and wants us to roll over into the >>>> Overtone window. It is absolutely unnecessary discussion. J. Peterson >>>> refuses to accept

Re: [CODE OF CONDUCT REMINDER - WAS Re: Re: Why did Norbert Preining (having maintained KDE) left Debian?]

on IRC and on other Debian media are bound by the Debian mailing list code of conduct, the Debian IRC code of conduct and, above all, by the Debian Code of Conduct. https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct https://www.debian.org/support#irc https://wiki.debian.org/DebianIRCChannelGuidel

Re: [CODE OF CONDUCT REMINDER - WAS Re: Re: Why did Norbert Preining (having maintained KDE) left Debian?]

I refuse and many others. It is perfectly OK. I have the > > same rights as you do. Period. > > > > Can I please remind readers and posters: > > Communication on this list, on IRC and on other Debian media are bound > by the Debian mailing list code of conduct, the Debian IR

[CODE OF CONDUCT REMINDER - WAS Re: Re: Why did Norbert Preining (having maintained KDE) left Debian?]

st, on IRC and on other Debian media are bound by the Debian mailing list code of conduct, the Debian IRC code of conduct and, above all, by the Debian Code of Conduct. https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct https://www.debian.org/support#irc https://wiki.debian.org/DebianIRCChannel

Re: Thank you [was: Reminder about the Debian Code of Conduct]

On 26/06/2020 02:50, Default User wrote: "Beware the censor, for in his heart, he deems himself your master." main! -- Ben Caradoc-Davies Director Transient Software Limited New Zealand

Re: Reminder about the Debian Code of Conduct

ie apocalypse stuff. That is now officially my favorite mailing list post of 2020. I know /intellectually/ that 2020 isn't over yet, but /emotionally/ I find that difficult to accept. * Pierre-Elliott Bécue [20-06/25=Th 12:29 +0200]: > [...] You, being horrified about the authoritarism

Re: Reminder about the Debian Code of Conduct

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 03:40:26PM +, davidson wrote: And OP specified no debian listserv(s). Sure they did, in the To: field. -- 👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland ✎j...@debian.org 🔗 https://jmtd.net

Re: Reminder about the Debian Code of Conduct

-related things and infringing the Code of Conduct[0] of the Project in the same time. Oh, crap. I think I know what this is about. Sorry everybody. Sorry but I do not understand - can you explain the context? /me reluctantly drops out of satirical mode I cannot. What is the reason, which thread

Re: Thank you [was: Reminder about the Debian Code of Conduct]

"Beware the censor, for in his heart, he deems himself your master. "

Re: Thank you [was: Reminder about the Debian Code of Conduct]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 6:13 AM wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:29:43PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > [...] > > > > Perhaps OP can solve this mystery for us. > > nyah, nyah. > > > The fact that my email is not in reply to a specific message is > > intentional and is done to avoid fin

Thank you [was: Reminder about the Debian Code of Conduct]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:29:43PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: [...] > > Perhaps OP can solve this mystery for us. nyah, nyah. > The fact that my email is not in reply to a specific message is > intentional and is done to avoid fingerpointing. Well done. And to all of you yelling CENSO

Re: Reminder about the Debian Code of Conduct

multiple emails discussing about non > > > > Debian-related things and infringing the Code of Conduct[0] of the > > > > Project in the same time. > > > > > > Oh, crap. I think I know what this is about. Sorry everybody. > > > > Sorry but

Re: Reminder about the Debian Code of Conduct

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 elvis wrote: On 25/6/20 1:31 pm, davidson wrote: On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: Dear users, In the past days we saw multiple emails discussing about non Debian-related things and infringing the Code of Conduct[0] of the Project in the same time. Oh

Re: Reminder about the Debian Code of Conduct

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 deloptes wrote: davidson wrote: On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: Dear users, In the past days we saw multiple emails discussing about non Debian-related things and infringing the Code of Conduct[0] of the Project in the same time. Oh, crap. I think I know

Re: Reminder about the Debian Code of Conduct

On 25/6/20 1:31 pm, davidson wrote: On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: Dear users, In the past days we saw multiple emails discussing about non Debian-related things and infringing the Code of Conduct[0] of the Project in the same time. Oh, crap. I think I know what this is

Re: Reminder about the Debian Code of Conduct

davidson wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >> Dear users, >> >> In the past days we saw multiple emails discussing about non >> Debian-related things and infringing the Code of Conduct[0] of the >> Project in the same time. > > Oh,

Re: Reminder about the Debian Code of Conduct

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: Dear users, In the past days we saw multiple emails discussing about non Debian-related things and infringing the Code of Conduct[0] of the Project in the same time. Oh, crap. I think I know what this is about. Sorry everybody. The Community

Reminder about the Debian Code of Conduct

Dear users, In the past days we saw multiple emails discussing about non Debian-related things and infringing the Code of Conduct[0] of the Project in the same time. The Community Team would like to remind you that this Code of Conduct is to be followed when communicating on any Debian

Re: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).

Rescission of GPL for reasons other than violating the terms of the license would be a ridiculous form copyright trolling which, if still possible, should definitely be outlawed. On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:15 PM Martin Schroeder wrote: > > If the license clearly states that permission is granted t

Re: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).

If the license clearly states that permission is granted to any third party to use the code provided that the same rights are granted to everyone else who uses the subsequently distributed versions, wouldn't the original holder who is willing to rescind the license fully also be liable to compensat

Re: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).

> On 2018-09-19 03:38, Richard Stallman wrote: >> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] >> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] >> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] >> >> > One is rescission of

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On 9/28/2013 9:06 AM, Chris Bannister wrote: On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 03:15:57PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: So is it ok to post such a link? It does say that swearing is illegal on packet radio, which some people use to "read" the ML. *** In the United States ***. Ths U.S. is not the whole

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 03:15:57PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > So is it ok to post such a link? It does say that swearing is illegal on packet radio, which some people use to "read" the ML. So understanding that, and also that swearing is unnecesary on a support ML, I'd say you have your answ

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On Monday 23 September 2013 15:39:05 David Guntner wrote: > Yea.  You and a couple of other people found it interesting and > kept the topic dragging on.  It doesn't change the fact that it was > OFF TOPIC for THIS PARTICULAR MAILING LIST. Why doesn't everyone just ignore him? Or if you can't do

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 07:27 -0700, David Guntner wrote: > Posting a link is one thing, quoting from it is another. That's clear, the question is at what point the link becomes an issue. No doubt about it, a link to racist content on this list is offending the CoC, a link to a discussion about a v

Re: Code Of Conduct

Does the obvious pronunciation of the acronym for Code of Conduct, CoC, violate the Code of Conduct? ;-) -- hangout: ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net diversion: http://alienjeff.net - visit The Fringe quote: "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Tho

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

u're the one posting the words (whatever they may be) here when you add them to your message. So if they're words that go against the code of conduct, then you're the one violating that code; not the person or source that you're quoting from. "But mom, *I* didn't say i

Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

Ralf Mardorf grabbed a keyboard and wrote: > > IMO the "Security?" thread became interesting by links to Lavabit and > Schneier. Yea. You and a couple of other people found it interesting and kept the topic dragging on. It doesn't change the fact that it was OFF TOPIC for THIS PARTICULAR MAILIN

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

Well, now you got me going. The year is 2012 and contrary to your recent discovery of an alternative to a windows platform -- for some of the rest of us -- it has been almost 35 years since Kerrigan published his how to program in C book and the last thing we are quite bored of revisiting the past.

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 15:15 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > I don't think the videos are "censored", resp. taken away by a > collecting society. If the collecting societies ban a video, than there > is information about it and this is the only "censorship" done in > Germany. Nazi content etc. isn't al

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

My question about the link is www.family.friendly.web.page.link.name.nowhere with a discussion about security that contains swearing. It's clear that if such a link would contain a porn video, I'm not allowed to post it, but it's about the topic and not all words are family friendly. So is it ok

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 01:45:37PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 23:31 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > I still miss an answer, if it's allowed to post such links, that contain > words as the unwanted word I quoted from the link. I suggest to censor them ... i.e. bas%#@d, f@&

Security? (was ... Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?))

On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 13:43 +0100, Brian wrote: > [Extensive, selective snipping of the original post has taken place. > This mail will also be my one and only one on this topic]. > > > On Mon 23 Sep 2013 at 12:47:52 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > It also would be nice to be professional . . .

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

[Extensive, selective snipping of the original post has taken place. This mail will also be my one and only one on this topic]. On Mon 23 Sep 2013 at 12:47:52 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > It also would be nice to be professional . . . . . On Sunday 8th Sept 2013 at 11:27:36 -0700 lati...@vcn.bc

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 23:31 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > If you don't want to abide by the CoC [snip] I never claimed that. I only explained that it was a mistake, because this word isn't a hard word here. I was thinking about not to use the word, because I wasn't sure if it is considered as ev

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:13:37AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 18:56 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 09:33:26PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > Btw. "fxg a sheep" in Germany is allowed, so claiming asylum should > > > > http://www.debian.org/Ma

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 07:03 -0400, Jeff Bauer wrote: > On 09/23/2013 06:47 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > A quick archive search does show that I helped others on this list > > much more than you did. > > List participation is not a competitive sport. That's correct, but I randomly, without evil

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 06:33 -0400, Darko Gavrilovic wrote: [snip] My apologies, I forgot to mention that 4 from your 4 mails are sent HTML formatted and 2 from your 4 mails used top-posting. https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists Please post only in plain text. Do not submit HTML, h4x0r or sp

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On 09/23/2013 06:47 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: A quick archive search does show that I helped others on this list much more than you did. List participation is not a competitive sport. -- hangout: ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net diversion: http://alienjeff.net - visit The Fringe quote: "The foundat

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 06:33 -0400, Darko Gavrilovic wrote something that offended netiquette ;), no hard feelings. Btw. as far as I can see you send 4 mails to the list and 3 mails were send to the list and to the person you replied to, no rant, just an information: Reply to the list only! And con

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 06:33 -0400, Darko Gavrilovic wrote: > No one on here cares about your rant or definition of what foul > language is in the little village you happen to reside in on this > planet. Just keep your posts about Debian, useful to the user > community, and keep it professional. It

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On Sep 23, 2013 5:14 AM, "Ralf Mardorf" wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 18:56 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 09:33:26PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > Btw. "fxg a sheep" in Germany is allowed, so claiming asylum should > > > > http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#c

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

PS: FWIW it's a quote from the link below. The used word has got a German equivalent. It's not sophisticated to use this word in Germany, but it's also not the worst kind of language of the gutter. It's common that nearly everybody does use it. It's very uncommon to use a sophisticated word instead

Re: Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 18:56 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 09:33:26PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > Btw. "fxg a sheep" in Germany is allowed, so claiming asylum should > > http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct > > * Do not use foul language; besides, so

Code Of Conduct (was ... Re: Security?)

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 09:33:26PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Btw. "fxg a sheep" in Germany is allowed, so claiming asylum should http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct * Do not use foul language; besides, some people receive the lists via packet radio, where swearing is il

Re: code of conduct (was Re: Another OT: GRUB location on Dual-Boot with TWO hard drives)

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:53:59PM -0400, Wally Lepore wrote: > > I understand. Thank you for correcting my humble mistake. Will comply. > > You're welcome - and whilst I'm at it, welcome to the list! I hope you > find it > useful. > Thank yo

Re: code of conduct (was Re: Another OT: GRUB location on Dual-Boot with TWO hard drives)

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:53:59PM -0400, Wally Lepore wrote: > I understand. Thank you for correcting my humbly mistake. Will comply. You're welcome - and whilst I'm at it, welcome to the list! I hope you find it useful. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a

Re: code of conduct (was Re: Another OT: GRUB location on Dual-Boot with TWO hard drives)

other >> rules, please see the Code of Conduct at >> <http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct> > > > I understand. Thank you for correcting my humbly mistake. Will comply. Thank you for correcting my "humble" mistake. Will comply. Regards Wally -

Re: code of conduct (was Re: Another OT: GRUB location on Dual-Boot with TWO hard drives)

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Jon Dowland wrote: > Hi Wally, > > When communicating on a Debian mailing list, please direct your emails at > the list address and do not CC the participants explicitly. For this and other > rules, please see the Code of Conduct at > <

code of conduct (was Re: Another OT: GRUB location on Dual-Boot with TWO hard drives)

Hi Wally, When communicating on a Debian mailing list, please direct your emails at the list address and do not CC the participants explicitly. For this and other rules, please see the Code of Conduct at <http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct> Thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, em

Re: Code of conduct (was ... Re: need help on using ffmpeg for video grab)

On Wed, 23 May 2012 00:24:37 +1200, Chris wrote in message <20120522122437.GC25963@tal>: > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:48:49PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > On Ma, 22 mai 12, 02:49:23, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > > > > Sorry, I don't see it that way. I don't see debian-user as > > > the first

Re: Code of conduct (was ... Re: need help on using ffmpeg for video grab)

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:48:49PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Ma, 22 mai 12, 02:49:23, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > > Sorry, I don't see it that way. I don't see debian-user as the first > > "port of call" and if you don't get any help ***THEN*** google and try > > to find out where the ***

Re: Code of conduct (was ... Re: need help on using ffmpeg for video grab)

On Ma, 22 mai 12, 02:49:23, Chris Bannister wrote: > > Sorry, I don't see it that way. I don't see debian-user as the first > "port of call" and if you don't get any help ***THEN*** google and try > to find out where the ***ACTUAL*** place to get support is. IMVHO it is entirely apropiate for som

Re: Code of conduct (was ... Re: need help on using ffmpeg for video grab)

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Camaleón wrote: > > What question? General questions about how to use a program (program → > mutt, ffmpeg, gnome-terminal or whatever package you can get from Debian > repositories or elsewhere)? > > Those questions do fit here. Period. You are free to reply them

Re: Code of conduct (was ... Re: need help on using ffmpeg for video grab)

On Tue, 22 May 2012 02:49:23 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 03:36:10PM +, Camaleón wrote: >> On Mon, 21 May 2012 02:49:34 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: point >> because if so, we have to stop accepting posts asking how does Mutt >> work ... > > Good luck with answerin

Code of conduct (was ... Re: need help on using ffmpeg for video grab)

r liking? Well, it does involve quite a bit of work from the user. If the "application of your liking" works OOTB then I consider it a coincidence. Usually, to get it working to "your liking", involves a bit of research and messing around with settings, config files, etc. >

code of conduct WAS Re: TEST: Can I post to debian-users? EOF

constructive to inquire if anyone had already solved this technical > problem. Search the archives to find out why such filters are not in place. Look at the code of conduct for this list to find out why your mail is just as OT as OP's [1]. Please complain about misconduct to OP priv

Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

list members who, I'm sure, didn't plan on wreaking "collective" havoc. Saying "participants" makes it sound as if there was a conspiracy of some sort. > Most of these either didn't respond (but ceased posting to the > thread) or replied apologetically. I susp

Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

On November 21, 2003 at 7:27PM +0800, "David Palmer." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:24:16 + > ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:50:09 -0800 > > "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:49:14AM +, ben

Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:24:16 + ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:50:09 -0800 > "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:49:14AM +, ben ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:23:48 +0800 > > > csj <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

est you. nobody is forcing you to read it. That was in response to: Could you please restrict your d-u postings to on-topic subjects? ...highly inflammetory, doubtless. Whatever. In response, I referred you to the list charter, code of conduct, and debian-curiosa. > > Several of the indivi

Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

t? really?] made the mistake of not recognising that when colin points out that enough is enough, he's not asking anybody to remember any rules--he's appropriately chiding us for having tested the patience of the list, full in the knowledge that we know, and that we know that

Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

didn't respond (but ceased posting to the thread) or replied > > apologetically. > > Yes, oh dear moderator. No such claim on my part. Just an involved listmember who sticks up for principles on occasion. > > Several disputed the basis of my request. Which is: > >

Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

s of the > thread, after it had persisted for several days. Most of these either > didn't respond (but ceased posting to the thread) or replied > apologetically. Yes, oh dear moderator. > Several disputed the basis of my request. Which is: > > - List charter: "

Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

the other hand, comes across as an > order, I'd individually contacted most (all I could find) participants of the thread, after it had persisted for several days. Most of these either didn't respond (but ceased posting to the thread) or replied apologetically. Several disputed the basis

Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 04:49:14 +, ben wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:23:48 +0800 > csj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:54:17 -0800, > > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > > > on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:19:48AM +0800, csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > On Mon, 17 Nov

Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:23:48 +0800 csj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:54:17 -0800, > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:19:48AM +0800, csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:48:14 -0800, > > > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > > > [..

Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:27:44 -0500, Wayne Topa wrote: > > csj([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said: > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:54:17 -0800, > > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > > > on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:19:48AM +0800, csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:48:14 -

Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

csj([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said: > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:54:17 -0800, > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:19:48AM +0800, csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:48:14 -0800, > > > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > >

Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:54:17 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:19:48AM +0800, csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:48:14 -0800, > > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > As several (in or out of the) closet anarchists have replied > > > th

*plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:19:48AM +0800, csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:48:14 -0800, > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > [...] > > > As several (in or out of the) closet anarchists have replied > > that self-control is apparently beyond their mein, I'll remind > > them that con

Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:48:14 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: [...] > As several (in or out of the) closet anarchists have replied > that self-control is apparently beyond their mein, I'll remind > them that consequences for actions are also their > responsibility. Including finding themselves igno

Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

l remind them that consequences for actions are also their responsibility. Including finding themselves ignored by those who value s over n. I'll also note that several participants have apologized or indicated they'll reform their behavior. Thank you. The Debian mailinglist code of cond