| 1 |
On 15/04/2018 10:42, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> The people behind the ban appear to be the usual suspects running |
| 5 |
>>> ComRel/Council. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Yet another friendly warning: this kind of unsubstantiated got you |
| 8 |
>> already time off the mailing list. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Can you please explain what I did wrong and point to the CoC to support |
| 12 |
> your position? "Usual suspects" in this case is mgorny, ulm, dilfridge. |
| 13 |
> Mgorny and ulm are on council, dilfridge runs ComRel. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
You keep attacking multiple people and tend to double down when you are |
| 16 |
being told to stop. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> In the mean time, Luca, is ComRel planning to take an actions on mgorny's |
| 19 |
> suggestion that William be shot? Even if tongue in cheek, I am sure you |
| 20 |
> realize it's inappropriate. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Nobody contacted us regarding his email and I was not even aware it was |
| 23 |
specifically targeting somebody. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Could you please explain your comment that I am trying to "follow his lead |
| 26 |
> with all [my] strength"? And explain how this comment is not worse from a |
| 27 |
> CoC perspective than my "usual suspects" comment. If you call me out on |
| 28 |
> "usual suspects", then you shouldn't make insinuations about me either. |
| 29 |
> Either both comments are wrong or both insinuations are fair game on this |
| 30 |
> list. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
It is not an insinuation. It is a matter of fact. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
You are willfully behaving in CoC-infringing ways on purpose and you |
| 35 |
stated that yourself. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
lu |
Archives