| 1 |
On 10/02/2013 01:34 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/01/2013 06:27 PM, hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 10/01/2013 03:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> That isn't to say that I won't fairly evaluate appeals, but I'm not |
| 6 |
>>> going to second-guess every little temporary list ban. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> No one here dares to ban long-term trolls from the list. They are |
| 10 |
>> tolerated. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> This contributes nothing to the discussion does it? From what I can |
| 14 |
> tell, it's you who are trolling right now and tries to derail the |
| 15 |
> discussion. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
... are you trying a reverse-troll with an added ad hominem? |
| 18 |
'cause if you did you get bonus points for style |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> The ComRel was formed only a week ago and no trolls have appeared since |
| 21 |
> then. Or do you just want us to start banning people to prove that we |
| 22 |
> are willing to do it? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
I guess you're trying to ignore the historical (hysterical?) context of |
| 25 |
roughly the last decade to make a point |
Archives