Re: To some un-named prick...[more unpleasantness?]
Piers Edmund Johnson (email@example.com)
Fri, 11 Nov 1994 22:42:57 +1100 (EST)
On Fri, 11 Nov 1994, Colin Panisset wrote:
> Once upon a time, Bradley Hughes was heard to say:
> } > for example), but some form of policy for this could be needed if it
> } > turns out to be ftoomsh...
> There is an acceptable use policy, yes. By accepting an account on
> ftoomsh, users implicitly agree to abide by the Acceptable Use Policy
> (AUP); however, it might be that either the message isn't getting
> through clearly enough, or that it's just being ignored because people
> think that they can get away with anything on this machine.
> General Note: As a result of the Emergency Meeting on Tuesday (8/11),
> we've now got a forum for complaints of this nature. If you've got *any*
> complaint about the way you've been treated on ftoomsh (or, in future,
> any other possible progsoc systems), you can send mail to
> firstname.lastname@example.org (the Justice League of Progsoc <ta-daaaah>).
> Alister, if your .signature disappeared from your ftoomsh account and
> you want to make a complaint about it (and you're really really certain
> that you didn't just delete it by mistake), then you now have a means to
This wasn't on ftoomsh! It was wattle, wasn't it? (correct me if
I'm wrong..) I guess this means it's out of JLP (or PiGS) juristiction, and
would be an ITD matter if serious enough. If the file had been deleted. If
it hadn't been renamed. Moved. I concede that this was a stupid thing to do,
but it's happened now, so lets just get on with more important threads, hein?
(no, I didn't do it, so stop pointing that bone right now.)
I'm not trivialising this issue - file tampering is bad, but a bad
sig doesn't warrant this much mail...
(2 line sig, next ten km)
"And when death comes, let it be sweet and gentle." - Gabriel Chevallier