[Gllug] [Fwd: Re: non processed posts - dated 22 and 23 April]

[James Tobin]

2009/4/29 Martin A. Brooks <martin at hinterlands.org>:

Why did you have to post this to the LUG when I was communicating with
you off-list? Surely this is just adding further GLLUG traffic to an
already exhausted topic.

> I thought this might be of interest to list members as it shows James' true
> attitude to GLLUG and the many many other LUGs he cross posts to.

In no way whatsoever was my e-mail "to you" suppose to convey my
attitude toward the GLLUG or any other LUG that I post to. I find LUGS
and the GLLUG very helpful - a way for me to further my technical
knowledge as a Linux user!

> Apparently, it's more convenient for us to simply delete his messages than
> it is for him to adhere to list posting rules.

Didn't my (attempted) posts dated 22 and 23 adhere to GLLUG posting rules.

> Unless overruled by other list admins, I consider his ban to now be
> permanent.

I would ask that you cease from further attempts at damaging both my
own and my companies reputation through further discussions on-list.

Regards JAMES

> Martin A. Brooks wrote:
>> jt wrote:
>>> Martin, why were my posts to GLLUG (dated 22 and 23 April) not
>>> processed? They were sent from jt at camalyn.org //JAMES
>>
>>
>> Because you were moderated, as has been explained to you.  Posting to
>> GLLUG is a privilege, not a right, one you have chosen to abuse.
>
> I'm not sure how you feel I have abused the right to post to GLLUG in
> relation to the posts made under jt at camalyn.org on that date!
>
>> And following your behavior over the past few days you are now
>> unsubscribed and banned from GLLUG lists.  Furthermore I shall be
>> contacting other LUG list admins to let them know the action that has
>> been taken. I read HantsLUG also.
>
> If you wish to contact other LUG list administrators, please feel free
> to do so.
>
> It seems to me that I have tried to work with you, even on one occasion
> attempting to enter in to a conversation with you on the phone - but
> receiving very little enthusiasm or interest on your part! You came
> across very short and rude!
>
> Quite frankly you and a small handful of GLLUG subscribers seem like to
> complain about the postings I've made, I imagine the LUG is comprised of
> many others than just yourselves, some of which I have worked with and
> found good positions for!  Couldn't you guys just hit the delete key,
> create a rule for VACANCY, JOB or ADVERT posts (or even Camalyn posts)
> or not read the messages if they weren't appropriate to you?  Instead it
> comes across in such a way that you would rather generate a huge debate
> and GLLUG traffic over just one VACANCY, JOB or ADVERT post.
>
> I'd be interested to know whether you are suggesting that I (as a Linux
> user) am not permitted to attend the GLLUG meetings too?  I imagine you
> attend do you?
>
> I am still subscribed to the GLLUG under *many* different domain names
> and email addresses as I do not see why I (as a Linux user) cannot
> further my knowledge by reading (and perhaps answering) GLLUG posts?
>
> As to the insults you have chosen to make in your emails (and the
> attitude that you demonstrate) I don't think that I would ever want to
> meet with you or represent you to any client I may work with.
>
>> Please email me and about a year's time asking for your ban to be removed.
>
> As to contacting you in about a years time...well quite frankly no I
> wont contact you to ask anything!
>
> JAMES
>
>
> --
> Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
> http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
>
>
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug