At 12:14 PM 3/7/03 -0500, you wrote:
I am seriously considering unilaterally giving sysop rights to everyone on this mailing list:
- whose name and username I recognize
- who seems to know what they're doing
- who doesn't seem radically opposed to NPOV
This would be about a dozen or more people, and I'll decide on Monday, so be forewarned: unless you STRENUOUSLY object to yourself or someone else being a sysop, it's gonna happen!
For the reasons he's stated himself, I STRONGLY feel that Stevertigo should not be a sysop.
For the reasons he's stated himself, I STRONGLY feel that >Stevertigo
should
not be a sysop.
Well, now I cant think of any more reasons not to be one Vicki. Perhaps, now you can share with the merry throng your own reasons unless you already have - certainly you have some. :] -豎眩sv
At 08:24 AM 3/8/03 -0800, Stevertigo wrote:
For the reasons he's stated himself, I STRONGLY feel that >Stevertigo
should
not be a sysop.
Well, now I cant think of any more reasons not to be one Vicki. Perhaps, now you can share with the merry throng your own reasons unless you already have - certainly you have some.
Reason the first is that you said you didn't want it. That in itself should have been sufficient, but is no longer relevant.
Reason the second was your stated unwillingness to moderate your tone.
Reason for saying "STRONGLY" in all-caps was that Ed's message suggested that a mild, straightforward "don't do this" would be ignored.
Vicki penned: Reason the first is that you said you didn't want it. That
in itself
should have been sufficient, but is no longer relevant.
Maybe.
Reason the second was your stated unwillingness to moderate your tone.
Ah2. You misread me. 'Moderate' in that context meant "censor" - But I realize now that self-censorship is not required - Beyond the "usual" :"when I catch myself thinking bigoted things" - ;)
Reason for saying "STRONGLY" in all-caps was that Ed's message suggested that a mild, straightforward "don't do this" would be ignored.
Ah3. Now I überunderstand. Thanks.- 豎眩sv