--- Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debbi
Galactic Moderate? Maru
See, that's your problem. No one in the Four
Galaxies listens to the moderates, you should know
that! :-)
Well, even we Moderates are entitled to our
middle-of-the-road opinions! Heck, we can even poke
fun at
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In an attempt to answer this post, I did an I Feel
Lucky search for Hacking Defined on Google:
From the Michigan Department of Natural Resources:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12143_15425-35430--,00.html
Hacking Defined
Jon wrote:
In an attempt to answer this post, I did an I Feel Lucky search for
Hacking Defined on Google:
From the Michigan Department of Natural Resources:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12143_15425-35430--,00.ht
ml
Hacking Defined
Jeroen said:
As it obvious that he cannot be trusted with list-admin powers, I must
once again insist that he be removed from his position.
Given that it's running on his server, I consider that unlikely. Again,
I'd suggest that if you'd like the list run some other way then you
should
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
I must once again insist that he be removed from his position.
You make a lot of demands.
Just an observation.
Jim
___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
Jim observed:
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
I must once again insist that he be removed from his position.
You make a lot of demands.
Just an observation.
And, according to my newly installed mail filter (thanx to Julia and
The Fool, apologies to the list reiterated), he's still spoofing the
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
I must once again insist that he be removed from his position.
You make a lot of demands.
Just an observation.
Not that many, really. There are only a few demands, that get repeated from time to
time.
Hmm. Let's look at the past year. You've
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Ah, I thought you were only referring to my recent demands that :
my posting privileges be reinstated
I have
From: Jean-Louis Couturier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:43:27 -0500
At 21:26 2002-12-04 -0600, Marvin wrote:
At this point I'd say that if someone disagrees, it's his obligation to
say so.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld
At 11:31 2002-12-06 -0500, Jon wrote:
IIRC, and I believe I do so quite correctly since I remember voicing my
objection to his attitude
on the list, Jeroen was the very first person to mention nuking
Afghanistan. He wasn't advocating
that we do so, but instead posted that he assumed that
on 6/12/02 4:34 am, Deborah Harrell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But her post _does_ express the 'prairie chicken
effect' nicely...
What is the 'prairie chicken effect' ?
--
William T Goodall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/
___
From: Jean-Louis Couturier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:17:30 -0500
At 11:31 2002-12-06 -0500, Jon wrote:
IIRC, and I believe I do so quite correctly since I remember voicing my
objection to his attitude
on the list, Jeroen was the very
K. Feete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest, I was considering defending Jeroen, until I started
getting the endless stream of emails
I still can't figure out what's going on
... none of you are kids - in fact, most of you are twice my age -
For God's
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Jean-Louis Couturier
... and never once apologized for his
obvious error. So, I think the
pig-headedness that you're commending him for is seriously
misplaced, at
least on the nuclear front.
Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: Jean-Louis Couturier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:43:27 -0500
At 21:26 2002-12-04 -0600, Marvin wrote:
At this point I'd say that if someone disagrees, it's his obligation to
say so.
Marvin Long
Austin
-Original Message-
From: J. van Baardwijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 2:47 PM
...
This is not correct. Arnett wants me to demonstrate a willingness and
ability to refrain from personal attacks, harassment, etc., but he
persists in refusing to tell me
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 6/12/02 4:34 am, Deborah Harrell at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But her post _does_ express the 'prairie chicken
effect' nicely...
What is the 'prairie chicken effect' ?
Sorry, that wouuld be quite obtuse if you hadn't read
the Little
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
So just for the record I also clearly remember Erik for one being particularly
nasty and very childish in harrasing Jeroen even after several repeated requests
from a lot of listmembers to cut it out and leave Jeroen alone. Strangly enough
that never had any
Julia Thompson wrote:
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
So just for the record I also clearly remember Erik for one being particularly
nasty and very childish in harrasing Jeroen even after several repeated requests
from a lot of listmembers to cut it out and leave Jeroen alone. Strangly
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 06:53:41PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
Did this happen since the list was moved onto Nick's mccmedia.com
server?
That's irrelevant, because the posts she is referring to were not
equivalent to what Jeroen was doing anyway. I made a few teasing posts
in response to some
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
So just for the record I also clearly remember Erik for one being particularly
nasty and very childish in harrasing Jeroen even after several repeated requests
from a lot of listmembers to
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 06:53:41PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
Did this happen since the list was moved onto Nick's mccmedia.com
server?
That's irrelevant, because the posts she is referring to were not
equivalent to what Jeroen was doing anyway. I made a few teasing
Julia Thompson wrote:
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
So just for the record I also clearly remember Erik for one being particularly
nasty and very childish in harrasing Jeroen even after several repeated
requests
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 02:12:06AM +0100, Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten
wrote:
Some people can handle when their buttonss are consciously being
pushed by others and realised they are being baited and act
accordingly, some can't.
And some people need to learn how to handle being teased
Debbi
Galactic Moderate? Maru
See, that's your problem. No one in the Four Galaxies listens to the moderates, you
should know that! :-)
Jim
___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
At 11:31 06-12-2002 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
I'm disturbed by his being blocked at chello.nl, but I'm more disturbed
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 5:17 PM
Subject: RE: Admin: Server access blocked
At 13:11 06-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
I'd like to make it clear that I'm not past trying to find a solution
At 11:31 06-12-2002 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
I'm disturbed by his being blocked at chello.nl, but I'm more
disturbed that the list server was attacked from that isp.
The nature and extent of this attack is being grossly exaggerated.
Arnett immediately assumed the worst, but the truth is that
PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Bradford DeLong
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 11:14 PM
To: J. van Baardwijk
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
At 11:31 06-12-2002 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
I'm disturbed by his being blocked at chello.nl, but I'm more
disturbed that the list server was attacked
damn.
I thought this post might be about the Men at Arms military books.
Oo .Startide Rising battle plans.
Time to wake the alien!
William Taylor
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
damn.
I thought this post might be about the Men at Arms military books.
Oo .Startide Rising battle plans.
Time to wake the alien!
Why? Does he need to make the donuts?
(I swear, as soon as I read that last line, I had a flashback to a
In a message dated 12/6/2002 10:03:55 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oo .Startide Rising battle plans.
Time to wake the alien!
Why? Does he need to make the donuts?
(I swear, as soon as I read that last line, I had a flashback to a
William Taylor wrote:
The Episiarch would never make donuts. He'd open up a dimensional
portal and steal them right off of the Krispy Kreame's racks.
You know, if an episiarch could get me a regular supply of Krispy Kremes, I'd adopt
one of the shaggy lunatics tomorrow!
Assuming, of course, I
David Hobby wrote:
This is an action that I take only with GREAT
reluctance. However, neither Julia nor I is
willing to endure harassment of this kind.
I imagine that you have collect a lot of interesting
material for your study of internet communities and
how they deal with
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
I begin to understand why Jeroen was singled-out to
be the victim-of-the-day.
Was he?
Admittedly I have only been re-subbed here for a few months, I have not
had much time to devote to Brin-L mail but I seem to have missed the
singling-out.
And his behaviour in the
Ritu Ko wrote:
I begin to understand why Jeroen was singled-out to
be the victim-of-the-day.
Was he?
Yes.
And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing,
lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very
tasty target! Who's better to be harassed as someone
who
Erik Reuter wrote:
And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing,
lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very tasty
target! Who's better to be
harassed as someone who screams and shouts?
Actually, it is the reverse. What better person to
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:50:19AM -0200, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Maybe I confused the terms. Is there any precise definition?
Probably not as precise as you want. But I think the usual use of
harass implies repeated, unwanted action or attention (in some manner)
and with intent to harm.
Tease
Ritu Ko wrote:
But isn't that assuming that his cause is lost? :)
Of course it is a lost. It will escalate forever.
Probably it will end up in splitting the list in
two - the best scenario, the other scenarios are
worse.
It would end up *splitting* the list in two and
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Which is why I think this will escalate
to Jeroen's final ban - another symptom that the list
is dying.
The symptom that the list is dying is that yet again we are involved in
endlessly discussing one particular person and his actions and other's
reactions. Enough of
Ray Ludenia wrote:
Which is why I think this will escalate
to Jeroen's final ban - another symptom that the list
is dying.
The symptom that the list is dying is that yet again
we are involved in endlessly discussing one particular
person and his actions and other's
reactions.
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Things would be different if I were the list-tyrant.
I would ban everybody who sent messages using the
horrible imperial units
So you admit that not all imperial units are horrible? Never thought I'd see
the day!
Ray.
___
Alberto said:
Worst case scenario will be things getting out of
the Cyberspace, like Digimon 3.
My worst case scenario involves giant asteroids, gamma ray bursts,
all-out nuclear exchanges, plague, famine, brain-eating zombie
infestations, leaves on the line, and Steps reforming.
Rich
GCU
Rich wrote:
My worst case scenario involves giant asteroids, gamma ray bursts,
all-out nuclear exchanges, plague, famine, brain-eating zombie
infestations, leaves on the line, and Steps reforming.
Rich
GCU And The Universal Adoption Of Imperial Units
And the wombats?
Ritu
GCU You Can't
unsubscribe jeroen-l
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
PS: I am _also_ a meme-stereotype. If everybody is
against Jeroen, then I must stand to be the Defender
of the Lost Cause :-)
Does that mean you don't actually disagree with Nick's decision, but are
only protesting pro forma in your role as
Rich wrote:
unsubscribe jeroen-l
Me too.
Ritu
GCU Please
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Rich wrote:
unsubscribe jeroen-l
Me too.
Ritu
GCU Please
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
- Original Message -
From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:37 AM
Subject: RE: Admin: Server access blocked
Rich wrote:
unsubscribe jeroen-l
Me too.
Two comments on this:
1) Why doesn't Jerone start up his own version of BRIN
unsubscribe jeroen-l
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Marvin Long, Jr. wrote:
PS: I am _also_ a meme-stereotype. If everybody is
against Jeroen, then I must stand to be the Defender
of the Lost Cause :-)
Does that mean you don't actually disagree with
Nick's decision, but are only protesting pro forma
in your role as Official
Alberto wrote:
I begin to understand why Jeroen was singled-out to
be the victim-of-the-day. Some reasons are obvious:
he *was* a listowner, so our meme of challenge
authority took control. Others are subtle.
And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing,
lawsuits, and forged headers,
Richard Baker wrote:
My worst case scenario involves giant asteroids, gamma ray bursts,
all-out nuclear exchanges, plague, famine, brain-eating zombie
infestations, leaves on the line, and Steps reforming.
Have you been hacking into my home pc and reading my new novel? :-)
Reggie Bautista
GSV
Alberto wrote:
serious
My point is that it's not fair to ban Jeroen without
the consent about the list rules. We didn't agree to
what would be the list rules, and which was the minimum
set of restraint that listmembers should show before
being suspended
And even 40 messages per day can't be
Dan Minette wrote:
2) You could start a good discussion with that 100k exposition on the
morality of pacifism that you've been owning me. evil grin.
chuckle
And which one would that be?
All I can see in my drafts folder is an unfinished 11k mail on a war
that looks nigh inevitable. :)
And
Reggie Bautista wrote:
And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing,
lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very
tasty target! Who's better to be harassed as someone
who screams and shouts?
So you don't think there should be consequences for
his actions?
Yes - cause
Ritu Ko wrote:
PS - Apologies for all those repeated messages guys.
My Outlook seems to be acing up.
No problem. The server will block any repeated message.
Or not? O:-)
Alberto Monteiro
___
- Original Message -
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Reggie Bautista wrote:
And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing,
lawsuits, and forged headers, make
Dan Minette wrote:
Why was he suspended in the first place? AFAIK,
it was for some reason that *did* have a precedent
before, from other people.
Who else has repeatedly posted offline email in its entireity?
Jeroen.
And wtf does the list have to worry about something that's
Alberto wrote:
If there's no law against drinking alchool, then
there's no law against getting drunk
This is a flawed analogy.
In the U.S. at least, there's no law against drinking
alcohol, and no law against getting drunk, but there
are laws against driving while drunk and many
jurisdictions
Alberto wrote:
Jeroen's behavious was no different than any other
listmember, except for magnitude or intensity.
If there's no law against drinking alchool, then
there's no law against getting drunk
That's true, but, at least in the US, there are laws
against being drunk disorderly in
I wrote:
If I make a really big mistake and
cause a customer to loose several thousand dollars
worth of business, I could get seriously reprimanded
or possibly even fired.
That should be lose, of course. Darn that Nyarlathotep.
This, by the way, would count as a really small mistake. :-)
- Original Message -
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Dan Minette wrote:
Why was he suspended in the first place? AFAIK,
it was for some reason that *did* have
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Alberto Monteiro
...
serious
My point is that it's not fair to ban Jeroen without
the consent about the list rules. We didn't agree to
what would be the list rules, and which was the minimum
set of
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
Why was he suspended in the first place? AFAIK,
it was for some reason that *did* have a precedent
before, from other people.
Who else has repeatedly posted offline email in its entireity?
Jeroen.
And wtf does the list have to worry
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:52:47 -0600
- Original Message -
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Dan Minette wrote
-Original Message-
From: Jon Gabriel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11
-Original Message-
From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote:
That should be lose, of course. Darn
Erik wondered:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Reggie
Bautista wrote:
That should be lose, of course. Darn that
Nyarlathotep.
Darn that WHAT? I can't find it in my dictionary.
Maybe I'm missing a play on words?
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote:
That should be lose, of course. Darn that Nyarlathotep.
Erik Reuter wrote:
Darn that WHAT? I can't find it in my dictionary. Maybe
I'm missing a play on words?
Nyarlathotep was the name of a chaotic god-like character
from
Adam C. Lipscomb wrote:
Please accept my apologies for this - I have started sending at least
5 replies to Jeroen for every spam I get, and he has apparently,
through a simple (and childish) trick, ensured they come to the list
as a whole.
I don't think it was intended as a trick. And I
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
You are a very evil person...
I try, thank you.
[blinks innocently]
My point is that it's not fair to ban Jeroen without
the consent about the list rules. We didn't agree to
what would be the list rules, and which was the minimum
set of
From: J. van Baardwijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
But what about attempts to hack the server?
That is something that happened *only* because Arnett
willingly violated
list policy again, so he has no right to take any action
against me anyway.
Isn't that a bit like saying that since
Adam C. Lipscomb wrote:
Please accept my apologies for this - I have started sending at least
5 replies to Jeroen for every spam I get, and he has apparently,
through a simple (and childish) trick, ensured they come to the list
as a whole.
Speaking of childish, isn't doing more than
I wrote:
That should be lose, of course. Darn that Nyarlathotep.
Erik replied:
Darn that WHAT? I can't find it in my dictionary. Maybe I'm missing a
play on words?
Nyarlathotep is one of the elder gods, along with
Cthulhu and others, in the stories of H. P. Lovecraft.
In a message within
--- Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Recipient list suppressed
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
rest of 10K message deleted
I just got TEN
Debbi said:
I just got TEN of these in a row - what is going on?
Some might view it as a mailing list equivalent of the French
Revolution. Others may well consider it escalating childishness.
Rich
GCU Who Will Be Our Napoleon?
___
Speaking of childish, isn't doing more than tit-for-tat (i.e., rejecting
each one back to him just once) childish? :) Wouldn't it be a lot more
effective to set up some sort of system that just bounces everything he
sends you back to him, so you never have to worry about it after setting
it
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
I begin to understand why Jeroen was singled-out to
be the victim-of-the-day. Some reasons are obvious:
he *was* a listowner, so our meme of challenge
authority took control. Others are subtle.
And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing,
lawsuits, and
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:44:40PM -0500, K. Feete wrote:
Maybe it's just that between school and bad work habits coming back on
me and a truly incredible streak of bad luck I'm closer to a nervous
breakdown than I've ever been,
Interesting preface for someone who goes on to offer advice...
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:44:40PM -0500, K. Feete wrote:
Maybe it's just that between school and bad work habits coming back on
me and a truly incredible streak of bad luck I'm closer to a nervous
breakdown than I've ever been,
Interesting preface for someone who
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
K. Feete wrote:
Maybe it's just that between school and bad work
habits coming back on
me and a truly incredible streak of bad luck I'm
closer to a nervous
breakdown than I've ever been,
Interesting preface for someone who goes on to offer
Deborah Harrell wrote:
grimace Partly because I find open conflict very
difficult - and disturbing - to deal with. [Duh.]
Me too. In the chat yesterday, I promised to write an email
that would at least *attempt* to smooth things over. I've
been working on it all day, and I'm still not
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:37:46PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
p.s. I have PMS -- how's *that* for a disclaimer?
A more practical disclaimer than most that I've read...
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
Nick Arnett wrote:
This is an action that I take only with GREAT reluctance. However, neither
Julia nor I is willing to endure harassment of this kind.
I appreciate those of you who have expressed your support during this
difficult episode. I hope we've found a reasonable series of steps to
Nick Arnett wrote:
This is an action that I take only with GREAT reluctance. However, neither
Julia nor I is willing to endure harassment of this kind.
I appreciate those of you who have expressed your support during this
difficult episode. I hope we've found a reasonable series of steps to
Nick Arnett wrote:
Reasons for blocking acces for a valued member of this community
Let me say this: I fully realise that Nick has the absolute right and power to
do this. It is afterall his list and he can do as he pleases wether I like it or
not. But I just wish he'd be honest about the
- Original Message -
From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Nick Arnett wrote:
Reasons for blocking acces for a valued member of this community
Let me say this: I
Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Nick Arnett wrote:
Reasons for blocking acces for a valued member
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten responded:
But I dont want to point this at you directly, even if you are getting
involved in this crap.
Yes you are. And no I'm not. I am however entitled to an opinion. Worse I'm even
(for now still) entitled to voicing that opinion, independent of what Jeroen or
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Recipient list suppressed
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia
Thompson) did
not want you to see
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Recipient list suppressed
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia
Thompson) did
not want you to see
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Recipient list suppressed
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia
Thompson) did
not want you to see
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Recipient list suppressed
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia
Thompson) did
not want you to see
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Recipient list suppressed
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia
Thompson) did
not want you to see
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Recipient list suppressed
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia
Thompson) did
not want you to see
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Recipient list suppressed
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia
Thompson) did
not want you to see
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Recipient list suppressed
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia
Thompson) did
not want you to see
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Recipient list suppressed
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia
Thompson) did
not want you to see
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Recipient list suppressed
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia
Thompson) did
not want you to see
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
