Steve,
That last comment was completely out of line ont eh admin thing. They
accused an entire community of sock puppeting... on the basis of ONE
new user account. There is no cospiracy to sock puppet the issue.
Secondly, there IS NO CONFLICT of interest... again an attack on one
user... and
I apologize.
I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend it to David
Meade. Ugh. This has not been a great week. I'm genuinely sorry guys.
pat
-- Forwarded message --
From: Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: May 3, 2007 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Vlog
for such an accomplished griefer?
-Original Message-
From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick
Delongchamp
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 13:51
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
I apologize
She's right. It's pretty mini.
On 5/3/07, missbhavens1969 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Crossing the line? Gee...Y'think?
Well, since we've descended into the pit of juvenile name calling, I'd
like to say that after the close following of these
wikipedia/videoblogging threads I've come to the
As someone who's
- new, as in, been a member of the list a few months
- still trying to figure out many aspects of videoblogging
- only exposure to the wiki entry issue has been on this email list
this is how is seems to me.
People who have defined and shaped videoblogging are the most
FYi... I've *started* to back up the request for temporary banning of
pdelongchamp on the vb article on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Evidence_against_Pdelongchamp
That's the full url, for some reason tiny urls don't support a names
and the
