Changes

Line 99: Line 99:  
:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail?  I certainly had no idea until this message.  I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block.  But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block.  I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail?  I certainly had no idea until this message.  I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block.  But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block.  I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
3,303

edits