[ciscomgr] Re: d4nnyboy

  • From: tlv <tlv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: ciscomgr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:08:04 -0700 (PDT)



On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Rupert Spencer wrote:

>
> I am not against d4n having @, thought I really don't know him. I trust your
> judgement though.
>
> jd came in the other day and was asking why? why? and me and [Omega] played
> dumb (well Vib played dumb, I wasn't acting) and avoided the questions. He
> seems to be on his best behavior the past couple days, maybe trying to get
> back in good graces? Or maybe he has realized that his access is still
> higher than most and decided to live with it. It is not like we really flex
> our > 400 muscles that often anyway

yeah... i just now did though, removed snapdad, rickgid, egami and pomol
from X... mostly to see if they would even notice or care which i doubt
for most of them really. snapdad was logged in at this moment but not in
channel as usual... lets see :)


> > Xian
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tlv" <tlv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ciscomgr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:56 PM
> Subject: [ciscomgr] d4nnyboy
>
>
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > So uhmm since several of us seem to think that d4n might be a good
> > candidate for @'s, is anybody against it ?
> >
> > If not i'll brief him and doublebrief him etc and off he goes or
> > something...
> >
> > Luckily it seems the JD matter has taken care of itself ?
> >
> > *burp*
> >
> > Me
> >
> >
>
>
>


Other related posts: