ext_107605 (
mhorrighan.livejournal.com
) wrote
in
foudebassan
2007-08-06 05:14 pm (UTC)
no subject
I can't agree on that. It
would have been
in their right to ban IF
1. there had been any offence at all and
2. there had been rules for that kind of offence/banning. Now there are but then there weren't.
http://laceandtea.livejournal.com/72973.html
http://community.livejournal.com/innocence_jihad/159327.html
(
50 comments
)
Post a comment in response:
From:
Anonymous
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID
Identity URL:
Log in?
Dreamwidth account
Account name
Password
Log in?
If you don't have an account you can
create one now
.
Subject
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
Formatting type
Casual HTML
Markdown
Raw HTML
Rich Text Editor
Message
[
Home
|
Post Entry
|
Log in
|
Search
|
Browse Options
|
Site Map
]
no subject
1. there had been any offence at all and
2. there had been rules for that kind of offence/banning. Now there are but then there weren't.
http://laceandtea.livejournal.com/72973.html
http://community.livejournal.com/innocence_jihad/159327.html