>
Surprising, if true (can you provide a URL?) - it assumes misconduct by a student affects only members of the University Community. I'd think a letter to the Dean of Law could get the ball rolling, though.
>

Paragraph 17 - under complaints and preliminary review reads as follows:

"However, individuals who are not members of the University community may not serve as the complainant in any proceedings conducted under this Code."

If Steve has an issue, he has other routes available to him. The University's code of conduct does not exist to provide a remedy for Steve - assuming he is deserving of a remedy.

As far as the Deans of the Law School are concerned - I know them well. They likely could care less about this issue.


>>AND - all that assumes that I violated the student code of conduct in the first place - which I didn't.
>
>IYO.

My opinion + the facts + the wording of the code - all slant in my favor...


>
You caused Rod to get his IP blocked in June; you must have known you were banned then.
>

Ah...but my IP was not blocked at the end of November. If you are using a blocked IP address as the benchmark for notice - then it was 100% reasonable for me to infer from that - that I was not banned anymore. That is why I posted from home and other places. In the days since, I have not posted a thing to the wiki.

And...YOU have zero standing on this issue. Why you have taken it upon yourself makes me - for lack of a better term - nonplussed.


>
When did this "thread" between you and Steve occur? I thought it was late November. If so, you knew you were banned before you started to post.
>

Note that my home IP address was not blocked....

>
If "trespass" isn't the right legal term to express the concept, I'm sure a lawyer could be found who could word it appropriately.
>

The fact is Al - there is nothing actionable here. Steve was not dis-possessed of the wiki - nor was anybody else. Steve blocked my IP address, then it was unblocked - then it was blocked again. Whether intentional or un-intentional - there was a lapse. AND - Steve took the time to reply - WITHOUT blocking my IP address. Only after a few days did he decide to:

1. Delete my posts and;
2. Block my IP address

In the end - none of this concerns you.....


>
BTW I bet you're a lot more familiar with Rutgers University's Code of Student Conduct than you were before this little exercise ;-)
>

Perhaps. But one thing is for sure, I am more familar with it than you. If your goal was to intimidate or to try and teach me a lesson - it failed miserably. Look - Steve may be your friend - and you may be trying to do nothing more than defend him. I can respect that. But...and let me make this perfectly clear - any dispute that exists between Steve and I does not concern you. You would be well served to not get caught in those cross hairs....

In the end - Steve blocked IP addresses in order to prevent me from gaining access to the wiki. That is his right and he has the power to do that. That is his remedy and that is what he has done. That is the end of it. He censored my posts and there is nothing I can do about - except bring attention to the issue - from the standpoint that in terms of academic discourse - which the wiki supposedly embrases - does not exist. That is not libelous, slanderous, defamatory, and any other tort you wish to throw into the mix. I claimed Steve deleted my posts - and as a result - censored me. Steve admitted this to Rod - which Rod affirmed here in a separate post.

Ultimately, I don't care what you do. Your threats make you look foolish - and they are not that threatening.

Next time, if you have a point - whether factual or legal, bring something to the table that backs up your assertion.