 | | Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM) (Was: Re: Do you think there is a market) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) That assumes you know my motive or decision process for deciding when, and whom, to remind. Which you do not. (...) No, actually it bolsters MY point which is that not every instance needs to be reminded and that some allowance for error and (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM) (Was: Re: Do you think there is a market) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) ...and that bolsters MY point. Unless you are willing honour every single trademark you mention here, you are in absolutely no position to chastise others for not doing so. Doing so would be sheer hypocrisy. Do you fail to see that? Further, (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM) (Was: Re: Do you think there is a market) —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | (...) Scott (et al.), First, see this post, in response to a very polite and non-confrontational questioning of Larry, and the other GoB members, about the whats, whys and wherefors of establishing , asserting and maintaining a trademark: (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...) —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | My deepest apologies for this long re-post, but I had meant to change the name of this thread, as the current name was completely off-topic, but I posted just the same. Please make replies to this current subject to this version of the post. Thank (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Care and Feeding of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...) —Paul Klenk
|
| | | | | | | (...) Matt, Thanks for doing that. I was pretty astonished that, as a newbie, I could actually post a topic that not only spawned 83 posts but also started a minor war on LUGNET! Flattered as I was by that, I thank you for being mindful of the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Perhaps you need to think about your tone, this almost sounds like a threat? I really think you are confusing the message with the messenger. Go back and read Brian's post. Consider it fully. Was he wrong? Was I wrong to support him? Scott A (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | (...) If you're referring to: (URL) I think you are, all you are doing here is trying to publicly further your personal vendetta against Larry. Matt is totally right. And it is about the messenger, YOU have beaten this issue to a pulp. Take your (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) This is what I don't get. Larry offends people. Larry acts childishly. Larry engages in name-calling. But when I point all this out, I get the flack. (...) I shall ask again: was Brian wrong? It's a simple question. (...) I'm glad we agree on (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...) —Rich Manzo
|
| | | | | | | | | I haven't followed this dabate for a long time nor do I care to at this point. However please keep it out of the market forum; it doesnt belong here. -Rich (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | XFUT'ed to .off-topic.debate and .people at Rich Mazno's request. Only keeping it in market for this one post, for continuity so people using newsreaders know my reply is moving. :-) (...) Is my assessment of the above post correct or incorrect? It (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Vendettas (was Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I'd argue that this is an admin issue if it belongs anywhere on LUGNET(tm) at all. (which I doubt, at this point, that it does) It's a stretch to see how this fits the lugnet.people charter: lugnet.people– All about LEGO® people (enthusiasts, (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Why keep reducing this to personalities? This is about issues - not personalities. Stick to the issues. Forget your relationship with Larry for now. I shall ask again: This is what I don't get. Larry offends people. Larry acts childishly. (...) (23 years ago, 1-Feb-02, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...) —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | | | | [OK...I'm going to keep my cool here, and not attack Scott, despite my sensabilities crying out for lots of sarcasm, exclamation points and capital letters. I'm just going to point out a couple of facts and leave it at that. I suggest that anyone (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Community Involvement And Personal Issues (Was: The Care and Feeding...) —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | | (...) Creative snipping to make a false point Scott? Bad form, old boy. Let's go ahead and restore the part where I explain what you are intentionally misconstruing as a threat, so it's true meaning is once again made clear: (...) So let's recap, (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.people)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Community Involvement And Personal Issues (Was: The Care and Feeding...) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | Forgive me Matthew if I have misunderstood your tone - I apologise for that. I would just like to clarify one very small point: (...) You are talking about this message of mine: (URL) up thread, and you will see that: 1) Larry had already made a (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.people)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Non ISO charaters (was Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM) (Was: Re: Do you think there is a market)) —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | (...) I've been addressing this issue before, but I think it is about time to pick it up again. Matthew, I'm using your article as an example, no offence! I frequently see the use of characters which are not in the ISO 8859-1 character set on (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Non ISO charaters (was Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM) (Was: Re: Do you think there i —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | | (...) Hee-hee...no offense taken! I understand, 'cuz here's what your mail link looks like on my Macintosh: Fredrik =?iso-8859-1?q?Gl=F6ckner?= <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> (...) I'm web interface, and of course, it looks just fine to me posting or (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Non ISO charaters (was Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM) (Was: Re: Do you think there i —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | (...) This is an RFC2047 encoded header, which is the preferred way to transfer 8-bit characters in header fields. RFC2047 dates to 1996, and should be implemented in most user agents. It has not been implemented in the LUGNET web interface? It is (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Vendettas (was Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GqpspD.Kq4@lugnet.com... (...) My bad... I followed Matt's lead yesterday though. ;-) I'll fut all of my replies away from .people and to .debate. -Tim (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Vendettas (was Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...) —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | | (...) I think mine fit in .people...whatever... Matt (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Posting Dates (Was: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...)) —Rob Doucette
|
| | | | (...) It looks like you both did. Scott's message is dated 1-Feb, a couple of days following the previous message, although it showed up some 8 hours ago. If I look at the dates, you're the one holding the shovel. I thought this NNTP date (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Posting Dates (Was: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...)) —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | (...) Indeed! My most abject apologies Scott. Had I caught that error in the posting scheme, I would never have responded as I did! Again, my apologies! Thank you Rob, for catching that mistake. Admins: What is the deal with this? Is it a function (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Posting Dates (Was: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...)) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Hmm, I thought it was a function of when one gets around to approving or cancelling messages via the mail interface, *as well as* when that mail gets delivered. Scott has in the past related that he often waits a while (up to several days??) (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Posting Dates (Was: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...)) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I often approve a message via e-mail and it does not appear. I've heard others say the same happens to them. I have no idea if this is what happened here. I noticed my reply had not appeared when I quoted Tim's words yesterday morning in the (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Posting Dates (Was: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...)) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Don't worry about it. Scott A =+= Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet? (URL) reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Posting Dates —Dan Boger
|
| | | | (...) I don't see it as broken. The date of a message is the date it was composed. The date it was posted is unimportant, imo. :) Dan (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Posting Dates —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | (...) That would only be true if the message somehow just showed up where it belonged in line. If it posts as a new message 28 days later, it is highly confusing. This instance has proven that. Besides, it is a disservice to the users to have their (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Posting Dates —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | | | (...) Oops...ought to clarify for readers that this is a web interface problem. Obviously those having the messages delivered via newsgroup or e-mail would not see this as a new message...it would just show up by date where it belongs in their (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Posting Dates —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) ?? Wouldn't it show up in their mail on the day it actually got posted rather than the day it was sent, queued up and was intended to be posted? A mail interface person who didn't closely check the date on the mail, or a newsreader person (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Posting Dates —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'd much rather have unauthorized posts expire after a week or so, perhaps with a reminder a couple of days before they do. That's the way I'm leaning twards right now - not saying that it'll be implemented anytime soon, of course :) Dan (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Posting Dates —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) so you think if it inserted itself with all the read messages, it'd be less confusing? I know I'd never see it, now will anyone who reads through the web interface... (...) naw - it's not the server's fault that whoever it is sat on the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Posting Dates —Rob Doucette
|
| | | | | | | (...) I like this suggestion. If the message isn't dispositioned within 5 days (I like 3 better) send the entire text of the message back to the sender via e-mail and remove it from the server. The message could easily be reposted via newsreader if (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Posting Dates —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | (...) nod, interesting... or send a reminder, saying "if you don't authorize this post in the next 2 days, it will be deleted"... (...) it can, but should it? I think the date the message was written is the date that should appear on it. the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Posting Dates —Rob Doucette
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I view the dates differently. In the authentication scenario, the authorize date is the date when the poster made a conscious decision to share their message with the community, the message's birthday. The date they wrote and submitted the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Posting Dates —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) There's actually two problems which cause funny dated/timed messages. The one Lugnet has had from day 1 is that the poster's clock is incorrectly set. This usually results in messages having time stamps which are off by several hours, but if (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Posting Dates —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | | | (...) Maybe that's the penalty you mention below? Someone who doesn't authorize a message right away runs the risk of having their message being not read as it gets inserted in it's proper place in line-perhaps after a week or so? Is that even (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Posting Dates —William R. Ward
|
| | | | | | (...) It would help if the server could "nag" people if their auth response was never received. An e-mail reminder could help in case the original auth request was deleted or never delivered. I've always wondered ever since the auth system was put (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Posting Dates —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) It is posted when it is composed, or at least I press the "post" button. ;) Perhaps "post" can be changed to "submit" and "authorise" changed to "post"? Scott A =+= Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet? (URL) reasonable man adapts himself to (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
