 | | Re: who does chris think he is?
|
|
(...) I know that the admins set the rules and I know LUGNET is "non-free" in terms of the types expression allowed but I think the above opinion is very arrogant (that's not to say that you, Tim, are arrogant since I know you are not). The above (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: who does chris think he is?
|
|
(...) I didn't mean to imply that profanity is always wrong. I tend to agree with Larry's view on profanity use [1] and also agree (strongly) with Kelly's view of "free speech" on LUGNET [2]. My comment wasn't meant to address what was profanity and (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Effeet insults 101 was (Re: who does chris think he is?)
|
|
(...) Um, if you need to resort to profanity, then I submit that you have already lost the argument. Profanity itself is the use of socially agreed upon words which have no real meaning in any given situation, but rather express distaste in a (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Effeet insults 101 was (Re: who does chris think he is?)
|
|
(...) Who said anything about argument? I often use words in normal conversation that would probably be considered profane here. ROSCO (20 years ago, 25-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Effeet insults 101 was (Re: who does chris think he is?)
|
|
(...) As do many people, but what most, while doing so, don't realize is that they are on some level arguing for or against something. Whether the argument is with the 2 $^#$%$#^ bricks that won't separate or the @#$^& thing you dislike (for (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
