 | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | (...) Okay. Fair enough, the Terms of Use being what they are. Sorry about the language, Folks. But they are just words, after all. Tom and I could have done far worse. I think we only hit the heights of vulgarity and not even outright obscenity -- (...) (25 years ago, 28-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | (...) Dunno. You do have some interesting points, and I think it's great that you have such obvious passion. My advice (which you can do whatever you want with :)), would be to try and focus it though - calling respected community members slithering (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Langauge aside, .dear-lego isn't the place to stir up a big off-topic[1] commotion like that. I'll bet you could stir up the same commotion in .off-topic.debate or .market.theory and not get complained about by half a dozen or more people. (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | (...) For the record: that wasn't my intention. And actually, I resent the implication that it WAS my intention -- but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume instead that your words get sloppy sometimes too. But I have already tried to (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) No one can speak to what another person's intention actually is, until and unless some sort of perfect mind reading device is built (and I hope that never happens, but I digress). All I can judge by is the outcome of actions. No one's perfect (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) from different threads) and trying to lump them together (apparently similar to your thought process). The former example is certainly that of one who is willing to defend a position, not necesaarily one who creates the dispute to begin with. (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Somewhere in the deep dark dank depths of .debate... hopefully :) Richard (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | "Richard Franks" <spontificus@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Fs6x33.FyG@lugnet.com... (...) I think this should just end. The whole thing is going nowhere fast. I think everyone made some valid points when this all started, now all that is (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Ya. I'll give your post an 80, it's got a good beat and you can dance to it. Seriously, on the main issue, is there anyone who doesn't already know what everyone's position is? The side issues(1) are somewhat interesting if we can get to (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Can you clarify this thinking for me? I think I posted to the thread before you did. So what you're saying is that I should have just ignored you when you said incendiary stuff, (or else it was me starting things) because you were saying (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) No. I changed the subject line. How many times do I have to state that simple fact? Change of subject line constitutes a new thread in my book. What's the netiquette standard? -- Richard (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | This new subject doesn't reset the thread (Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Starting a new thread means actually using the new vs. reply functionality (different browser or newsreader command or button), I'd say. I'm not sure of an official standard, but that's my opinion. If that weren't the case, then this post is (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: This new subject doesn't reset the thread (Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That seems pretty reasonable to me provided you allow that I could have failed to implement that DE FACTO standard due to the fact that there is no OBJECTIVE standard and still be faultless. And that still doesn't address the fact that I (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | FUT OTD {Was: Re: This new subject doesn't reset the thread) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: This new subject doesn't reset the thread (Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | richard marchetti wrote in message ... (...) That still doesn't entitle you to insult people. If I say "All people who live in East Boogle are morons." (thinking that's a totally fake location) and someone says "hey, I live in East Boogle", you've (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: This new subject doesn't reset the thread (Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) But you see, I was wrong, because I didn't notice that Richard changed the subject, which in his world view starts a new thread, regardless of how all the newsreaders in the world implement it, and regardless of how Lugnet itself in the web (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: This new subject doesn't reset the thread (Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | I'm redirecting this discussion to lugnet.off-topic.debate where I should have set follow-ups in the first place... (I think my original note was perhaps appropriate for admin, but the discussion is going to most likely be of the debate kind of (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | (...) I don't. Although I do believe your attempt to characterize my posts as being implicitly vulgar (as opposed to your explicitly vulgar ones) coincides quite well with the assumption that it WAS your intention to inflame. :) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | (...) You resent it? Poor baby. Given the fact that you said this: (...) and this: (...) and this: (...) (by the way, is that implicitly vulgar?) and this: (...) (oh and as an aside, when you said this: (...) I guess you weren't saying explicitly (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | Mikey: What I am saying is that my original post was not intended to rile anyone up. Many of my subsequent posts were not intended to rile anyone up. Some of you other fellow posters in the thread felt free to get up my nose about things, I likewise (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ah, I see. You can't actually be held accountable for what you wrote, of your own free will, because you were merely responding to what we wrote. So even if you (and Tom, of course) are the only ones who have been identified as actually (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Actually, to my mind you should suffer precisely the same penalty as Tom and I are expected to suffer. I have shown your use of vulgarity to my own satisfaction if no one else's. And I can be held accountable for what I wrote. I already (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | (...) It would probably surprise you to find out that I routinely make fun of a student buddy of mine for the side job he took at a mutual fund company. The job that was supposed to be primarily web design and PC support and turned into, at least (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) You know, Mike, this just may be true -- there is just no way that anyone else could have known this; and given that, I had to assume you meant something at least along the lines of the commonly understood colloquial meaning. Its not like I (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I would argue (we're x-posted to .debate now), that if anything TV should not be held as a standard for what should and shouldn't be done on LUGNET. By nature, TV is ratings hungry.. and if they think they can grab a few more seconds of (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Maybe I shouldn't feel insulted by this, but I am. If you think you're being blocked from posting to .dear-lego for use of language, you're mistaken. You (and Tom, and possibly Mike, although I haven't heard complaints about Mike's posts) are (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) No, don't. Give me the benefit of the doubt. We are all very grateful for Lugnet and all of your other work for this community, Todd. Don't be too easy to take offense when you know we are just trying to hash something out here. I guess I AM a (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I am not telling you that, no. If you go back and read what I wrote earlier (carefully, slowly), you'll see that there were multiple factors, not the least of which was repeated off-topic postings to .dear-lego. When people get upset and (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | richard marchetti wrote in message ... (...) Todd (...) that (...) he (...) didn't, (...) be (...) I should probably let dead dogs and horses lie, however, you have also publicly insulted me, and repeated that insult without any provocation from me (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think (personally) what they said was borderline. Not the words themselves so much as the tone and the disrepect intended via them. I personally found it offensive as well, but only because I'd rather people talked maturely and treated one (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I was refering to this post: (URL) particular this part of it: Todd Lehman wrote: (...) <* snip *> (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hrm, I must be misunderstanding what RichardM meant. When he wrote... (...) ...I read that as his simply stating that other people got involved into his argument by their own choice -- that no one held a gun to anyone's head and forced them to (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ok, what I read from it (and it had been mentioned a little more explicitly before) was that Richard was saying that we self selected ourselves as "targets". I agree, we certainly chose to participate. (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) No implication or insinuation of intentions was made. Whether intentional or unintentional, as one of the main participants (if not the main participant), the result was that you said things which stirred up (or helped stir up, or were a (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | (...) Tp be fair then, it does take two to tango- and only one to either a) place a followup-to an appropriate group or b) remember that Lugnet is supposed to be about fun, shrug and walk away. Was this post any more on-topic for lugnet.dear-lego? (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) I could move it I would. If Todd _can_ move it he certainly has my permission. (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
