 | | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
One thing that I would like to add is that if my posting privileges are reinstated I will only post updates about my webpage, nothing else. And only updates that do not undermine the harmony and sanctity of Lugnet and it's users. -Matthew (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | My Stance
|
|
First off I would like to publicly apologize to Jude. I do that more for Jude than I do for me. I killed my emotions a long time ago, so sometimes it's hard to remember that everyone else still feels them. I think the reason I picked Jude and the (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) Below is a copy of a message I have just written to Matthew via e-mail. If Matthew does show up here today, please try to keep things as civil as possible. --Todd ___...___ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:24:33 -0400 From: Todd Lehman (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Let s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) My perception is that the banning occured because: 1. there was clearly a single individual who was fanning the flames of a flame war which had potential to severely impact Lugnet's mission 2. the individual communicated pretty clear threats (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) But you would still have read at least read a message in order to reply to it? But I take your point. (...) I'm not sure I do want to speak to him, but I'm also not sure about how is banning came about. I pointed out posts earlier which (I (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) Interesting "conclusion" then; still wrong. (...) Sometimes I read chronologically and sometimes I read reverse-chronologically. My newsreader sorts everything by time, and gives me a near-live feed, so if I happen to be sitting at the screen (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) Not really a guess. (...) (URL) you did not disallow him for more than an hour after you read the "threshold breakers", in the intervening time you read and replied to his denigration(1) of you? Further, I can't remember anyone being excluded (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Partsref Update
|
|
(...) I wonder if it has something to do with the image sizes being so small -- that the overhead of firing up IM for each image is the bottleneck. Under FreeBSD the executable I got when I compiled IM was 2.5MB(!) and I seem to remember it also (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Partsref Update
|
|
(...) Can I quote you on that? BTW, I had a slightly different take on that meeting. I felt like a complete duffer, who was lucky to be sitting around with some real pros. Steve (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Partsref Update
|
|
(...) The funny thing is, it's taking longer to convert from BMP24 to GIF than it did to render the images in the first place... ImageMagick gives better compression than Paint Shop Pro (not sure why that is...), but IM seems to be an order of (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) Interesting guess, but wrong. Here are the threshold breakers: (URL) [1] Yes, I have permission to republish these comments here. It's part of (...) Thanks for your input. You may be right about it being a bad idea to post feedback comments as (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My point.
|
|
(...) In all seriousness, I don't understand your question, mostly because if it were communicated verbally, there would have been emphasis on one word or another to give me a clue what you meant. I'll assume what you meant is: "It's not what *you* (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | copyright, registered, trademark zealotry
|
|
I'm still working on the FAQ (check it out if you haven't already at (URL) ) and I've notice that LUGNET(TM) worries about copyrights, registered marks and trademarks a whole lot more than the LEGO Group appears to. I'd appreciate any guidelines on (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My point.
|
|
(...) is (...) It is not what you consider to be a flame which is important - do you agree? (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) I think Mathew made a lot of points; some were quite enlightening, some were pertinent and some I can't agree with one bit. However, as far as I can see it looks like you reacted to his criticism of you more than anything else. This makes you (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not getting e-mail from Lugnet?
|
|
(...) Yesterday and earlier today I was running a very extensive ftp sequence from home, and it filled up some logs on /var. --Todd (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not getting e-mail from Lugnet?
|
|
(...) just curious - what was wrong with it? (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
