 | | Re: A reixamination of what happened.
|
|
(...) Sign... I wish I can also do or say anything and expect others to take it easily if I got "very angry". You must be very special to have such privilege. (...) And people can't take your remarks on your public site personally because? (...) And (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
|
(...) Well I don't know how specific you want but without nameing names I will try. I also assume you want specifics as to what I don't like about the reasoning for banning Matthew not reasoning for not liking Matthew. It is my feeling that there (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
|
G'day Mike, I've already posted my personal points on this issue: (URL) I'll reinforce them for my part... (...) Why should the ToS of this site be relevant to off-site content? If the message posting the link (exluding the link itself) abides by (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: hackin the faq
|
|
(...) Would'a replied earlier if I saw it!! (...) You're doing a very good job (and great for the community)! I'm sure many will appreciate it, whether old-timers or newbies. (...) Good idea! [..] (...) Definitely! You might want to have a cross-ref (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
|
(...) way? (...) I'd agree with the argument. And I think I'd go one step further. If I maintain a site at www.isecretlyhatetodd.com and I never mention it here, I'm not sure I should be held accountable ToS-wise if someone stumbles across it and (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) I don't mean even a bit by the above paragraph it was all you, and the flame war is not a big thing to me as alone. The paragraph is just a chronology, so I put it back to it's original form. (...) Read below. Besides, bet I care even a bit (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
|
Sorry for the malformed subject, it feels like it's 2 AM to me. Something has been nagging at me about one aspect of the latest... I think I want to recant some of my own words, and see if some other people do too. At least a little. Maybe it's a (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: A reixamination of what happened.
|
|
(...) You never were, and still aren't, in my mind. What you put on your site led me and countless others to the personal conclusion that you are a jerk, but that's a completely separate issue from judgment of what you did or didn't do here on this (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: A reixamination of what happened.
|
|
(...) While I would certainly agree that one person with a petty vendetta does not make a "huge conspiracy", if the idea that you were purposely out to harm the online LEGO community is "bs", how do you explain this post: (URL) seems pretty clear to (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) Not accurate, no. Beside the point, nobody who wrote me was upset by your views -- only by your attitude and immature behavior level .space and .off-topic.debate. --Todd (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) So the ENTIRE flame war was all me, huh? No one else participated at all? No one else helped add fuel to the fodder? That's kinda funny cause that's not exactly how I remember it. (...) Hey look, a conspiracy theory. Oh hey, here's a thought, (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: A reixamination of what happened.
|
|
(...) Yes, but so far I haven't seen anyone show any evidence which points to the contrary. I mean let's see some evidence that I did something else wrong. And I don't mean weird conspiracies based on things I did over a year ago. And I also don't (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) I'm not a social scientist, too, but I say yes to the first question. Maybe I take the word elitist as different one, but I can see that we are at similar points on the subject. I already throw some words on it (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
|
(...) Can you be more specific? --Todd (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Todd, I don't have a heck of a lot of time but in general I will say this as to Matthew's concerns. 1. As far as TLC's fair play rules I could care less and I personally would rather (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) Friends, I know I'm not very fluent in this language which is native to me, so I rewording it again: He started a flame war. He did that knowingly, and he even chose the person to flame by rather randomly, since he did that just for the sake (...) (26 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
|
(...) I let this one sit for a while, maybe should let it sit even longer. I think we do need to separate the issue of what to do about MM (which seems to be coming to a consensus, more or less) from the larger issue of whether Lugnet is (...) (26 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: The Friendliest Place On The Internet. (Was Re: What's going to happen.)
|
|
Thanks for the reply Paul. I was being afraid of there would not be one. And of course be sure that there was no hard feelings, and we of course friends just as before. But I still want to make clear something. For me "friendliest" doesn't mean (...) (26 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
Selçuk Göre skrev i meddelandet <39F0D9E8.9A73C9F@su...ne.com>... (...) what (...) I don't think 'suspicions' are enough to judge anyone. 'Evidence' is what's used for that. The evidence in this case are the messages posted on lugnet, nothing else. (...) (26 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: A reixamination of what happened.
|
|
(...) It's possible that you are the only one with that viewpoint. (...) I think that's debatable too, but it's off-site and therefore moot as far as LUGNET is concerned. (...) I'm willing to bet 99% of people would disagree with that. (URL) (line (...) (26 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
