 | | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Disagree. (...) This is not so. If you click on the submit button, whether it's for one post or for a whole tree worth, whatever ratings you have set will be reapplied (unless it's a very large tree, as I said before), because you do a POST. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Okay, I think I understand. So, right now the submit ratings button on a thread display page is useless and serves no purpose, as I understand you. I guess we are all resigned to submit individual ratings on a per-message basis (not a (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Hmm. There actually isn't any next-post icon in the light blue band. Do you mean that you clicked an underlined number in the light blue band to proceed to the next message? If so, that causes an HTTP GET request, not an HTTP post request. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) (URL) -- to an excessive extent! (Note that Alan's post 1520 was 3 minutes before (...) I do not know why Alan did what he did, but there may be reason. I will concede that 83 messages is a bit excessive, however. Anyway, I just used Alans (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Susan -- thanks. Very Interesting. --Todd (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) If it helps you figure it out any, I think Alan was trying out the technique mentioned in this post: (URL) -- to an excessive extent! (Note that Alan's post 1520 was 3 minutes before the string of 108 messages started.) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) :) thanks (...) If it were thousands, I sure would. I'd probably ask you first, even. :) But I can definitely see the possibility of someone not even thinking twice about posting several dozen short messages to a .test group. In between (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Ahh, but you're special. No doubts in my mind that if you or DanB or JeremyS (for example) had done it, you'd've had a good solid reason. And if you weren't just bored and playing around, I'll bet you'd mention ahead of time that you were (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Step 1 is to disable his posting ability to that group ASAP -- nobody needs to post 108 messages -- many all the same exact copy -- to test any of those things shown above. If it turns out later that Alan had a legitimate reason to do what he (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Podracing bucket contents revealed . . .
|
|
(...) Ewwww... (...) No, but it is a Fight Club!!! Now where's Brad Pitt, I want to bash his face in! ;-) ~Nathan (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Podracing bucket contents revealed . . .
|
|
In the end, this is all moot. I'm keeping the pics to myself, and should have never brought it up. As a webmaster of sorts, it's very easy to jump out and say "look what I've got!" I should have gone to LEGO and asked, like I am doing now. If LEGO (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Podracing bucket contents revealed . . .
|
|
(...) The reasoning is simple: The LUGNET Terms of Use Agreement (URL) anyone to post information which infringes upon the privacy or publicity rights of others. If you ask LEGO, I think you'll find that they view any and all "leaks" as unauthorized (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Can you say *** on Lugnet?
|
|
(...) If it isn't anonymous (ie - LUGNET reads the posting cookie, or the person submitting the problem post has some other form of identification), and only one mail is sent per problem post.. then I agree. Or rather, just something to stop someone (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: figuring out prices
|
|
(...) heheh... no wonder I couldn't find it before... Thanks for creating it! :) Dan (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: figuring out prices
|
|
(...) lugnet.market.appraisal --Todd (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: figuring out prices
|
|
Dan, (...) Hmm... Well I would say, like all my Futuron sets would go for, their price to me is... priceless! :) Scott "No help at all" Sanburn ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | figuring out prices
|
|
Well, I'm not sure where I should ask my question, so I'm asking here. The thing is we got a bunch of lego from a friend of Jenn's, and in it we (think) we have a few 1970's sets. We're wondering what they might be worth, but we'll never sell them. (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Can you say *** on Lugnet?
|
|
(...) be (...) Hrmmmm - some people (who say things they shouldn't be saying here, according to their agreement to the T&C) might think it is spam that they get an automated response reminded them that they shouldn't be saying things like that? My (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Can we define flogging?
|
|
(...) I think auctions get special treatment as an RTL reaction... auctions were the most obvious "hated" traffic, so they were singled out. Now that they're out of the way, some (most?) people are now expressing a similar distaste for any market (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Can you say *** on Lugnet?
|
|
(...) Well, no, not if it's worded nicely. Now, if a 'repeated' offender would get the same message over and over again - now that would be spam. But a 'repeated offender' as such would be needed to be dealt with differently... Is there a way to (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
