 | | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) You called me a liar. All I'm asking is that you either justify that or apologise. It is that simple; it is a matter of etiquette. This is the last time I intend to ask. (...) Have you read your posts over the last 48 hours? At one point 7 out (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote: (snip) I explained what happened, I admitted fault, and I apologised for it. If it doesn't fit the format of the apology you want, or doesn't fit the facts as you imagine them to be, tough. Take it or (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: ------( Terms of use for lugnet.com )------
|
|
Emmmm .... un'anima buona che lo traduca in italiano? grazie ... Giuliano (21 years ago, 13-Jan-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | over the edge
|
|
Personally, I think the language used in this post is over the edge of what should be tolerated. (URL) post may be cancelled by the time anyone is a postion of authority reads this, but the f-word is being used rather blatently. Ray (21 years ago, 19-Nov-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting the Newness Out;-)
|
|
(...) XFUT to admin.terms Changing people's FTX code can apparently be done without it being detectable (in the web interface), unless you do a reply or view original/raw form to see the underlying FTX. (an eyeball view of John's original post and (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Spam
|
|
(...) No, it certainly doesn't. The reason it got in is because it came in through the lego-robotics@crynwr.com mailing list gateway, and LUGNET's news server trusts the mail gateway not to forward spam. Russell has a sign-up filter (or something) (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Matrix:Reloaded " & "X2 :X-Men United" available in DVD now
|
|
(...) Hm. Something tells me this doesn't belong here. Of course, as long as it is, I figured I'd have a little fun with it. I suspect my version will be received a bit more graciously than the original... (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Which is it; time machine or plagiarism?
|
|
(...) his work. I (...) Well let's hope the Gaston Gazette does not find out. ;) (...) I must be paranoid; I thought it was I who was being baited. But, I admit, I should not have responded. :( Scott A (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Which is it; time machine or plagiarism?
|
|
(...) Plagarism is not; copyright infringement is. (...) Scott, I advise you to please stop baiting Larry eand to read this as well: (URL) (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Which is it; time machine or plagiarism?
|
|
(...) Sinner: repent ye because ye have sinned! The "sin": Larry [2003]: (URL) someone observed to Winston Churchill that his predecessor as prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, was a humble man, Churchill is reported to have replied, "And he has so (...) (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Would I be incorrect?
|
|
(...) I am not in disagreement with what you say Frank. I had to do a bit of thinking and reading group charters before I offered my suggestion. Personally, if I were trying to sell something I would not want the announcement lost in Off-Topic (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Would I be incorrect?
|
|
(...) Hmm, this is one of the things which needs to be clarified. Recent direction has suggested that all buy/sell/trade/auction traffic occur in the market groups (and org groups as specifically allowed by charter). I went looking for discussion on (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Would I be incorrect?
|
|
(...) Reference: (URL) for asking before posting. At this time, the Charter for market.buy-sell-trade does not allow for non-Lego items. However, you can trade all kinds of goods in exchange for Lego. The group ot-clones has been set up to (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) How 'bout a .robotics.ads or .robotics.buy-sell-trade? :-) TJ (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) It might also help to initiate discussion within the group. .robotics is effectively an external group, and to some extent should set it's own charter (of course if it sets a direction which is incompatible with Lugnet then it might be time to (...) (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) It's not my place to say for sure, but I don't think so. I know Suz is very busy right now (weddings and their aftermath tend to do that) and may just not have had a chance to fire off a note. As I said in my last reply, I think perhaps (...) (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
I note that the same lugnet user is again advertising in lugnet.robotics; (URL) no action has obviously been taken since this person last advertised in this news group a few weeks ago, am I to take it that this group is now available for (...) (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) I agree. Further while I think some tolerance is appropriate for non LUGNET(tm) users, (and I veer way out into the hypothetical here) someone who is a LUGNET user but posts commercial stuff that way as a loophole exploitation should be called (...) (22 years ago, 16-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
I understand that some postings on lugnet.robotics arrive via the lego-robotics@crynwr.com service and I think that is a valuable connection which should be retained despite the slim possibility that it may result in a breach of the terms and (...) (22 years ago, 16-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) I think the intent is that it is not, unless the group specifically allows it. See this thread (this is a post from the middle... but it has a proposed clarification in terms that seemed to be well received and that addresses this very point) (...) (22 years ago, 16-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
