Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 May 2004 16:01:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7135 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
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 leave it.
|
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.
| |
YOU would be well served to review *this* post
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/terms/?n=438
which, I note, is a direct reply to the post you cited.
Internalise it.
I’ve done *far* more than I need to here. Stop baiting me about this.
In fact, stop baiting me about anything at all, as your baiting only proves,
to everyone with any sense that you are low value add, especially when you
carry out vendettas like this.
|
Have you read your posts over the last 48 hours? At one point 7 out of 8
consecutive posts by you were attacks on me. Despite others correcting
you, and me suggesting both directly (on .debate) and indirectly (with
e-mails to you and Todd) that you should stop, you feel obliged to
continue.
I just can’t figure what has wound you up so much over the last 48 hours?(1)
If you are feeling stressed in your private life, please do not vent it on
me. I simply do not see why I (or anyone else) should have to put up with
this level of abuse.
Scott A
(1) Can anyone else?
|
This is the point where debating loses its ‘joy’ for me.
Can we please leave the ‘directed at specific individuals’ and the ‘could be
misconstrued but I’ll take it in the worst posible way’ attacks out of o-t.d
(though I’m sure someone’ll dig up a post in which I did these very things...)
and focus on talking about the issues of the day, not what perceived
transgressions may have happened by folks posting to o-t.d.
Unless, of course, you’re Richard--making astute observations between ‘posting
rants’ and a societal POV--nicely done Richard--really enjoyable read.
Digging up stuff from the past--well, kicking dead dogs comes to mind. I mean,
if we’re talking transgressions that have here-to-date gone unpunished, I’ll be
in purgatory for a long time. Of course, having this tye of thought process is
why I’d personally have no problem with Hoppy making a return. There should be
a statute of limitations :)
Anyway, can we digress from this type of behaviour and get back to yapping about
countries, policies, and whichever ammendment may be causing grief to the
general populace at this time.
Nothing to see here--move along...
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) The day after I said I'd check out the FUT and I didn't. Eh, whatever. For my money, forwarding things out of o-t.d to 'admin-whatever' is much like running to the teacher on the playground during recess--Getting the 'grown up' figure to (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
