 | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) For logical reasons. To be fired, you have to be employed, or at least there has to be some sort of fixed arrangement that you can be dismissed from (you can be fired from a volunteer job, but you can't be "fired" from hanging around the (...) (25 years ago, 14-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:37B5A8FA.53861C...ger.net... (...) This is the type of thing I've been worried about. Is this doing more harm or good. I am a relatively new part author (1 year of experience). I'm working on a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) Absolutely. It goes on frequently in the world. (...) Ideally, it should be for the good of both. Hurting another's feelings isn't the issue (though it happens), and it never should be when there are things to be gained by both sides in a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| If you post a message along the lines of "I'm trying to make the crossbow and I am having trouble getting the intersection of where the loop folds into the stock, here's what I tried to do 1. bla 2. bla 3. bla That worked for me when I intersected (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) Well, yes and no, right? * Yes in the sense that "ostracism" means (1) "a method of temporary banishment by popular vote without trial or special accusation practiced in ancient Greece" and (2) "exclusion by general consent from common (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) Suggestions for asking questions: Be as specific as possible. In this case, you are working on a specific detail, so you could post the part, with the problem-areas marked by comments: 0 *** The following 4 lines don't work right *** <bad line (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) BTW, if the group does decide to hold a vote on this, I'll be sitting on the sideline -- I won't be casting a vote on this. For the record, however -- and this is only my opinion having followed this very closely since its inception -- I do (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) A common priviledge here on lugnet is being able to post to any group, which would be revoked if the vote is against him. Exclusion from social acceptance could be achieved by no one answering his posts even with an "I don't know/don't (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) Whoops! There are two #5's up there, eh? :o) By the second #5, I really meant the lugnet.starwars group in particular, although other people may have discovered other areas of related concern, disgust, or disappointment. For instance, there's (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| Thanks for all the suggestions. I believe I have solved this problem, but I will use everyone's suggestions when I need to post a question in the future. Thanks, Adam Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message (...) (25 years ago, 16-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) *Shift* Key Tom.... :) (Or is it ;-) ) :P (and call me stupid cause its only on my way to pressing the send button that I found the 'yanospamhoo' - where's the spamcake? Spamcaaaaake! Spamcaaaaake!!) -Tim <>< (URL) timcourtne ICQ: 23951114 (...) (25 years ago, 16-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) About these voting options, the votes for a more severe restriction should carry over to a less severe restriction if that particular restriction recieves the 2/3 majority votes. For example: 25% vote for removal from lugnet.* 50% vote for (...) (25 years ago, 16-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| I support what you are trying to do in the voting but it may be more straightforward to present a series of up/down propositions and commentary that the broader ones will supercede the narrower ones if passed. (...) Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com (...) (25 years ago, 16-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) That doesn't follow. The choices aren't mutually exclusive, are they? I thought these were separate, independently voted-upon percentages. If so, then they can't be combined mathematically as described above. Consider: If you had 95% vote for (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| |
