 | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service
|
|
(...) Why am I being misunderstood so much today? I must not be taking enough time to write clearly. :-( I was not condemning it as spam. I was explaining to Mike why it appeared like spam to one person (and probably to a few others who haven't (...) (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) [...] (...) someone (...) the (...) long (...) Of course, let's remember where "here" is; namely LUGNet, a moderated (however lightly) private service where true spammers can not get to due to the registration (...) (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) at (...) very (...) has (...) Just becuase one person thinks it looks like spam does not mean we should condemn it as such. One person is not enough to define what is and what isn't in life. Jesse ___...___ (...) (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service
|
|
(...) The word baseplate appears 3 times; both it and legopolis appear in the URL which stands out a bit. Combined with the effort it takes to be able to post to a lugnet group (making spam extremely unlikely), and the amount of time you have to (...) (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Packaging
|
|
Selçuk skrev i meddelandet ... (...) be my (...) [snip] Well, _this_ message did not change anything in my OE, the other one did (and does if I look at it again). Is there some setting in OE I can change, so it never changes codepage automatically? (...) (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service
|
|
(...) From the original post: (URL) ^^^...^^^ ^^^^ If you look, it does mention LEGO. Cindy (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service
|
|
(...) I think you're arguing whether or not it "should" have looked like spam...? That's a moot argument, since we know that it did in fact look like spam to at least one person. Again, we're all only human, and we tend to read things very quickly (...) (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service
|
|
(...) I'm sure I'm not the only person who doesn't look at web sites mentioned in posts which look like spam. If I do, that's just validating the spammers. (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service
|
|
(...) That's what I get for having my phone service go out for a day and missing a couple of days of work. Everyone else makes a topic moot before I get to it. :) (...) You're probably right. (...) Nope, Tom's opinion about usenet spam aside, I (...) (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service
|
|
(...) Easy, Easy. The poor guy was flamed enough yesterday and the day before; let's let it drop. I think Keith gets the idea. It was a simple mistake. Careless maybe, but, well, we're all only human. Obviously it might've looked like spam to some (...) (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
