 | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Jesse Long
|
| | | James Brown wrote in message ... (...) Easy, shoot first, ask questions later. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? Read the rec.toys.lego FAQ! (URL) in Deja News! (URL) (26 years ago, 16-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | Well, in his defense, he was right.....sort of... How often do you see spam in a newsgroup? And how often do you follow a link in a spam to check it out? I sure as heck don't. The ONLY reason I followed it to check it out was because Suzanne posted (...) (26 years ago, 16-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) But how often do you post a public reply to a message containing a prominently located URL without checking out what's on that URL first? Anyway, no harm done. Anyone could've mistaken it for spam, as you point out. (...) Hmm, good idea for (...) (26 years ago, 16-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Oh? It's a way cuter post without mentioning LEGO. That whole site is an alternate reality in which the brick is never mentioned. Very effective and sweet. And I don't believe you would not have followed the link if it was me... you're just (...) (26 years ago, 16-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Cindy Salwen
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | Yes. You're right. But so am I, in that the BODY of the post didn't. Just the URL. Some of us look closely at URLs and some of us don't. So we're both right. So's Todd, actually. I still say it's a cute alternate reality. Do minifigs KNOW they're (...) (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) Hunh? You're SO jaded against spam in newsgroups that you would ignore whatever reputation Larry and I might have earned over the past year or more, both on the group and via e-mail, and disregard any link we might post, no matter how we might (...) (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) Yeah, but the point is, YOU know Suzanne. Everyone doesn't ;-) And I don't visit Larry's LP links now, DO I? <smirk> <duck> (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Well, you should! I just emailed you and all the rest of my friends about something pretty serious that we aren't turning the tide against... see my sig. (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) Hmm.. I can't sign that, but I agree that it's not restrictive enough. A few years ago, a somewhat similar law was passed here. However, it's a lot more restrictive. I believe the rule is that all cash transactions above $20.000 or so should (...) (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
