 | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Mike Stanley
|
| | | (...) Says you. I appreciated the reminder and made use of the service, which is FREE, by the way. Where would you say the reminder belonged, since you've suddenly elected yourself to the post of topic cop? (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Alan Shutko
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Gregor Benedikt Rochow
|
| | | | | (...) 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: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Jesse Long
|
| | | | | 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) 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
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yeeeoops! I should hope no one is harping on Kevin! :) I meant to write Keith. --Todd (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | Well, my point is he still didn't make a mistake. As I said, I followed it, as I knew what was up. If you DIDN'T know about baseplate, and here's my point... ***Why should the reader spend their time to visit a link to verify it is NOT spam?*** (...) (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | (...) Fried with mayo on white bread is better. (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | Hm, HeartAttack Special, right? No thanks, fried with ketchup is a bad enough artery clogger. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer | (26 years ago, 19-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | | (...) Because he's taking the time to flame the original poster? I mean, sure, you don't need to visit a spam-like link, but you also don't have to flame - in a public forum, no less - the original poster. Much better either to email or to check it, (...) (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Kevin Bracey
|
| | | | | | (...) Ah, but conversely, why should he _post_ a response to something he thinks is spam? Totally pointless, and just increases the disruption caused by a spam. Anyway, people should think before they post. They sometimes seem to forget that they're (...) (26 years ago, 19-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Timothy D. Freshly
|
| | | | 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Never posted to RTL...(Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | Hi Timothy!!! ... and welcome to the spotlite. Why is it that nice newbies always delurk when we're having these family spats? Interesting that you said you've never posted to RTL but lurked for a good 1/2 year. Any theories why? Glad LUGNET was (...) (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Never posted to RTL...(Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | | (...) Because they invariably produce a sense of camaraderie, us all against the "spammer"? Or possibly because flame-fests (mild as they are here) are the most interestig conversations we have? *grins very evilly* Jasper (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Never posted to RTL...(Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Mark de Kock
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Or just because those 'mild' flame-fests are the only conversations that one can see while checking for new posts in .general... I mean: one little posting-response to the original flower-addvertisement-post has created a discusion, that lasts (...) (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Never posted to RTL...(Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Timothy D. Freshly
|
| | | | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <36CB847A.4EECA659@v...er.net>... (...) Theories? I guess I would have to say that I like to get a good sense of the group dynamics before diving in. Too many times, I have seen people jump right into a newsgroup (...) (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Suzanne D. Rich
|
| | | | So! OK, everybody. Get this! I'm like away in NYC for a week. Havin' a fine time. I'm playing with toys, slurpin' beverages with other LEGO folks. MEANWHILE... this is going on (!!!!!) "Timothy D. Freshly" wrote: [snip] (...) Good heavens. That's (...) (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | Class act. Suzanne D. Rich wrote in message <36CB84E7.9F911002@b...te.com>... (...) thread. (...) (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service —Barry McFarland
|
| | | | (...) AHhhhhh (spoke as that sound you make after a cool, refreshing drink) I was starting to get RTL flashbacks from this thread. No insults intended, as the good natured, warm, fireside type flames here are mostly family spats with well recognized (...) (26 years ago, 19-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
