 | | April Fools posts —Ian Warfield
|
| | | Note that the web page posting form stipulates the condition "... I also swear that I am not submitting any false, fraudulent, incomplete, or deceptive information." Doesn't this effectively rule out April Fools jokes? Are all the April Fools (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) IANTL (1) but I think the intent was that you were certifying that the info you gave on the posting form was true... not that you are promising that everything you ever say is true. After you fill in the info you also check the "I agree that i (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Bryan Kinkel
|
| | | | | | | Considering the looper we got last year (the fabulous "new" train line), I was looking forward to seeing what Ben had up his sleeves this year... "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GBAAty.D3@lugnet.com... <snipped> (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think it would have been hard for him to pull something over on us like that twice in a row. Give it a year or two... Frank (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ummm, isn't that just what he did? Pull off a major April Fool's prank two years in a row? No wonder he laid low this year. Steve (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Scott Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | | To All, In regards to this, I would love to see these stupid April Fools items disappear ll together, but it isn't likely to happen. My rule now is to ignore any significant news for at least a month around April 1st, from March 15th to April 15th (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | (...) Indeed he was an instigator this year - (URL) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Not at all. Correct. (24 years ago, 21-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Chris Maddison
|
| | | | | (...) I happen to like the April Fool's jokes. Dunno why, maybe it's the questioning of whether this is real or fake, or just the hopefulness that Lego has finally made some truly, utterly amazing stuff (like Ben's prank from last year.) I mean, I (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) The trouble for me is that the pranks aren't limited to the 1st. Ben's prank last year wasn't a one day deal. The result for me, is as Scott said, for some period of time near the 1st (personally for me, I'm beginning to feel like I should be (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Scott Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | (...) Indeed. I think they are harmful to everyone, especially the "jokes" that seem to be coming earlier and earlier, just for the shock value, or how many people can they fool. It is upsetting. We don't even ave people admitting the jokes anymore, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | RE: April Fools posts —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | | | | (...) I think you're not seeing both sides...because I think that most of the replies to a prank post are from people who either fell for the prank or got angry about it. The people who understood the joke won't usually reply because they don't want (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | NOTE: This post contains no attempt at humor whatsoever. Any humor discovered herein is purely coincidental. (...) Here are some people who enjoyed the joke: (URL) all of the ranting and raving that followed, I was sorry to see Todd add a disclaimer (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Scott Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | Mark & All, (...) Well, Mark, I am not whining, I think it is a serious issue, and if someone dares not like it, it just turns into whining, huh? Name calling is not called for, and I don't appreciate it. April 1st starts April 1st, not a week (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | (...) I'm not trying to take the fun out of it for everyone else, I'm just pointing out that the community as a whole, by virtue of each individuals decisions, make a determination of what kind of place this is. If the community decides that jokes (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | (...) Au contraire!! I think that subtle addition of hints make the joke even better - if people miss the hint, more fool them!!! ROSCO (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Subtle hints are good. Todd's disclaimer wasn't subtle. It basically said "This is an April Fool's joke" only, not in so many words. ~1st Lieutenant, Fleebnork Division Muffin Head (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, it was stuck near the bottom of a big long ginormous post, which meant there was a fair chance people would hit the reply button before seeing it. There's more than 1 kind of subtlety. 8?) ROSCO (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) <emphasis> (...) </emphasis> (...) Serious Guy??? Now that's funny. Coinicidence? I think not. :-) ++Lar (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | (...) Bu... er... well... For the purposes of that post, I was being serious. Yeah, that's it. :^D ~1st Lieutenant, Fleebnork Division Muffin Head (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: April Fools posts —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) Not quite. What it does stipulate is: "I swear that all the information I am submitting on this page is correct and that I am not submitting any false, fraudulent, incomplete, or deceptive information." Note the "on this page" HTH James (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —Ian Warfield
|
| | | | (...) Meaning, if someone posts via newsreader and not over the web, they would be free of the condition on a technicality? I'm not trying to split hairs, here - I just found the stipulation ironically humorous, especially since Todd posted a prank (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: April Fools posts —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) No, although I appreciate the humor... What it means is that you are not submitting false (or fraudulent yadda yadda) information *on the posting setup page* - meaning you aren't lying about who you are. James (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
