 | | Re: the best laid plans of mice and men
|
|
"Scott A" <s.arthur@hw.ac.uk> wrote in message news:G0qAoF.I02@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) question (...) Why are you making a personal attack on Steve when he made a valid observation on your comments? (...) common (...) all (...) Sure, deadlines (...) (26 years ago, 11-Sep-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: the best laid plans of mice and men
|
|
(...) I thought he was expressing disatisfaction with Lego in general. I don't entirely agree with him, but I thought the cheap shot was the above response. (...) In my judgment Steve made the personal attack. It's nice that a Lego representative is (...) (26 years ago, 11-Sep-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: the best laid plans of mice and men
|
|
(...) Sorry, I did not mean to have my comments construed as a personal attack. I 100% accept that my post was rather pointless, my reply to Steve was meant to be a rhetorical question which infers that my post was not the only pointless one on (...) (26 years ago, 11-Sep-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: the best laid plans of mice and men
|
|
(...) Looks like you missed it by two. (...) Rarely - I'd spend too much time posting followups to myself. (...) Nope, that's not it, either. Not that you questioned anyone. John Neal's post is a much better response than I'll ever be able to write. (...) (26 years ago, 11-Sep-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: the best laid plans of mice and men
|
|
(...) (Backpedaling) Oh, did you think that I thought that Brad was quoting Shakespeare *there*? ;-) (...) Touché, Bruce. Nuttin' like being hoisted by one's own petard... and we Larritarians don't stomach humble pie very well:-) -John (...) (26 years ago, 11-Sep-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
