 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I see three problems with this: 1. Constructed examples can easily be made to look more ridiculous than real cases which are borderline. 2. In this particular example, there is no reason not to point to the same link as the background images. (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) That's precisely how it was intended to appear: totally gratuitous. (more below on why) (...) Indeed, (I agree) he is, as always, speaking with a voice of reason, and this wasn't intended to be a slap in Larry's face at all. (...) The first (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I see your reasoning behind the example. I think that it was at least a tad out of line given the recent history of this discussion. I remind you, the tone of this discussion has caused at least one valued member of the community to leave [or (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
I'm probably going to take it on the chin for this, but I feel it's necessary to ask: Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <Fq34n8.ICA@lugnet.com>... (...) Larry (...) be (...) So, on behalf of all the newbies including myself I pose (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I think it's because people who know Larry (and that's a lot of people) know that he wouldn't do something questionable on purpose[1] (or probably even accidentally, because he "doesn't make misteaks"). So it's not that it's OK simply because (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <Fq3o8y.6nK@lugnet.com>... (...) few (...) raised (...) something (...) more (...) know (...) even (...) I'm glad you used that last little quote. It highlights my point exactly. I've been reading (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Allan Bedford wrote in message <01bf79b1$4ab7e040$3...hx1138>... (...) It's a running gag. Check out: (URL) is given a little more leeway than some people, but that is because of his history as a solid contributor. There really is no way to avoid (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I can answer this much - when Larry makes a mistake (which, people say, he never does), he answers by saying "I never make misteaks." Or someone else says it for him - because this is 'his' line, his little pun, a trademark of a sort. (CMIIW) (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Larry's the best one to answer that. :) (...) Well, I don't think they can -- and that's 98% of the reason I jumped on Larry for what he posted. And it's also why I posted something similar-but- different right afterwards. The other 2% is (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Shiri wrote in message ... (...) his (...) misteaks." Now there's an idea! Of course that won't help those not in the know any... Frank who may be a respectable member of the AFOL community who does make the occasional misteak (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) No, he's just adjusting to being a New Englander... Todd, you need to do better than that though, that's a poor example of double negativese. Frank (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) If I were to take a guess at it I'd say that Larry was probably one of the first people outside Todd & Suz to really talk with them and help them test things out before LUGNET went live. I was one of the original handful of BETA-testers (I (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Hey, it wasn't supposed to not be unconfusing, it was just not supposed to not necessarily make sense. :) (My favorite double-negativese is still "Duuuude...Most non-non-heinous!") --Todd (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in article <rqepaske3v1t1f7b8og...ax.com>... (...) postings (...) since (...) Sounds like a reasonable answer to me. :) I didn't mean to suggest that Larry WASN'T all that his reputation suggests, but (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in article <Fq3tKE.9sx@lugnet.com>... (...) in (...) Well, in my case, Todd gave me the best laugh I've had today. I suspect he knows his double negatives better than that. :) Thanks Todd. Regards, Allan (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. And I beleive it was, "Dude! That was most non... non-non... non-heinous!" :D Hmm. Actually, now that I think about it, it may have been in Bogus Journey. eric (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Allan wonders why I got special consideration, as it were... you're right, Allan. No one should get it merely because they're an old timer, we all should be measured by the same metrics and held to the same standards. But Todd and others who (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Not to start a flame war, but I think those are great examples negatives. Maybe not no simple double negatives, but great negatives none the less. :) Mark (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Double Negativese (was Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
Ice wrote in message <38AEC563.B2C84529@i...ve.com>... (...) in (...) Well, I have to admit that I'm way out of practice having been out of New England for almost 10 years now, but what I remember and grew up on were double negatives which were (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in article <38AE1E0D.F523974D@v...er.net>... (...) more (...) Larry, I must admit, I was playing devil's advocate just a bit. I have inferred your reputation from hundreds of posts I've read on LUGNET, both (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
