 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | (...) 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) (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | 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 (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | 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 (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | | 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 (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Mark Koeberl
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Double Negativese (was Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
