 | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Oooh, now JOHN has one, too! Rats, all the good ones are taken! Here I am, still the same, Dave K. (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Okay, it now seems official, to me at least, that Bruce has now found himself a cool new sig. So, along with "Dave!" and "++Lar", we now have "-->Bruce<--". Well, *I* want in on the action! So from now on, I am promoting the last three letters (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) to what I'd want to say. From the poll: (...) From a design perspective, yes. Get rid of it. It's not Lego related, and has often contributed to bad impressions of Lugnet. (...) I also agree with this-- from a Lugnet user perspective. I like (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) I'm with Larry on this one-- How can a group called 'off-topic' be about LEGO--it's off-topic. Of course the ot-d group is not good for the majority of LEGO enthusiasts, and is only frequented by a relatively small number of folks--but what (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
<joke> Where's the poll selection?: o Who really gives a sh**. Either you read it or you don't. Too many people on Lugnet take things personal or take them the wrong way anyway. Rob XFUT offtopic.debate.flamewar </joke> "Harvey Henkelman" (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) This poll is flawed: - doesn't include the universe of possible answers - doesn't even include a "none of the above" - displays the poll taker's bias in the way the answers are worded. So why would it be interesting to watch, exactly? Or put (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | New Poll
|
|
This should be interesting to watch... (URL) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Model UN's/rants/ideas--was Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
I gotta run, only have time for one throwaway comment. (...) Pretty well I think. We were told to study the real positions and try to play true to form and policy rather than how we personally felt. One example: There was a resolution that came up (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: WTF
|
|
(...) This is why I'm lurking in test... (URL) my first bookmark, and all filters are off. It shows the last 100 messages posted in any group. Since things are a little slow right now, I'm thinking about changing it to 40ish... But there you are. (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | Re: WTF
|
|
(...) sorry Wayne... this will be my last post to .test BUT wander to rtlToronto and hang with the no so friendly people. well, really we are friendly, but we'll poke fun of you a lot. :) Chris (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | Model UN's/rants/ideas--was Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) How did that model UN work with you as Pakistan's ambassador? The resolution was not necessarily set up to be humourous, nor was it to be perfectly serious--it was to raise a concern of mine in which, if the majority concurs, we could quash a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: WTF
|
|
(...) WTF... ya, I agree. Looks like the White Trash Filter isn't working. (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Lots of 'em do. But certain people are just gonna get angry at others regardless of the debate topic. And I don't think waiting a month would help much... (...) I don't really think the point of a debate thread is necessarily to reach a mutual (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) I agree with your disagreement. Ignoring certain individuals often achieves a great deal, and done properly, does not result in animosity from anyone else except the miscreant, who merely need reform (or go away). (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: WTF
|
|
Mmm... Actually that's good point; Why am I lurking on .test? Oh yeah, too lazy to unsubscribe. :P Hey, how about a off-topic.test ROLL CALL! -Evil Wayne (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Two comments 1. what's the "scope of the Israel/Palestine issue"... if some party(1) says that something(2) is related, is it? If someone says something isn't, is it? (3) 2. what is the enforcement mechanism? Sent to bed without dessert? (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Spectacular sentence construction there! That's what you get for writing half a sentence and then coming back to it a half hour later to 'wrap it up'. I think folks can read (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) I was hopefully going for a stop on the debate instead of a censure of the person. One *should* cause debates on other topics to continue unfettered, the other could be, imho, perceived as an attack on the person. Whereas I agree with the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Ceetain parties don't want it to end (e.g. said certain party answered his own message to get it back up at the top of the queu). Just ignore said person and there won't be a debate. -->Bruce<-- And for a demonstration of such, said certain (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: WTF
|
|
(...) That's *Mr.* freak to you! (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
