|
|
 | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) I'm not sure why you're bringing Jlug into the discussion here. If I could set the fut to lugnet.org.jlug right now, I would. But now that you have, I say you're arguing from ignorance. There's a far greater sense of camraderie there than I've (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) I think what Dave is driving at is that even though your actions may technically be with the TOS, it is a question of civility. Pushing people's hot buttons and watching the fireworks isn't what LUGNET is about. Lugnet is about laughing with (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX) !!
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) OK. Let's try this from the other direction, kiddies. The populace that still reads Lugnet is a group of people. It contains many subgroups, for example: The people that still read lugnet.org.scibrick The people that still read a few groups (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Well, my point is that you have no reason to think that. (...) You know my neighbor, and where we live? I chose my neighbor precisely because you don't know him. You don't know anything about him. Just as you don't know anything about any (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Who said I didn't expect it? (...) Show me where I asked for a 'bye'. If I've breached the TOS, I'll take my lumps. I don't consider anything that's happened here a 'malicious' provocation. 'Mischievous' at worst. And your repeated claims that (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Because I DO. (...) I'm sorry for being so obtuse - I was simply pointing out that asking them is one other way to know (assuming you receive / believe the answer). Standing and looking over their shoulder while they read is another. Do you (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) But you admitted that one doesn't necessarily follow from the other, so I don't know why you'd think THAT. (...) Why don't you stop being obtuse and answer the question? I want to know another way you seem to THINK there is of knowing this (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Who in their right mind would provoke a 'known entitiy' and not expect the 'known result'--isn't that the very definition of insanity? I'm all for a debate about the scalability of transgressions, if you wanna go down that road. That said, an (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) No, my initial point was because he posts now and then, I THINK he is still among the populace that reads Lugnet. (...) Why don't you ask him/her? (...) Thanks, I'll remember that next time I'm posting at a latin forum. (...) Now you're (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Conversely, you make my point. If he doesn't reply to something, we can't assume he's read it, and it would be off his radar, or as I put it, "behind his back." Your initial point was, because he posts now and then, he's around and aware of (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
