 | | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) :sigh: (URL) and (URL) (...) Are you saying he's being accidentally mischievous? (...) No, you probably can't. (...) You chose to butt in with the adversarial stuff. I figured you liked it that way. :shrug: (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I'm not saying it's an injustice that requires severe punishment. It's your perspective that you need to work on. The facts-- Person A, in a position of authority, changed links on the Technic sidebar. The *only* links that were changed were (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, John Neal wrote: snip (...) snip (...) FIREWORKS!!! i LOVE fireworks!!! its what I DO !!!! Chris www.thepyroguys.com 1. then what is the number one thing lugnet is about? (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Yes, Ross, you made that perfectly clear. What you haven't made so clear is WHY you think that for no apparent reason. (...) Because I have no evidence to the contrary. You are obtuse. (...) Is that why you know so much about him-- because you (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - Do we need a newsgroup on LUGNET?
|
|
(...) Now that made me smile! :) And if I may be so bold--we do have a forum here for all things JLuggy, and it has the added benefit of contributing to high mirth for *most* members in this group-- (URL) (1) Dave K 1- well, not affiliated with JLug (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) He could also be still reading. (...) Why do you suspect that? (...) (URL) Oh I doubt it>. Of course that could just be someone impersonating him. (...) I never claimed to know about his Lugnet reading habits. (...) Or even moot. Yes, I do (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - Do we need a newsgroup on LUGNET?
|
|
(...) (URL) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - Do we need a newsgroup on LUGNET?
|
|
(...) Heh... when we can get that site back online, that is. And since LF will probably no longer have substantial forums... that's actually a possibility. ;) But I was REALLY thinking we need more discussion here about BZPower and all things (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Only because it is the only other forum which I know you use, that's all. Really. (...) It wasn't my intention to insinuate that. I was making a comparison based on tone. Style. Manner. That sort of thing. (...) My only point is that a JLUG (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) He's not necessarily in the "still reading" subgroup category. He could've been just popping over to LUGNET when he got "pinged" by a regular reader, or after a major event like an ILTCO convention. Which is exactly what I suspect is the case. (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
