|
|
 | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) In fact it wasn't all online. (...) It wasn't. And the FAQ doesn't say it was. It says "it started making sense to have a group that could participate online". I see no "need" in that excerpt at all. Just as there was no "need" for the (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) <snip> (...) <snip> Verbose? Who, me?? Dave K -no one around here but us scarecrows... (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Actually, there ARE other ways-- ish-- but they're not easy! And they're not necessarily open to everyone. For instance, an admin could check on the Lugnet server to see how many times he's logged in. But it's not public information. You can (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Before my time. Ross is the man to ask about that. I don't particularly care. (...) I never said it was. 'Shenanigans' is just a turn of phrase. He seems quite sincere, and verbose. (...) Me too. And sometimes (not every time as some seem to (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Why do you believe in god? (...) John, I think this could be cleared up easily by looking at how we interpret words. Lar has posted tice in the last six months, you consider that "not still reading", I consider it "still reading occasionally". (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Well I guess if he has a group of African girls with laptops replying for him then maybe he is unaware of what he has replied to. ROSCO (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Don't assume. I have only read what is in o-t-d, I have not gone back to the original thread, and judging by what I've seen in here, I don't feel the need to waste the time. (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | A long sentence of relatively little import -- was Re: Co-curator update needed?
|
| (...) This, of course, would play right into Matthew's idea-- (URL) I'll go-- "Flash! Ou reporters have just unearthed this startling, world shaking discovery!", exclaimed the visibly exhausted reporter as he stood in front of the newscamera and (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Standing up! Was... Re: malicious behavior
|
| Moving this back to o.t.d. for debatable reasions... (...) As a somewhat parenthetical point to what Marc said above (though flowing right from his poat)-- At what point should people 'stand up' against (maybe perceived) transgressions? I mean, (...) (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Say, you're not in the press corps, are you? ;-) Ah, the good, old days of Watergate... (...) Exactly. (...) To Plame? Only that she can get rich off of a book/TV movie deal. Bottom line-- much ado about nothing. JOHN (19 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
|
