 | | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:GFBCqy.Dw1@lugnet.com... (...) that (...) is (...) how (...) the (...) this (...) their (...) your (...) I think you should also start thinking even more carefully when others start emailing (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Ok. (...) :) (...) Well, ask yourself: Does my post, or my argument with this person, needlessly take away from the enjoyment of other users? Is this debate unnecessarily flooding the group? How many people am I currently engaged in argument (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) It was 101 for me!... Two years ago for me. Which is prolly why I remember better. ;-) -Shiri (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) I would like to dig into this notion a bit more. I think there are situations where it is flatly incorrect to advocate this. I want to stay out of the particular situation that provoked the request and not use it as an example, but I would (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Privatised endangered species
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote: <snipped a good reference that i'll read on my next trip to the public library> Part of today's" Diane Rehm show" on NPR focused on the conservation of Monarch Butterflies that I brought up in the same thread. I wasn't (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
