 | | Re: rules
|
|
(...) Yes. These are all good rules as far as I am concerned. They're not aimed at you, they're aimed at bad behaviours. Love the sinner, hate the sin. But do go ahead and post some proposed rules too, you can direct them at things you (and others) (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A modest proposal
|
|
(...) Pencil out the "relevant or not" and change "ANY" to "any irrelevant", and it's a done deal. From my perspective. But just because you abused your privalages doesn't mean we should all suffer for it. The only reason I don't think everyone (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A modest proposal from a modest person
|
|
(...) Fair enough. In fact why don't we take turns. Each time someone else slips up it's the other one's turn not to get replied to by the group. (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: rules
|
|
(...) Key word "basic". (...) There are more than one version of debating rules. I am sure ones could be made which would suit this forum better than those which you mention. Do you think otherwise? (...) Are there any others which you think won't (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A modest proposal from a modest person
|
|
(...) I'll give you a different proposal... I'll forego replying to ANY post of Larry's, relevant or not, if everyone else does too... and I'll hew to that just as long as everyone else can hold out too. As soon as some regular slips up, (we'll (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) Like I said yesterday, I did try that last week: (URL) A (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) So, if we had rules how would things get worse? Say we had a rule like: "No name calling permitted" - why would that be bad? Do you feel you have to retain the right to call me a "rhinoceros"{1} from time-to-time? Scott A {1} I rather like the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Why not? This assertion has been made in this and other antitrust trials but has not been justified. I see nothing wrong with it. It benefits everyone to get more efficient products. There are no barriers to entry, so dominance is due to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) What about the integration between OS and applications? Different market segments right? So why should one corporation be able to leverage its products in one segment as a direct consequence of its dominance in another segment? Cf Nestlé. No (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A modest proposal
|
|
(...) I'll give you a different proposal... I'll forego replying to ANY post of Scott's, relevant or not, if everyone else does too... and I'll hew to that just as long as everyone else can hold out too. As soon as some regular slips up, (we'll (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
