|
|
 | | Re: A modest proposal from a modest person
|
| (...) In fact, the more I think about this, the more I like it. It gives a very strong incentive NOT to post irrelevant things, and instead to post things that are so compelling that people want to reply to them. As long as I'm the one "in the (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: A modest proposal
|
| (...) The reader, obviously. I don't think you think "what, no answer?" is a particularly relevant post. Unless you're saying you can't judge relevancy for yourself. I think you can, but you choose not to. Maybe I'm wrong? And since your proposal (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
| (...) Without calling into question your ability to read, I am obliged to point out that I did not, in fact, call you a rhinoceros. Further, I am indeed entitled to call you anything I wish to call you, barring slander. If you feel slandered by your (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: A modest proposal
|
| (...) Who judges relevancy? Scott thinks every one of his posts is relevant, presumably. No, this is a better proposal because it removes human error. (24 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | 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) (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
