 | | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) There's really nothing to debate. Scott's the twit who starts trouble whereever he goes. Go see lego.direct, for example, where his hateful slime caused a great deal of hurt within LD. My only chargable offense is that I let him get to me too (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:GnCxDG.JGr@lugnet.com... (...) No. I agree. Asked pretty much the same the other day (URL) no surprise that ignored it and carried on arguing. What is most annoying is that it seems (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) <snip> Hear hear. It was soooo nice to read debates. There were actually intellectual topics being discussed. Midwest or not, Chris, you're dead-on in this case. Somebody's got to put an end to this silliness that keeps ensuing between these (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
Howdy, I'd like to state that I'm really disgusted with the thread du jour and the two key participants. It was very nice here for about a month after the last big blowup. Why did you have to go and mess it up? Without going through the last month (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Possibly. It's a very grey area. (OBDisclaimer: I'm only really arguing this to refine my understanding of what the ToU might mean in a fairly grey area.) (...) It is unreasonable to hold Lugnet's ToU to any authority beyond Lugnet, so the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) I believe you are incorrect. First, if it's against the spirit of the ToU for a spammer to harvest email addresses against the will of the participants, it's against the spirit of the ToU for an UNspammer to harvest a single email address (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) I refuse to support the banning of one member of Lugnet over a dispute with another member of Lugnet unless both parties are banned together. So I think you should be more careful of the things you are seeking to achieve because you will end (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Actually, I think you're both wrong. I just reveiwed the terms of use, and there is nothing in there about e-mail addresses, except the requirement to have a valid one in your posting ID. So if you still feel that Larry violated your privacy, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Dave sums it up: (URL) did what he did *knowing* it breaks the ToU here. He did what he did *knowing* it was a violation of my privacy rights. He did what he did in his usual belligerent manner: ==+== See, I march to my own metronome, and the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
My My, someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.... I normally stay out of debate, I don't need anymore crap in my life, though you brought this into the public forum where I do read, and of course, I had to go back and look at the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Something needs to be done. All of our e-mails are displayed here based on trust. If members here feel they have the right to abuse that trust, what sort of place will this become? This person has taken my details from this forum, and used (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) I found the following: Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Scott: (...) I don't see anything where he said he didn't want to actually recieve the email. I mean, I can imagine wanting to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) No. Remove "think". He SAID it. Either it is true, or he's a liar. (I am not going to argue epistemology with you on this) My mistake was twofold (1) First, forgetting that he's a consistent liar and thinking that I'd be doing him a service in (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) And that's what made you think he didn't want it. (...) Sure it can. But only if my reasoning is faulty. Point being that people aren't necessarily rational. If I'm mentally retarted perhaps I'll come to that conclusion. And perhaps as such (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | how to lie with statistics
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur twists reality thusly: (...) I post a lot. So any metric ought to be on a per post basis. That winnows it down significantly. Else we're saying that Johnny one post gets the nobel peace prize because his one (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) No. Because he SAID he didn't want it. (...) Actually, I apologised for neither of these reasons. I apologised because in hindsight it was a violation of his privacy to unsubscribe him, even if he *wanted* it done, which he said he did, just (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Yes you did. You acted because you *thought* that he didn't want it. And now you apologized. Which is *supposed* to mean that you agree that in retrospect, your action was incorrect in some way. Assumedly because you understand in hindsight (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) No, judge the outcome. He said it was junk. He said he didn't subscribe to it. He said he didn't want it. I acted based on that. I acted to ensure he wouldn't get something he said he didn't want. The *outcome* is he's not getting it any more, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Doesn't that invalidate your apology? Aren't you just saying "I'd do it again in a heartbeat?" Do you have the right to excersize that power over Scott's email account, regardless of whether or not he wants it? Maybe if you asked him (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Junk mail (was: Apology.)
|
|
(...) Your analogy is false. (...) You should share your perspective, then, in admin.terms, where this issue has been raised. I'm prepared to be ToSsed over it, as I've admitted that my anger at Scott when he lies about receiving junk email is so (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
