 | | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) You are deluded. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) I have made the choice only to post in a couple of groups. I read a great deal, but LUGENT is not the place it used to be. I agree that Larry does post more than me. The difference is, when I post outside this group I try to be 100% (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Junk mail (was: Apology.)
|
|
(...) Sigh. Where have I lied now? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Where did I say that? Where? (...) Where did I say that? Where? (...) Where did I say that? Where? (...) Where did I say I wanted to unsubscribe? All junk mail is this “Unsolicited commercial mail”. Unsolicited means not asked for - it does (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: how to lie with statistics
|
|
(...) My above comment stands. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) "consistent liar" can you justify that? You really are slime. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Perhaps he should have. (...) No. What would the point of that be? I'll even admit I subcribe to "talk.politics.libertarian " for the bile. (...) I did not. (...) Thank you. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Did I say I do not want it? Did I really say that? Where? (...) I assume you unsubscribed me from here: (URL) the test on that page: "Use these forms to manage *your* subscription to announce@lp.org, the Libertarian Party's news, updates and (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Did I say I do not want it? Did I really say that? Where? (...) I assume you unsubscribed me from here: (URL) the test on that page: "Use these forms to manage *your* subscription to announce@lp.org, the Libertarian Party's news, updates and (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) In the thread Larry mentions, I questioned a company who was apparently noisily giving a token amount to the WTC charity. I questioned their motives. Tim and John claimed that perhaps I was being insensitive. Perhaps I was. I welcome both John (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Larry, by your own measure, you are a bare faced liar. Calling me a "liar" without being willing to justify it in any way does nothing but emphasis that point. You are deluded. You need help. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET at risk
|
|
(...) In the thread Larry mentions, I questioned a company who was apparently noisily giving a token amount to the WTC charity. I questioned their motives. Tim and John claimed that perhaps I was being insensitive. Perhaps I was. I welcome both John (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) I've got to agree. But the crassness was cemented for me when Scott jumped on LD for the auctions--that was so very beyond the bounds of good taste, tact, and simple human empathy that I'm still astounded (but not entirely suprised, sadly). (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET at risk
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GnDq4w.EJq@lugnet.com... [snip] (...) to (...) demonstrated. (...) well (...) one (...) term (...) You have made the case many times that Scott contributes nothing positive to the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | LUGNET at risk
|
|
(...) If his mischief were confined to off-topic.debate I would readily agree. But it is not: (URL) stirred up trouble in a vile and malicious way and maliciously redirected his bile to the wrong newsgroup, repeatedly, despite several people's (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
I'll chime in here also as being sick of this. Part of me does want to slap both participants. Part of me realizes that much as I hate to single out folks, Scott seems to contribute almost nothing to Lugnet, except for an occasional interesting (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) No, it leaves him talking to himself unless he can learn to play in a more friendly way. And it needs pointing out that I don't mind ALL of Scott's contributions, just some of them...esp. when you two start to go at it. (...) Larry, this is (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | test
|
|
i will try my lugnet. hello all (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) The problem with that line of reasoning is that it still leaves him starting wars and casting slime elsewhere. He's trouble of the MM sort. Not the same degree, but the same kind. It's not just me he starts trouble with, I'm just a lightning (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) You know how this line of reasoning ends, right? Some sort of discussion may well ensue to ban you both. Not one or the other, both. I wouldn't support anything else (or less) -- this is a "it takes two to tango" kinda thing. I will admit to (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
