 | | Re: FOTY, at least for me.
|
|
(...) Doesn't sound like "veiled theft" to me. Target made a mistake, and Renard just happened to be there to benefit from it. It's not his responsibility to say "Hey, these are supposed to be $80, why are you selling them for $25? You really should (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
I seem to have done more harm than good. (...) All I meant was frequent participant of this particular news group. I guess that wasn't obvious, though I hadn't (and still haven't) come up with any other plausible meaning. (...) Just a user. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
(...) I object to you labeling yourself an 'insider' in a multinational internet discussion group. I don't know who you are, or what your relationaship is to Lugnet (except as a poster) to Scott or Larry or to any other group. There are many groups (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
Apology accepted. (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
(...) What resolution was that? I seriously don't see anything as resolved. (24 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
