 | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) No doubt you would propose yourself as a role model? Scott A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Aldous Huxley: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." I do not need people to reply to my posts to make a point. Rather than urging people to ignore me, perhaps it would be easier for you to counter my argument [as Larry (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) I could not agree more. Scott A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Actions often speak louder than words. Have you read this [posted by you]: (URL) A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
Let's resolve to trim lugnet.general once and for all from this, OK? (...) I dunno about "winning" but I have to give you style points anyway... that's an awesomely tail-swallowing argument. Kerry said it best, we've probably been trolled. If so, I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
Stirred up a bloody hornet's nest now, eh? As someone who takes things as far from serious as possible, I'm going to point out the obvious. This post was to create a debate, a debate that should take place in off-topic debate. Since it pertains to a (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) Ouch! I can see the .off-topic patrons scrambling to their keyboards to type a rather fast response right now. Although I agree that the poll was a bit flawed (like some of my terrible polls in the past. Yeah, y'all remember those, don't you? (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) How about a poll like this: Are LUGNET polls generally flawed, scientifically unsound, more likely to annoy others than come up with serious answers, and usually have at least one obvious omission? [ ] No Cheers Richie (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
First off please see my email to you on the subject. Secondly let me say I agree with you and think you have put many things in a better way then myself. (...) A nice concise statement... Couldn't have put it better myself. SNIP (...) Yes, this is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
Should LUGnet rules be changed to with regard to troll polls? * Yes, LUGNET should prohibit troll polls. * Yes, because I hate to be a nay-sayer. * No, troll polls should continue to be banned on LUGNET. * No, because I like to disagree with other (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) IMHO, pretty good. It may not be a *perfect* partition of the universe of possibilities into equivalence classes, as you can argue that "yes, but..." always fits within an unqualified "yes" and thus is a subset answer (the counter argument is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) -H. (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) (URL) I do, Lar?) DaveE (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) Just like I'm tempted to start a poll asking whether there should be a disclaimer on all polls similar to slashdot: * Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks. * This (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) for all possible answers. I almost checked off the last answer, as I believe that the group should be left as is. However, I disagree with the accompanying phrases about how the group is "depressing" or "contributes nothing". As such, I cannot (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) My command of the english language has deteriorated since I left post-secondary education behind. I used to be able to throw around 'convivality' and other such sesquepedilian words and actually sound intelligent. Nowadays, it takes me forever (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) I think most of us like (most of) the rest of us and we have a strong common shared bond and many of us have met face to face. Those all really help. That and most of us (like Dave Eaton said) are in this for many reasons including the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Okay, it now seems official, to me at least, that Bruce has now found himself a cool new sig. So, along with "Dave!" and "++Lar", we now have "-->Bruce<--". Well, *I* want in on the action! So from now on, I am promoting the last three letters (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) to what I'd want to say. From the poll: (...) From a design perspective, yes. Get rid of it. It's not Lego related, and has often contributed to bad impressions of Lugnet. (...) I also agree with this-- from a Lugnet user perspective. I like (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) I'm with Larry on this one-- How can a group called 'off-topic' be about LEGO--it's off-topic. Of course the ot-d group is not good for the majority of LEGO enthusiasts, and is only frequented by a relatively small number of folks--but what (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
