|
|
 | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) --snip-- (...) If you think that Eric deserves an apology then perhaps you should apologise to him. Since you had as much to do with the original issue as I did then you owe him an apology as much as I do. Furthermore I've never argued that (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) (*this is such a joke, I am just having fun in the way I transcribe the events*) Righgght! Brilliant, and upon further research one can plainly see, that another party, usual suspect, utters a complaint unto Eric Sophie's person, there by (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Tim's beef behavior
|
| (...) Why bother? I was legally allowed to use them and given your typical behaviour I find it very unlikely you would volunteer to let me use them to poke fun at you. You can twist and turn all you like but what you did was morally wrong in my (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote: <snip> (...) I couldn't give a rats ass about DMCA, 'fair usage', 'freedom of speech' or '1st ammendment rights' or whatever people are going on about now--it's all obfuscating the actual issue. (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Tim's beef behavior
|
| (...) -Snip- (...) -snip- (...) I bow to your awesomeness. Ever think to ask for the images? That was "Outside" LUGNET, now What'd I do "On" LUGNET? Again, bowing to your awesomeness. (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
