|
|
 | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) But you admitted that one doesn't necessarily follow from the other, so I don't know why you'd think THAT. (...) Why don't you stop being obtuse and answer the question? I want to know another way you seem to THINK there is of knowing this (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) No, my initial point was because he posts now and then, I THINK he is still among the populace that reads Lugnet. (...) Why don't you ask him/her? (...) Thanks, I'll remember that next time I'm posting at a latin forum. (...) Now you're (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Conversely, you make my point. If he doesn't reply to something, we can't assume he's read it, and it would be off his radar, or as I put it, "behind his back." Your initial point was, because he posts now and then, he's around and aware of (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
| (...) Go figure; another Dave! Nice of you to drop by, Dave! What, did your a team of small girls in Africa send you a "heads up" of mirth and frivolity? :-) I have a question for you if you have the time. John "Bob" Neal (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) I think you can assume that he is aware of whatever he replied to. (...) That's one way, but not the ONLY way. Real or otherwise. (...) I was never asked to verify anything - I was simply asked "What makes you think he is still among the (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
