 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Then in 20 years, you and I will have to have a beer (by then it may be just (URL) Ensure> for me;-) at my future home in sunny Arizona and see for ourselves. I'll have a huge LEGO room, so your sons/daughters are invited, too. I'll have a (...) (17 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) What saved Reagan was the division of powers in the senate and congress. As well, the 'rise' of mediocrity of the Rush's and the Hannity's that push this completely misnamed 'compassionate (...) (17 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Sure (...) They're not actually although my understanding of solicit was wrong too. (URL) Invite and request are synonymous but different. And that is one of the greatest and most confusing things about the English language. Tim (17 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Sometimes the only way to get perspective is through the passage of time. You remind me of my utter comtempt with Ronald Reagan when I was in Kollege. History already is showing that Reagan was brilliant. Given the events that have transpired (...) (17 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) One of the most brilliant sketches ever written, IMO! Not necessarily-- I could be arguing in my spare time. Oh, I've had enough! No, you haven't! (17 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Okay, we agree to disagree. (...) "Solicit" and "request" are synonymous. (...) I don't see that example as analogous. (...) I disagree. The point of a public forum is to share information and ideas. That can be 2-way, but not necessarily so (...) (17 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I still disagree. By posting in a public forum you are, in my opinion, soliciting and inviting response. If you do not wish response, or if you wish only certain people to respond you should either not post or take it to email. (...) I agree (...) (17 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I was going to quote 'a few good men' for a cheap quotation thing, but instead, in order to score some political karma, I have this quote-- "The GOP has mastered an error condition in the political process, an infinite loop of abstraction that (...) (17 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Is this the five minute argument, or the full half hour? (17 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Not quite, in my view, but putting the differences aside, you said: "I didn’t say “expected”; I said solicited." What you probably should have said was: "I didn’t say “expects”; I said invites." (or something similar). Paying attention to such (...) (17 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) "Invited", "solicited". Same thing, no? JOHN (17 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I may have missed it, but I don't think you actually said 'solicited' in the post to which Tim was responding. Cheers Richie Dulin (17 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Not necessarily. Sure, anyone who is a member is free to read and respond to any given post, but unless there is a "comments welcome"or "LMKYT", for example, responses aren't solicited. When I post a MOC, I do not do so in order to receive (...) (17 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Or simply FUT lugnet.null. Cheers Richie Dulin (17 years ago, 22-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Any particular reason for that? (...) I don't see how that answers my question. (...) So why assert your view as fact? (...) Another anecdotal assertion? Or just opinion? (...) Yet you keep responding... (...) I'm sure you can handle it. (...) (...) (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I completely disagree with this. By posting in a public forum you are inviting other participants of that forum to your discussion. You can take it to email if you don't want public responses. To post publically and not expect response is, in (...) (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) No, Ross. What I admit is that for me, interchanges with you in particular most often are games. (...) The manner in which you engaged me. (...) What kind of evidence would suffice for you? Another story about high morale? Anecdotal. A poll? (...) (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Ah. So finally you admit that debates are just a game for you. By the way, the point I was making (remember that? the one you still haven't answered?) was a serious comment about your post, what game did you think I was playing? (...) It (...) (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | The Classic Quotable Movies (was: Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???)
|
|
<snipped> away the garbage-- thanks for the heads up, Dave:-) As opposed to the bombs, what are the BEST movies suitable for quoting? Here is my list-- please add on. In no particular order: This is Spinal Tap Ferris Bueller's Day Off The Princess (...) (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) 1 word Don't K, that's really truncated 2 words, but I digress It isn't worth wasting your time. Tim Burton made some great movies, but this ain't one of 'em. Of course, some people really loved the movie--it has a bit of a cult (...) (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Yeah, I was wondering if you were reffing something specific, but I couldn't place it, coupled with the fact that I never saw Mars Attacks... (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I quoted.... Well, to much to list, but I'll start with Mars Attacks... :) Dave K (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Hey, he quoted MP and I used a smiley-- it's all good in my mind! JOHN (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Can't we all just... get along? Dave K (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Pot; kettle:-) (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) It's people like you wot cause unrest. (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) You started the game; I was just playing along. (...) "Wasting everyone's time"??? Are you serious? The only time wasted is MINE every time I get into some insipid MPesque argument with YOU! If it's YOUR time you are worried about, DON"T (...) (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) About as much as I'd buy some of the other assertions in this thread. ;-) Cheers Richie Dulin (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) So you were trying to make me make a point that wasn't lost on you anyway? Why not just answer the point with some evidence instead of wasting everyone's time? (...) You did. By posting an assertion publicly with nothing to back it up. (...) (...) (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) hehe, would you buy that the malaprop was intentional? JOHN (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) 'Antidotal'? Do you mean 'anecdotal'? Cheers Richie Dulin (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) How convenient. So, your point was to parody my assertion by making a non-assertion assertion yourself. Subtle. But your sublime subtlety wasn't lost on me; I just wanted you to make your point instead of trying to WOW me with your subtle (...) (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) John, you really need to work out the subtleties of debating. That was not an assertion - it was a parody of your sentence, used to make my point. Do you actually have anything to backup your assertion? If so, why not post it here, like Dave (...) (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) YOU: "Yeah, there will always be a few heroic, inspiring, and humbling soldiers. But don’t make the misteak in thinking that their attitudes reflect the majority." Deal. JOHN (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Read my post again John. In case you need a hint, the information I provided is "You made an assertion without anything to back it up". And I'll add some more information too - until you CAN back it up, your assertion is pointless. ROSCO (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Without providing any information of your own, your point is pointless. JOHN (17 years ago, 21-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) No I don't have nearly enough information to make such an assertion, but YOU asserted that "The overwhelming majority of US troops in Iraq are positive, incouraged, and invested in their work." (...) My point is that YOU made an assertion (...) (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) So, are you asserting that the majority aren't heroic, inspiring, and courageous? Point, please. Or is it that you simply like to hear the sound of your own fingers tapping the keyboard? JOHN (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Oh yeah? You went and asked them all? (...) Yeah, there will always be a few heroic, inspiring, and humbling soldiers. But don't make the misteak in thinking that their attitudes reflect the majority. ROSCO (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron inventories
|
|
(...) I thought that I was answering David's e-mail to my e-mail address. Sorry, I am not too sure how to do all these tree things here and there. It wasn't you, It was mad David. John P (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron inventories
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Patterson wrote: <Snip other peoples comments> (...) John, Does this mean that you are using instructions to build your inventories or are you using actual MISB set contents? The latter would be a lot more accurate, (...) (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.inv)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) That is a misleading story (go figure!) The overwhelming majority of US troops in Iraq are positive, incouraged, and invested in their work. Many there are re-ups. Yeah, there will always be a few malcontents. But don't make the misteak in (...) (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron inventories
|
|
--snip-- (...) Such a vast banquet of irony in so few words. (...) I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Would you care to show one of these 'emails with pictures' that you refer to? Since I don't remember ever sending you an email in (...) (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron inventories
|
|
(...) If anyone is spring loaded to the piss off position it is you. Regardless of what the page number was, the inventory is incorrect. Valium might be in the future for you, or high blood pressure. You really need to calm down. Let's remove all (...) (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Well, maybe. And then again (URL) maybe not.> Dave! (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron inventories
|
|
(...) And yet one of the corrections you made has already been shown to be wrong and maybe a second one too (I don't know and I don't care if it is or isn't). Most people might take that as a sign that possibly their checking wasn't quite as (...) (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron inventories
|
|
(...) Look at page 11 then, what I post here is quick, I sit for a very long time when I make the corrections and do not quote pages or steps. However you want to cut it, there are two tan bricks that are not in the inventory. That is the important (...) (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron inventories
|
|
(...) Yes, it sure does. I rechecked it (page 7 that is), and I stand by my statement; no tan bricks. Perhaps your own inability to count has had a bad impact on the inventories you've made, and that's why they're not being accepted. David (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: BrickFest PDX 2007 - who's getting paid?
|
|
(...) That would seem like a fair compromise between risk and reward to me. Tim (17 years ago, 15-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: BrickFest PDX 2007 - who's getting paid?
|
|
(...) Well, I'd rather see them all pay the fee beforehand, then be compensated (fee returned, nice lunch, whatever) after there's an indication how good the finances are (which is usually fairly apparent by the end of the public expo). ROSCO (17 years ago, 15-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) Which bit? The liar bit, or the friend bit? You're coming along nicely, though. You'll be a fully-fledged CTOPper in no time. (17 years ago, 12-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) It's just an expression, Al. (17 years ago, 12-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) That's a bold assertion. Got any proof? (...) Is calling someone a liar, a troll and a jerk any way to treat a friend? (17 years ago, 12-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) You, sir, are a liar. (...) If there is anyone on this board who would recognize mockery, my friend, it would be you. JOHN (17 years ago, 12-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) It's just a turn of phrase, John. (...) Far be it from me to attempt to insult one as virtuous as yourself. (...) Are you mocking me? It certainly reads that way to me. (17 years ago, 12-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) Experiencing temporal disturbances? I believe I asked you what you were talking about previous to that statement. You are obfuscating. Perhaps so much so that you've confused even yourself. (...) Ah, is that your expert opinion as one who (...) (17 years ago, 12-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) Even if I thought I had anything to prove to you, John, I can't without knowing what 'it' is. Lies? Frivolity? The Holy Spirit? Either way, I took it as an inept attempt at insulting me, and therefore not to be taken seriously, but I could be (...) (17 years ago, 12-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) I thought so. (17 years ago, 12-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) Well, admitting your ignorance is the first step on the path to enlightenment, so well done, champ. (...) Full of what, exactly? (17 years ago, 11-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) Squirm. Actually, I don't know, which is not coincidentally why I asked in the first place. I'll let you in on a little secret, though. I suspect that you are, as usual, full of it. Prove me wrong. Bet you won't-- or can't. JOHN (17 years ago, 11-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) You, know - "things" (17 years ago, 11-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) Really. So what exactly are you "strongly" suggesting that I internalize? JOHN (17 years ago, 11-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament reActs
|
|
Hi, Nathan. (...) So noted. :) Though I've moved this to ot.debate because it isn't really a discussion of the LEGO constructions themselves nor how I've chosen to illustrate Bible passages with LEGO. (...) Hmm. I actually thought it was one of the (...) (17 years ago, 11-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) Perfectly normal expression, at least here in Aus. It roughly translates as 'I strongly suggest you internalise things, and move on." (...) I'm not sure it meets his stringent criteria, but I appreciate the gesture, so I'll just say (...) (17 years ago, 10-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) "Pull your head in"? "hypocrit"? Austroll. Ha, think Richie will add that to his (URL)? (17 years ago, 10-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: HMAS Fruit Bat
|
|
(...) Pull your head in, hypocrit. (17 years ago, 10-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I don't think the Southern Baptist *Anyone* can say *anything* about *anyone else*
|
|
(...) Very well said. I've always been of the opinion that the *individual* can make decisions for him or herself with regards to, well, almost anything. That said, corporations, institutions, and whathaveyou--stating these almost 'edicts'--"The (...) (17 years ago, 9-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I don't think the Southern Baptist *Anyone* can say *anything* about *anyone else*
|
|
(...) Very well said. I've always been of the opinion that the *individual* can make decisions for him or herself with regards to, well, almost anything. That said, corporations, institutions, and whathaveyou--stating these almost 'edicts'--"The (...) (17 years ago, 9-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I don't think the Southern Baptist *Anyone* can say *anything* about *anyone else*
|
|
(...) Hi, all-- This is yet another example of why one's faith should color one's decisions. I make a living working for a Bible School. I would be considered "Evangelical" and/or "Conservative" by a good many people. I attend church when I'm not on (...) (17 years ago, 9-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I don't think the Southern Baptist *Anyone* can say *anything* about *anyone else*
|
|
(...) Why don't they just call the position 'His Holiness The President' and be done with it? It seems to be what they (unreasonably) expect from him, and any candidates for the position, anyway (and 'they' are not just religious people either). (17 years ago, 7-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I don't think the Southern Baptist *Anyone* can say *anything* about *anyone else*
|
|
(...) It's completely hypocritical. I understand why people might think divorces are relevant. They're a character issue. And like it or not, people judge others based on character. If you've been arrested 11 times for various robberies, thefts, or (...) (17 years ago, 7-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I don't think the Southern Baptist *Anyone* can say *anything* about *anyone else*
|
|
(...) I read it later and I should have specified that--one does *not* need to be perfect to criticise. However, people pointing out that Rudy is *bad* because of his divorces (however public they may have been) when they themselves have sexual (...) (17 years ago, 7-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I don't think the Southern Baptist *Anyone* can say *anything* about *anyone else*
|
|
(...) Well, you are implying that one needs to be perfect to criticize, which I don't think is fair. But I will say that I don't think that particular issue has anything to do with the job for which Wudy is wunning. (...) One bad apple (or bushel;-) (...) (17 years ago, 7-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | I don't think the Southern Baptist *Anyone* can say *anything* about *anyone else*
|
|
(URL) Tennessee (AP) -- A Southern Baptist leader said Tuesday that evangelical voters might tolerate a divorced presidential candidate, but they have deep doubts about GOP hopeful Rudy Giuliani, who has been married three times. " Yeah, and i have (...) (17 years ago, 7-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 'Lego Ban' at Seattle School Fueled by Anti-Private Property Crusaders
|
|
(...) Right! Anyone should be allowed to walk into your home, treat your house with disrespect, and call you evil when you object. (...) Of course, because civil engineering has taught us that all humans of every culture fit very neatly and easily (...) (17 years ago, 28-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 'Lego Ban' at Seattle School Fueled by Anti-Private Property Crusaders
|
|
(...) Hmm. If I was a kid in this class I'd steal my teacher's car. How could they press charges, given their professed beliefs? Bruce (17 years ago, 28-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
This is directed to all people who would like to see sanctions against Ross. (...) I am so sorry that I haven't received Ross' and Eric's emails regarding this matter (both sent before Bob's posting), because if I would have received one of them or (...) (17 years ago, 20-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.curators)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Gimme a break. This is a prank gone wrong, not an abuse of power. Deleting all of a member's posts, or breaking links in a way that couldn't be restored, that would be an abuse. This was actually a little bit funny (and a little mean, I (...) (17 years ago, 20-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) So it's OK for you to abuse administrative privilege, as long as only one or two people are bothered by it? Especially if one of the two is a person that a significant people on LUGNET feel it's OK to bully? I just have to post here to say I (...) (17 years ago, 20-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) No. The admins will determine if I crossed any line, and take action as necessary. (...) Firstly, that has nothing to do with the point I was making about wanting ALL admins to be "in the loop" when someone "contacts admin". And secondly, the (...) (17 years ago, 19-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) A point which is still apparently lost on you? (...) So you sent e-mail to the admins, and then in the absence of a response you assumed that you had administrative approval to alter somebody else's content? No problem. Sure. (...) Under the (...) (17 years ago, 19-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Well, that's even worse, and should be fixed. (...) No, that's a different point entirely. (...) I don't think anyone had a problem with Dave reverting the pics, do you? (...) At least (URL) one person did>, and preferred to email the admins (...) (17 years ago, 19-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Heckel wrote: <snip> (...) I've never posted to Brickshelf--do I have to leave LUGNET? <snip> Dave K (17 years ago, 17-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Nice dodge. It took about two minutes to look through your Lugnet post history. (...) This begs the question: Why post on a lego forum if not to share your lego things? (...) I'm not asking you to post every last MOC to Brickshelf, but you (...) (17 years ago, 17-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Are you stalking me?!? Ah yes, I remember claiming to be perfect, It was a Tuesday and it was raining, not hard, it was a gentle rain... Try I do not post pictures of what I build because it is not a big motivation of mine and I currently do (...) (17 years ago, 17-Feb-07, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Actually, there ARE other ways-- ish-- but they're not easy! And they're not necessarily open to everyone. For instance, an admin could check on the Lugnet server to see how many times he's logged in. But it's not public information. You can (...) (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Why do you believe in god? (...) John, I think this could be cleared up easily by looking at how we interpret words. Lar has posted tice in the last six months, you consider that "not still reading", I consider it "still reading occasionally". (...) (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Well I guess if he has a group of African girls with laptops replying for him then maybe he is unaware of what he has replied to. ROSCO (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Don't assume. I have only read what is in o-t-d, I have not gone back to the original thread, and judging by what I've seen in here, I don't feel the need to waste the time. (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Yes, Ross, you made that perfectly clear. What you haven't made so clear is WHY you think that for no apparent reason. (...) Because I have no evidence to the contrary. You are obtuse. (...) Is that why you know so much about him-- because you (...) (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) He could also be still reading. (...) Why do you suspect that? (...) (URL) Oh I doubt it>. Of course that could just be someone impersonating him. (...) I never claimed to know about his Lugnet reading habits. (...) Or even moot. Yes, I do (...) (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) He's not necessarily in the "still reading" subgroup category. He could've been just popping over to LUGNET when he got "pinged" by a regular reader, or after a major event like an ILTCO convention. Which is exactly what I suspect is the case. (...) (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) OK. Let's try this from the other direction, kiddies. The populace that still reads Lugnet is a group of people. It contains many subgroups, for example: The people that still read lugnet.org.scibrick The people that still read a few groups (...) (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Well, my point is that you have no reason to think that. (...) You know my neighbor, and where we live? I chose my neighbor precisely because you don't know him. You don't know anything about him. Just as you don't know anything about any (...) (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Because I DO. (...) I'm sorry for being so obtuse - I was simply pointing out that asking them is one other way to know (assuming you receive / believe the answer). Standing and looking over their shoulder while they read is another. Do you (...) (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (17 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 (...) (17 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
