 | | Re: Sale announcements (Was Beware more SPAM...)
|
|
(...) Don't be a hypocrite. Using this logic, you have stole my valuable time. In all honesty, I would rather delete an email than have to wade through junk like this original post in the market newsgroup. The funny thing is, the most you can (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale announcements (Was Beware more SPAM...)
|
|
(...) I believe that currently their use is in Martha Stewart's TV show (and other productions). However, they were catchphrases in a popular spoof history book when I was a kid called "1066 and all that" along with verdicts on various rulers (eg (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale announcements (Was Beware more SPAM...)
|
|
(...) agreed (...) Actually, I was serious. I wasn't challenging your use, just asking. (...) thinking (...) Sorry. I was trying to be funny and serious at the same time. It's a tightwire act and maybe I just fell to my death. (...) Well, I did a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale announcements (Was Beware more SPAM...)
|
|
(...) Sorry, my bad. How about Unsolicited Commercial E-mail? (...) "Raving nutcake". That's probably close -- I did become a bit unhinged when he intruded his business into my affairs. But I'd draw the line after "raving" but before "nutcake", and (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale announcements (Was Beware more SPAM...)
|
|
(...) I'm just curious on this how people feel about things like magazine renewal notices. In theory, they are in the same category if anything other than a notice on the magazine wrapper. My personal feeling is that I do want to receive renewal (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Memberships
|
|
(...) Sure. But not as laws. Each bank-customer pair can have whatever rules they agree too. And, I suppose, each ATM-customer pair can also layer on whatever rules they both care to agree to. IMO, the best thing about Libertopia is that the freedom (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
|
|
(...) Nonsense, although that's clearly overstating the point being made by the previous poster. I give you In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that (...) (24 years ago, 24-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Yahoo is good for the 'net (was Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
(...) Sure, and then when someone clicks "next" or "previous" for that Ring ID, the Yahoo! server sees that the corresponding JS code for that Ring ID and Site ID hasn't been fetched recently by that IP address, and it gacks (by design) and it sends (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Yahoo is good for the 'net (was Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
Right, but once Yahoo has spit out that content, you save it, and modify it any way you want to. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Transclusion via JavaScript (was: Re: Resolved: Yahoo is good for the 'net)
|
|
(...) Interesting from an HTML/geek point of view! So, in the real shebang, they give something akin to <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript" SRC="(URL) blah blah </SCRIPT> and then they, what, look at the siteid within the ringid and spit out either the (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Yahoo is good for the 'net (was Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
(...) Its all javascript, generated from the Yahoo server. All they give you is a small tag for javascript, then Yahoo spits out that content for you. Eg. if you aren't a member of the ring (not approved yet), all that will show up will be the top (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Yahoo is good for the 'net (was Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
I'm confused - what do you mean you can't customize it? The links are all standard links, just rewrite the tables, and make it look any way you want. Or are you saying that that would violate their TOS or something? (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
|
|
(...) And we do have watchdog organizations, which are often more effective than the government (though sometimes they are wrong) just because they answer only to the consumer (or at least far more so than the government which also answers to big (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Yahoo is good for the 'net (was Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
(...) Here's a sample page: (URL) not as bad as I originally feared - but the limited logo size and standardized navbar is a definite drawback to the new system. I'm SHOCKED that Yahoo wasn't mentioned ANYWHERE on the code. I'm still beefing (though (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Yahoo is good for the 'net (was Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
[Added .publish to ng list; IMHO, this is actually more on-topic to .publish than it is to .off-topic.debate...] (...) Wow, wait, so lemme see if I can get this straight -- ? -- under the new Yahoo! Webring system, your ring logo has to be no bigger (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
|
|
(...) Agreed. (...) But lastworditis forces me to say that I feel it is indeed (the effect of too much regulation, too much government promising to make it right and too much big daddyism). :-) ++Lar (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
|
|
(...) Right you are, sir. It started in .people... but, after all, generals are people too! <GD&R> ++Lar (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
|
|
(...) I think you wanted .off-topic.fun, because .general is for LEGO related stuff, and the joke, AFAICT, din't have nuthin' to do with LEGO. (...) Uhh, uhh, you have to swallow a 2x4 brick and write a 500 word essay on why installing the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
|
|
(...) (“Back to .general again”? – It was never there that I’m aware.) I sent a copy to .general since that was the best group I could find to share Frank’s great nuke joke. I figured that any follow up would be to the same .off-topic.debate group (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
|
|
Boy, I may not subscribe to off.topic.debate anymore, but you have to love the Subject line! : ) Larry, in all of his wisdom, shines through again. I like my SUV at it's present height, BTW, I think most of these posts should be centered on poor (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
