 | | Re: LP SPAM statement on terrorist attacks —Scott Arthur
|
| | | "Ed "Boxer" Jones" <edboxer@aol.com> wrote in message news:GJo2F3.L5o@lugnet.com... (...) here. (...) to (...) I agree, the post was nothing more than the usual SPAM Larry often subjects us to - despite the fact that he knows it is not welcome: (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: LP SPAM statement on terrorist attacks —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | (...) I welcomed it. I think Larry and Ed may be splitting semantic hairs over whether or not it is pandering (or promotional), but I'm glad to know what their stance is. The one thing they say that I find myself agreeing with most is the opinion (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: LP SPAM statement on terrorist attacks —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) Exactly! -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 16-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Scott Arthur not welcome? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) sufficient to make that post or class of posts "not welcome" then every single post you make is "not welcome" because there are people saying that very thing about your posts. That's taking your argument to its logical extreme. Further, you (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
