Subject:
|
What, no answer?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:42:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2292 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> >
> > > Or better still
> > > Ban lugnet.off-topic.debate, so we can get back to discussing Lego.
> >
> > The argument has been made in the past that having .debate as a place to
> > send off topic debates is good for the rest of LUGNET.
> >
> > If you want to discuss LEGO, do so. Nothing is stopping you, nothing is
> > making you post here, and posts here do not as a habit spill out elsewhere.
> >
> > Change the channel, don't call for the channel's abolishment. It is up to
> > the owners of LUGNET to decide, of course.
> >
> > My suggestion of a binding vote, with .debate participants being the voters,
> > was a totally serious one, whatever you or anyone else thinks.
> >
> > I seriously agree with others that have said that .debate is less useful to
> > other participants with both Scott and myself in it and infighting, and
> > banishing one of us may well return it to some more useful state.
> >
> > I of course have a preference as to which one is the more useful poster
> > here, but I am biased.
> >
> > Scott has already said he would not abide by such an outcome.
>
> This not true Larry. Where did I say that?
What, no answer?
Scott A
>
> I rejected the whole foolish notion - not its outcome. If I did take part, I
> would "abide by such an outcome". But I am not, so this is not an issue.
> Perhaps you could run alone:
>
> Vote 1) Larry Stays
> Vote 2) Larry Goes
>
>
>
> > I would. What
> > does that tell you about the relative merits of each candidacy?
>
> Err. Nothing other than that you would rather not debate than justify
> yourself. It also tells me that you do not understand the meaning of the
> word "candidacy":
>
> candidate
> noun [C]
> a person who is competing to get a job or elected position.
>
> candidacy, British also candidature
> noun [U]
> She is expected to announce officially her candidacy (=the fact that she is
> a candidate) for president early next week.
>
> Scott A
>
> >
> > The actual mechanism of banishment need not involve actual administrative
> > action, at least in my case, as I would abide without the need for such a
> > mechanism.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
| (...) This not true Larry. Where did I say that? I rejected the whole foolish notion - not its outcome. If I did take part, I would "abide by such an outcome". But I am not, so this is not an issue. Perhaps you could run alone: Vote 1) Larry Stays (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
