 | | 14 posts by Scott just now —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | and 13 were repetition of the same tired swill. At least *one* was something other than "what, no answer?" repeated ad nauseum. 7% value add is low value add. Ban him. Shun him. Send him emails and tell him to shut up. But this HAS to stop. How much (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | (canceled) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | (...) Scott, I think you have a problem with your newsreader. There are indeed 14 posts from right about the same time (roughly 2 hours ago). In fact, this post too is "doubled." A lot of the others are cloned posts too. (...) I'm not sure that's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Thanks, I have asked for two to be deleted already. I won't blame the newsreader for that problem. :-/ (...) Indeed. I am re-thinking this approach. The thread died when Larry failed to submit himself to questioning. This was an attempt to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: The subject line is misleading. The messages were posted over the last two days - check the dates. They were authorised today. (...) Get the hint. (...) There are two ways: 1) Stop spewing out your (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) perhaps it's time for both of you to take it offline? It seems that no one else has any interest in your argument anymore, and it does raise the SNR way high... I don't think this community wants to act as judges between you two (considering (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) You summed it up - shun him. Don't read his messages. There is a person here that I won't read because of his penchant for offensive messages to those he disagrees with. I ignore him. I won't respond to him. If someone's opinion isn't worth (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) I hate to repeat, but take your own advice. Don't bother responding to useless posts. It brings your own image WAY down. As far as I'm concerned he's only a part of the problem. Stop encouraging it. You're more likely to get a "Ban both" (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Meaning what? I am to ignore every slur he makes so he gets away with his lies scot free? No. EVERYONE has to shun him or tell him to stop, or send him mail when he's being a twit. If that happened I could shun him too. But right now he gets (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | (...) Would you rather play the part of the o-t.debate police? Do you feel obligated to correct *everyone*? Assuming yes, should we always assume that when you DON'T reply that that means you find nothing wrong with the statements made? Should you (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) And only respond to theft if the item's big enough to worry about? Works for TARGET. Doesn't work for me, though. It encourages the notion that small thefts are OK. If it's OK for theft, is it ok for antisocial behaviour? I ignore minor (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ah, but while petty theft may still be wrong, is it worth capital punishment? Or maybe just cutting off their hands? Is it worth the time? (...) Should we expect one? Aren't you always on the side of retaining people's liberties? Suppose "the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Tolerance of vice —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) So you think there's a tolerable level of theft? Some shrinkage is acceptable? Don't ever work for me unless you are prepared to set that attitude aside. No level of theft is "acceptable" and no level should be "tolerated" because it's too (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Tolerance of vice —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) But I never said it was acceptable. I said the punishment you betrothed to it was overzealous. Is going 31mph in a 30mph zone an offense punishable by death? Ban him? You really think that's a good solution? I don't. I think the appropriate (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Tolerance of vice —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Bad example... since you're referring to noncommon law. Speed limits tend to be revenue generation devices nowadays more than anything else. But I can tell you that I would not patronise a private road that used that particular punishment. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Tolerance of vice —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: (snipped) (...) The ancient greeks devised a special punishment for those they considered to be disgracing their community. I am unsure of the English name for it, but it should be something like (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Tolerance of vice —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Agreed, it wasn't the best of examples, but hopefully you got the general idea. A better example would be (I suppose) whether you think someone who shoplifted a stick of gum should be sentenced to death. Again, I just think the punishment (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice') —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Please elaborate... with statistics if you so prefer. :) Are you denying that speed limits also serve to regulate traffic patterns, allow drivers to avoid accidents by reducing stopping distance(dependent on ~following the limit of course), (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice') —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'll just cite what I learned in Transportation Engineering. The proper way to set speed limits , on a road that wasn't explicitly engineered with limits in mind (1) is the 85th percentile rule. This rule assumes that people basically are (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice') —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Wouldn't that, at least gradually, also have to depend on whether the road or the residents were first to be there? :wq Horst (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice') —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | | | | | Just some thoughts.... (bad ones at that) (...) Ok, so let's say that the average driving speed in america has gone up over the past few decades. I believe it has, but I don't have a statistic in front of me. The reasons for this increase are (...) (23 years ago, 28-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice') —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Who are smart enough to know what level or risk is appropriate in all situations. Right? (...) The 'correct' speed. (...) What Larry is saying is that while they might be exceeding the posted speed limit, the problem is that the posted speed (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice') —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snip> The theory of how to set speeds isn't just some neato thing I dreamed up, it's commonly accepted practice, as outlined in Transportation Engineering texts... you can look it up or take (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice') —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hmm Civil engineering. This does work for some roads, but, for most, the 85th percentile speed just keeps rising (if my memory serves my right). For most roads, all the 85th percentile rule shows is that 15 percent of drivers are willing to (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice') —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) What would be cool is signage that responds to the weather. Based on the temperature and state of precipitation (or even reflective characteristics of the road and atmospheric light-transmission characteristics), the signs could display a (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice') —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) In the UK this is already done indirectly. I think speed is altered based on how close the cars are travelling together on some roads leading to London - slow moving cars travel closer together. In these type of conditions, reducing the speed (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Ed Jones
|
| | | | | | | (...) Is he to ignor the slurs and accusations you have made against him? Isn't that exactly why he keeps asking you to show where he lied? Its a two way street. Yet you continue to call him a liar and beg for his banishment. (...) community. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) But it makes it a community. (...) I'm reading this in a similar way. Your losing points in my book everytime you say 'shun him', 'ban him', etc. Denying response to difficult or 'unworthy' questions aren't good debate rules. (...) think of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I did. He chose to deny it was a lie. At that point it's a difference of opinion, I suppose, but you cannot say that I did not show it. (...) When I posted that, what I had to go on was the timestamps on the posts. As LFB said, they are ALL (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Come on, Lar, to ban either of you would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We all know it bothers Scott that you made a comment about his making fourteen posts at once, snide or not, just as we know it bothers you that he called the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Exactly! No one needs a banning, you both just need a perspective. Scott, it doesn't hurt your standing here when Larry calls you a liar. It hurts you when you ask him to prove it umpteenmillion times. Larry, it doesn't hurt your standing here (...) (23 years ago, 26-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Because it is not a lie. You know it. I know it. (...) The truth is not about opinion! (...) "Claimed" - to you have any other explanation? (...) I think they were all still relevant? Had you answered any of the points elswhere? (...) *Sigh* (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Because it is not a lie. You know it. I know it. I noticed you have not replied to this one, where I ask about your "lies": (URL) At that point it's a difference of (...) The truth is not about opinion! (...) "Claimed" - to you have any other (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) He does this with every issue. When questioned, he starts slinging mud, and hopes it will go away. He needs to get his head out of the sand. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Take a look Larry. You are the one who is getting the big name caller around here. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now —Adam Wood
|
| | | | You could always just add him to your kill file. In Outlook Express - Message/Block Sender Easy... "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GLo4nt.BF6@lugnet.com... (...) something (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
