To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 14239
14238  |  14240
Subject: 
Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 07:48:10 GMT
Viewed: 
997 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > > Ban him. Shun him. Send him emails and tell him to shut up.
> > > > 
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > Meaning what? I am to ignore every slur he makes so he gets away with his
> > > lies scot free?
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> I did. He chose to deny it was a lie.

Because it is not a lie. You know it. I know it.

> At that point it's a difference of
> opinion, I suppose, but you cannot say that I did not show it.

The truth is not about opinion!

> 
> 
> > Yes I read the "supposed" lie you accuse him of.  Seems to me the title you
> > gave this thread is a lie of the same magnitude.  "14 posts by Scott just now"
> 
> When I posted that, what I had to go on was the timestamps on the posts. As
> LFB said, they are ALL from a very short period of time.

> > - you can read as well as everyone else, that they were posted over
> > a period of 2 days.
> 
> No. Claimed to have been queued up for posting, yes, but they were posted in
> a short period of time.

"Claimed" - to you have any other explanation?

> Go look for yourself. I'm even willing to allow that
> Scott confirms days old proposed posts without looking to see if they're
> still relevant or worth posting,

I think they were all still relevant? Had you answered any of the points
elswhere?

> but my subject line, as it stands, (He
> caused 14 posts to happen "just now", after all) is correct, factual, and
> non pejorative, unlike "White Man's Club" which is counterfactual and
> pejorative.

*Sigh* "White Man's Club" - Out of context again.

> 
> > I agree with David - continued requests to ban him will most likely get
> > both of you banned.
> 
> If you choose to throw the baby out with the bathwater that's your choice, I
> guess. Most people are smarter than that though.

Perhaps the baby needs to grow up a little?

Scott A



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
 
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

36 Messages in This Thread:














Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR