Subject:
|
Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:55:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
666 times
|
| |
|
|
NO NO NO NO NO!!! Don't you see the point of all of our posts expressing
our COMPLETE DISGUST with the Scott and Larry Show???!?!!!?! All you're
doing here is continuing it with half a dozen more PETTY BICKERING POSTS
amed at Larry.
Grow up, get a life, go away.
-Tim
"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message
news:GnEGy1.KKn@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> >
> > > And whilst you (and they) might want to debate who started any • particular >arguement, the fact is that the other is
> > > always as guilty for simply perpetuating it.
> >
> > There's really nothing to debate. Scott's the twit who starts trouble
> > whereever he goes. Go see lego.direct, for example, where his hateful • slime
> > caused a great deal of hurt within LD.
>
> In the thread Larry mentions, I questioned a company who was apparently
> noisily giving a token amount to the WTC charity. I questioned their
> motives. Tim and John claimed that perhaps I was being insensitive. • Perhaps I
> was. I welcome both John and Tim's opinion (although not the tone). But I • do
> not want to be lectured to by Larry on this, as he has already made his
> views clear on those seeking to gain from 911:
>
> ==+==
> Dan:
> > I think it's just plain sick! Any person wishing to buy, sell, trade
> > and/or somehow turn a profit from debris soaked with the blood of their
> > countrymen is worthless scum in my opinion. Larry:
>
> OK, I think excessive profiteering is a bit despicable, yes. But ponder
> this. I would like to have a small piece of the WTC because I want a • tangible
> reminder of this tragedy, something to spark discussion with my kids or
> grandkids, and don't ever want to forget that horrid day.
> ==+==
>
> No doubt, if one is willing to pay a premium, a blood soaked piece of • debris
> can be had?
>
> Scott A
>
> > My only chargable offense is that I
> > let him get to me too easily.
>
>
>
> >
> > Like Chris said... he just keeps on getting worse and worse until I snap.
> >
> > Lugnet is better off without Scott Arthur. He contributes little or • nothing
> > positive and causes trouble wherever he goes. Banning him will generate a
> > great deal of peace and quiet. Banning me means you're still stuck with • his
> > bile.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
| (...) You all take this far too seriously. If you can detach yourselves a bit you'll see it's kind of like observing an exhibit of dung beetles in a glass case. They roll up great balls of dung, periodically have territorial fights and displays of (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
| (...) It's a good thing we have you here to make sure that the show goes on, then, isn't it. If you want the debate to die out, you may want to avoid joining it, and especially in that tone. I've seen you doing this a lot of times, BTW. You shout (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
| (...) In the thread Larry mentions, I questioned a company who was apparently noisily giving a token amount to the WTC charity. I questioned their motives. Tim and John claimed that perhaps I was being insensitive. Perhaps I was. I welcome both John (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
65 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
