 | | For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
Alfred: What would possess you to bring this topic up after the approx. 20 days the thread has been dead? Your suggestion to Larry has been made by others ad nauseam. Everyone here can be expected to act in accord with their own wishes. No one is (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | for the eyes of Suz (Was Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
(you didn't say "for the eyes of... ONLY" :-) (...) It's not dead, it's just resting. :-) Calling for a member to be banned is a very serious matter. At least it *ought* to be considered very serious. Unless that call is withdrawn, some answer ought (...) (23 years ago, 18-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
(...) Well, my reasoning is this: I don't read every part of Lugnet every day. In fact, I rarely read (or am even interested in) lugnet.general or lugnet.admin or off-topic debate. I am interested in Lego. So, what I read is usually lugnet.starwars, (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
(...) Right, nothing is off limits. At the same time, people are expected to post INFORMED statements showing that they have read most of the thread and at least understand the basic issue under discussion. You did neither, and in general that is (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
(...) Well, you are plain wrong. I did read all of the thread (thoa I can't say that I have read every thread where Scott and Larry have squared off). I almost always read entire threads, because reading one message most of the time does not give (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
Alfred: I apologize if I misunderstood your degree of knowledge on the subjects under discussion -- it seems to me that your last two posts contradict each other at least in part, but that doesn't matter, I'll just take your word for what you do and (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
(...) Alfred, I don't know how resolved this is in your understanding at this point. To those of us who are the insiders here, or at least to me, this is how it seemed: 1) There was this long-running fairly disruptive fight thing going on about, (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
(...) What resolution was that? I seriously don't see anything as resolved. (23 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
Apology accepted. (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
(...) I object to you labeling yourself an 'insider' in a multinational internet discussion group. I don't know who you are, or what your relationaship is to Lugnet (except as a poster) to Scott or Larry or to any other group. There are many groups (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
I seem to have done more harm than good. (...) All I meant was frequent participant of this particular news group. I guess that wasn't obvious, though I hadn't (and still haven't) come up with any other plausible meaning. (...) Just a user. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
