 | | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | (...) 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, (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) What resolution was that? I seriously don't see anything as resolved. (22 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi —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 (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | 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. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
