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 / 22807
22806  |  22808
Subject: 
Re: Seriously...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:03:00 GMT
Viewed: 
296 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl wrote:
   You must have skipped the post I saw...

He may have been ADDRESSING someone else, but he was insulting Richard.

Perhaps you need to follow the thread again.

Nothing to follow. Jon expressed an opinion, and a rather benign one at that. Is this grounds for banishment? And even if insulting is grounds for banishment, I personally have endured countless personal attacks at the hands of RM; far worse than this! RM’s leash is far and away longer than anyone else’s on LUGNET, and his latest attack on Jon is IMO the lowest point to which LUGNET has ever descended. His disdain for everything this community stands for is contemptible.

JOHN

Hear, hear!

-Tim

I don’t think that Hoppy needs an apologist (especially one named Kooties), for he’s usually quite able to defend himself...

But I’ve been here, in o.t.-d, thru most major discussions over the years, and yes, sometimes his passions show thru loud and clear, but ‘who is not guilty of this may cast the first stone’...

The only issue for me was the ‘colourful language’. I personally don’t appreciate swearing/profanity/4 letter words/whatever euphemism you choose, for 99 prercent of the time these words are brought into the conversation, they degrade the level of discourse to the lowest common denominator. It’s very rare in the course of conversation when I’ve heard these words used and was impressed by the direction the conversation was going.

And Richard didn’t change that stance with that particular post. That does not negate all his previous posts in which I was very impressed with Richard, and his ability to research and articulate his opinion.

Do I agree with the ban? Not my call, and thankfully I’ll bow out from that decision. The ToU does specify the non-usage of profanity, so he disregarded that part.

As for the rest? Eh, sticks and stones...(1)

Dave K
-ending, of course, at the point of libel



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Seriously...
 
(...) Of course! What else are we talking about???? JOHN (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Seriously...
 
(...) Hear, hear! -Tim (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

27 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
    

Custom Search

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