 | | Re: malicious behavior —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | (...) "Regularly chiming in every few months" over a period of 6 months means chiming in twice, spaced "regularly" over the time, i.e at 3 months and 6 months. Chiming in twice in the last 6 months could mean chiming in on Day One and Day Two, and (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: malicious behavior —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) OK. I thought I could assume people would read my question in the context of the current thread, but I guess that was a rash assumption. So please explain how that difference applies in this particular case? ROSCO (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —Jude Beaudin
|
| | | | | (...) Ross, The difference is Tom uses a calendar that has months that are 20 days long on average. Those crazy Americans, first they mess up DST now they have a new calendar. Jude (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: DST sucks! (was: malicious behavior) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) LOL ummmm shhhh, don't mention DST when talking to an Australian ;) ROSCO (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: DST sucks! (was: malicious behavior) —Jude Beaudin
|
| | | | | | (...) Sorry Ross, I didn't know you had it so bad. (URL) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: DST sucks! (was: malicious behavior) —Bob Parker
|
| | | | | | (...) I feel his pain. It happens here in Arizona too: (URL) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) You can't assume that because he has posted on LUGNET a few times, he is reading or aware of anything that is going on on LUGNET. The only real way to know if someone is a regular reader is if that person posts often each week. Sure, there are (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) I think you can assume that he is aware of whatever he replied to. (...) That's one way, but not the ONLY way. Real or otherwise. (...) I was never asked to verify anything - I was simply asked "What makes you think he is still among the (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | (...) Conversely, you make my point. If he doesn't reply to something, we can't assume he's read it, and it would be off his radar, or as I put it, "behind his back." Your initial point was, because he posts now and then, he's around and aware of (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) No, my initial point was because he posts now and then, I THINK he is still among the populace that reads Lugnet. (...) Why don't you ask him/her? (...) Thanks, I'll remember that next time I'm posting at a latin forum. (...) Now you're (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) But you admitted that one doesn't necessarily follow from the other, so I don't know why you'd think THAT. (...) Why don't you stop being obtuse and answer the question? I want to know another way you seem to THINK there is of knowing this (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Because I DO. (...) I'm sorry for being so obtuse - I was simply pointing out that asking them is one other way to know (assuming you receive / believe the answer). Standing and looking over their shoulder while they read is another. Do you (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, my point is that you have no reason to think that. (...) You know my neighbor, and where we live? I chose my neighbor precisely because you don't know him. You don't know anything about him. Just as you don't know anything about any (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) OK. Let's try this from the other direction, kiddies. The populace that still reads Lugnet is a group of people. It contains many subgroups, for example: The people that still read lugnet.org.scibrick The people that still read a few groups (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) He's not necessarily in the "still reading" subgroup category. He could've been just popping over to LUGNET when he got "pinged" by a regular reader, or after a major event like an ILTCO convention. Which is exactly what I suspect is the case. (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) He could also be still reading. (...) Why do you suspect that? (...) (URL) Oh I doubt it>. Of course that could just be someone impersonating him. (...) I never claimed to know about his Lugnet reading habits. (...) Or even moot. Yes, I do (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yes, Ross, you made that perfectly clear. What you haven't made so clear is WHY you think that for no apparent reason. (...) Because I have no evidence to the contrary. You are obtuse. (...) Is that why you know so much about him-- because you (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Why do you believe in god? (...) John, I think this could be cleared up easily by looking at how we interpret words. Lar has posted tice in the last six months, you consider that "not still reading", I consider it "still reading occasionally". (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | | | (...) Don't assume. I have only read what is in o-t-d, I have not gone back to the original thread, and judging by what I've seen in here, I don't feel the need to waste the time. (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) Well I guess if he has a group of African girls with laptops replying for him then maybe he is unaware of what he has replied to. ROSCO (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: omnipotent behavior —Allister McLaren
|
| | | | | (...) I firmly believe lar has a team of small girls in Africa tapping away on laptops that read the entire internets and give him a daily report. It's the only possible explanation for his apparent ability to be everywhere. (...) The entire world (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: omnipotent behavior —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Oodalalee! All Hail Larry! ===...=== JOHN (Larritarian since 1999) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: malicious behavior —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Actually, there ARE other ways-- ish-- but they're not easy! And they're not necessarily open to everyone. For instance, an admin could check on the Lugnet server to see how many times he's logged in. But it's not public information. You can (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
