 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
