Subject:
|
Re: malicious behavior
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:26:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9497 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
So please explain how that difference applies in this particular case?
|
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.
|
I think you can assume that he is aware of whatever he replied to.
|
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 what’s going on around here.
|
No, my initial point was because he posts now and then, I THINK he is still
among the populace that reads Lugnet.
| |
| |
| |
The only real way
to know if someone is a regular reader is if that person posts often each
week.
|
That’s one way, but not the ONLY way. Real or otherwise.
|
What? Consider my neighbor. Is he a regular reader of LUGNET or not?
|
Why don’t you ask him/her?
| |
| |
| |
Sure, there are regular lurkers, but you have no tangible way to
verify that.
|
I was never asked to verify anything - I was simply asked “What makes you
think he is still among the populace that reads LUGNET?” (Note spelling
correction - I don’t think anyone here is a tree.)
|
But they could be a “Forrest”. BTW, populus is latin for people, if you
really want to get pedantic.
|
Thanks, I’ll remember that next time I’m posting at a latin forum.
| |
| |
| |
Further, merely because LUGNET is a public forum in no way means that the
entire world is privy to what is said in it.
|
Agreed. But irrelevant.
|
Then expain this statement by you: “Well I don’t think Al could get much more
public than Lugnet, do you?”
|
Now you’re starting to sound like Tom - unable to put sentences in context.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) 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)
|
183 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
