Subject:
|
Re: malicious behavior
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:41:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9525 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
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:
| |
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.
|
But you admitted that one doesn’t necessarily follow from the other, so I
don’t know why you’d think THAT.
|
Because I DO.
|
Well, my point is that you have no reason to think that.
|
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 once or twice a week because of the crap that spews forth from .off-topic.debate
- The people that still read all day every day just to see what crap is spewing forth from .off-topic.debate, and last but not least:
- The people that still read maybe 2 or 3 times a year just to reply to the odd thread
As an exercise, see how many more you can come up with by tomorrow.
Meanwhile, because lar is still in at least one of the sub-groups, I consider
him a member of the umbrella populace. I’d call it a populus, but this isn’t
a latin lesson.
|
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. His silence for the past 2 months could be the beginning of a yearlong
drought of posting. God forbid, he could be dead and buried, for all you know.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
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 information. And
by “real”, I mean beyond seance, Ouija board, tarow cards, etc, and pure
speculation.
|
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
want me to go on?
|
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 given regular reader of LUGNET (who
doesn’t post frequently). Get it?
|
Oh gees. What about if I ask you to ask your neighbour?
You seem to think this point is important. However once again, in the context
of this thread, it is totally irrelevant, because the context was
specifically about lar. And his email is relatively easy to find.
|
Ah, well, there you go. You know about his LUGNET reading habits because you
emailed him and asked him, correct? No? Instead, you chose to rely on
conjecture and speculation. You’ve chosen to treat him as if he were a total
stranger (like my neighbor), and by doing so know nothing about his LUGNET
reading habits.
In any event, I think that the odds are quite good that a single-post jab at him
would fly under his sparse LUGNET radar. But further to the point, I think that
if one is going to mock someone, they should at least have that person’s
attention first rather than doing it behind their back. Al claims no
malicious intent, and so the entire point is in fact, mute, except for your
involvement.
One might get the impression that you are deliberately wasting my time. Say,
your real name isn’t Wensleydale, is it?
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) 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 (...) (17 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
|
|
|
|
