Subject:
|
Re: malicious behavior
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:23:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9579 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
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.
|
He could also be still reading.
| |
Which is exactly what I
suspect is the case.
|
Why do you suspect that?
| |
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.
|
Oh I doubt it.
Of course that could just be someone impersonating him.
| |
Ah, well, there you go. You know about his LUGNET reading habits
|
I never claimed to know 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,
|
Or even moot. Yes, I do know about the “inside joke”. I could care less (but not
much less).
| |
except for
your involvement.
|
My involvement is mainly in response to your question.
| |
One might get the impression that you are deliberately wasting my time.
|
One might also get the dichotomous impression that YOU are wasting MY time.
But that is all based on the assumption that the time is being wasted. We’re
having an intelligent debate aren’t we? Hey maybe if we try real hard, we can
even keep it going until the next time lar reads Lugnet.
Or maybe you could just accept that I think lar still reads Lugnet occasionally,
even if you don’t grok why I think that.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) 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. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
