Subject:
|
Re: malicious behavior
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:06:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9957 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:
| |
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.
|
Yes, Ross, you made that perfectly clear. What you haven’t made so clear is
WHY you think that for no apparent reason.
|
Why do you believe in god?
| |
| |
| |
Which is exactly what I
suspect is the case.
|
Why do you suspect that?
|
Because I have no evidence to the contrary. You are obtuse.
|
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”.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Is that why you know so much about him
|
Again, I have never claimed I know anything about him.
| |
| |
Of course that could just be someone impersonating him.
|
Right. Actually, it doesn’t appear that you even need ME to carry on this
little conversation. Seems you can handle it all yourself.
|
Do you have evidence for that?
| |
| |
| |
Ah, well, there you go. You know about his LUGNET reading habits
|
I never claimed to know about his Lugnet reading habits.
|
You know; you THINK you know. You are being obtuse.
|
Huh?
| |
| |
| |
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).
|
But the pedant in you couldn’t resist. Gotcha anyway.
|
It was sarcasm. You know, humour?
| |
| |
| |
except for
your involvement.
|
My involvement is mainly in response to your question.
|
Go back and look, Ross. There was no question to you or anyone else. Your
involvement began by interjecting a question.
|
I said “mainly”. I expected no response or a simple answer to my single
question, but got lots of spouting from you about “where’s your evidence?” so I
responded. As only 1 of my posts falls outside the response to your question, I
consider “mainly” an appropriate adverb.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
This may pass for intelligent discourse in your mind, but not mine. It feels
very much like a MP sketch to me.
|
More humour?
| |
| |
Or maybe you could just accept that I think lar still reads Lugnet
occasionally, even if you don’t grok why I think that.
|
Maybe you could just state WHY you THINK that and end this. But you won’t,
and it won’t, so I’m done.
|
I already have. At least twice. You just seem to think I should have absolute
irrefutable evidence for something as small as this, while it’s OK to believe in
god and base your whole life on that belief without irrefutable evidence.
Whateva.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
