|
|
 | | Re: siggy testaroo
|
| (...) I was saying that I was sorry for stealing almost all of Tim's words from his post seen here (and the joke being fairly lame now that I think of it - lol): (URL) (17 years ago, 1-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: siggy testaroo
|
| --snip-- (...) He didn't apologise... he appologised. There was a reason I snipped ;) Tim (17 years ago, 1-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: siggy testaroo
|
| (...) The funny thing is, as far as I can tell, and fwiw, Word Spellcheck agrees, Bob didn't make any spelling errors in that post. And so the mystery remains as to what exactly Bob was apologising for... Allister - spring loaded to the baffled (...) (17 years ago, 1-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: siggy testaroo
|
| (...) I think I do get it. (...) I appreciate Tim's contribution to the community here, few come close to his involvement and knowledge. His MOC production is, I think, unequalled in recent times. I do not think LUGNET is 'his forum', but I (...) (17 years ago, 1-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) Rather, only one pair of original parents. ;o) Giving me a name appropriate for Jewish men born in the 1920's (and random bad-guy henchmen) was soo creative! -Lenny (17 years ago, 16-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) Unoriginal parents? Tim (17 years ago, 16-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) Wait a minute--I just realized that in this little discussion we have a Leonard, two Daves, and three Tims, one of whom qualifies as both a Tim and a David. What's going on here?!? Dave! (17 years ago, 16-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) SNIP (...) Hey, we don't want any mention of THAT place here! ;-) Tim (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) What's the standard, then? Does censorship cover anything that doesn't include everything? That would define "censorship" so thinly that it would have no meaning at all. But if we insetad define "censorship" to be an action of government, then (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) So, you're arguing that censorship can only be effected by a government, or illegally? By illegally, I'm suggesting that a private citizen/organization violates an agreement such as public free speech or their own TOS. Essentially, I think (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
