 | | Re: My point.
|
| (...) Matthew's posting privileges are now disabled (to all groups) after the past round of abusive messages he posted. Lord knows if he's the same person who identified himself/herself at "Madhatter" in RTL last year, but there's been plenty enough (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: My point.
|
| (...) alt.usenet.kooks? (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: My point.
|
| (...) AUK = alt.usenet.kooks, in my 'net experience. it's a newsgroup used mostly for flaming/trolling, and it's where people like Matthew end up. some of the regulars there are bad news. (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: My point.
|
| (...) Fells like that? whoa... Thank you Todd, I feel like you shouldn't wait this much..:-) I personally believe that if I can't find anything to say for an individual's behavior other than "what kind of an *** **** are you?" (I know much better (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: My point.
|
| (...) AUK is defintely alt.usenet.kooks. I have spent some time there myself, it is definitely a flame group. The entire purpose of the group is to ridicule, well, "usenet kooks". People that post there generally get there in one of two ways- either (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: My point.
|
| (...) D'oh! I forgot my own footnote. [1] I was there to flame. I enjoy flaming people. I don't think it's a big crime, especially if you keep it to places where it's appropriate, such as alt.usenet.kooks, alt.flame, ne.internet.services (circa (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: My point.
|
| (...) is (...) It is not what you consider to be a flame which is important - do you agree? (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: My point.
|
| (...) In all seriousness, I don't understand your question, mostly because if it were communicated verbally, there would have been emphasis on one word or another to give me a clue what you meant. I'll assume what you meant is: "It's not what *you* (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | (canceled)
|
| | | | | | Re: My point.
|
| (...) would (...) agree? (...) were (...) another to (...) *You* must find it *really* hard to read books if there are *no* pointers to the *important* words in the sentences? Perhaps *your* mother underlines them for *you*? :-) (...) you (...) (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: My point.
|
| (...) No, most writers can manage to get their point across clearly without the need for emphasis, because they know that the written word doesn't carry any. (...) You responded to my post, pretty much as I predicted you would. (...) You're right. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: My point.
|
| (...) I'm not sure what you mean by this? Are you saying you are some sort of martyr for all of LUGNET versus me? (...) As you are a member of society. You have a obligation to think of others, and generally be a nice guy. You don't have to (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: My point.
|
| (...) Certainly not, I apologise for not being clear. What I meant was, when I said I had not personally insulted you, you took umbrage because the conversation was suddenly about you and I- I meant only to widen the scope of my statements, ie, "I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
