 | | A little self examination? —Tim Courtney
|
| | | This whole thing has gotten me thinking -- Matthew was out to prove a point, right? Matthew is also a jerk and has serious problems, right. But, just because he carried himself *very* poorly here doesn't mean he might not have something valuable to (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) I think you're on to something there. There have been some not very nice incidents. It's so easy for us, in the heat of the moment, to let our indignation climb until we say things we might not have meant to say in a calmer moment. No one has (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Joakim Olsson
|
| | | | | Tim Courtney wrote in message ... (...) point, (...) have (...) I think your friend is right... As a newcommer, I also have this experience. But I think that is common in a "community", in whatever media it is represented in. Sometimes it feels (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | (...) I haven't been on Lugnet very long, but whenever someone identifies themselves as being new, I will try to welcome them and give them some comments. If someone just posts something like "Hey look at this" I often don't respond to it (unless (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: A little self examination? —John Robert-Blaze Kanehl
|
| | | | | (...) A little introspection can be healthy, too much self analysis can be paalyzing and counter-productive. I believe that any valid points he had to make were outweighed by his aggressive, nay combative, immature, and myopic attitude. However, (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | John Robert-Blaze Kanehl wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Well, I doubt *all* would say that....;-) -John "8 wide or death" Neal (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I suspect he was positing a rhetorical... (...) Way to be open minded and inclusionary there, son. :-) (lurkers, Mr8wide and I go way back, there's no real hostility there (well maybe when John looks in the mirror, but I digress). ++Lar (24 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: A little self examination? —John Robert-Blaze Kanehl
|
| | | | | (...) Ok...I occasionally babble, I'm long winded (and unrepentently so...), and I am a fanataical advocate of commonly disparaged themes. That's my contribution to the wackiness of this community... (hey, every village needs an idiot or madman) (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) Hey don't worry about it - I personally enjoy your posts anyways :) [...] (...) Both of those cases are understandable. Because of the word 'Community' here - there will be ALL types, even types who don't find it useful to devote time here. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Aye. And remember, this is a discussion forum. Some very good posts don't lend themselves to further discussion, and so don't get much (or any) follow-up. And some very crummy posts get tons of followup. (...) Not that it's wrong either. Trust (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this... there is *nothing wrong* with being elitist... as long as it's a meritocracy. In large part, that *is* the way things operate in a lot of groups, there are people who most people know are (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Three cheers for compartmentalized dorks! >;-D -John (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't think is the right group for that... Steve (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Sorry, couldn't resist when I saw the word "compartmentalisation". I'm sure you remember that little flap in RTL about a year ago... Actually, the post was just simply my little way of posting "I agree". Unless you want to argue whether my (...) (24 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Sorry, I just left off the winkey. ;) It takes a compartmentalized dork to argue about the right place to celebrate compartmentalized dork-dom. :) Steve (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) :-) Thanks for the chuckle, Steve! -John (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | Hi Tim, Actually, I'm also thinking the subject of "is lugnet elitist?" from time to time, and even throw out some of my 0.02 Turkish liras about the subject in some cases, both in RTL and here in Lugnet. I'm strongly against elitism and alienating (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Selçuk Göre writes: [snip for time's sake - test in 40 minutes :\ ] (...) [snip] (...) You hit it right on here. I don't think we see very much not allowing certain people to participate based on their status in the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | | | Hi Selçuk, After reading your post and Tim's, I must throw in a "Me too" (as much as those posts are highly detested around here ;-). In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Selçuk Göre writes: [..] (...) As am I. I don't think anyone is really *for* it, but (...) (24 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The good thing is this, as you already said. There is no one who do it intentionally. No clans here like veterans or lamers. So the problem for newbies might be having too much expectations. But this should be dealed by their own selves. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | (...) You might be surprised.... For instance (correct me if I am wrong!), you have a good sense of humor, you are a cat person, and IIRC it was you who recently made that utterly charming statement about not knowing enough offensive words to be (...) (24 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | | | (...) :-) Yes, I'm surprised. You are correct at all. Actually, it's also surprised that this is the first message from me replied by four individuals..:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) This may be semantics and I may be repeating myself, but like I said, I think a meritocracy (that is, the "rule" of those with merit) based elitist system is a good basis for a specialised hobby community like LUGNET. I think it IS semantics (...) (24 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | (...) I get it. It was not a good example, it was not since I used "popular" and "respected" interchangeably. But still I think, in some extent, spending large amounts means somehow dedication to me, so being popular by it, is not so bad also. (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Jude Beaudin
|
| | | | | <snipped to conserve space> Tim is right, we do need to take some time and reflect. Let us 'Selah' for a time and make some constructive changes to the community to improve things. I have been participating in LUGNET for several months now and must (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | "Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@home.com> wrote in message news:G2ovu8.n12@lugnet.com... (...) impossible (...) everyone's (...) Regardless of 'leader' status, I think that the good thing here is that we can get to know each other personally through (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | | (...) True. Personally, I got to know a few people after repeatedly trading with them, because we used to slip in tidbits about RL happenings within the posts or emails. Even those little things go a long way later on. (...) I'd say the same for me. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | "Shiri Dori" <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:G2uEK7.81r@lugnet.com... (...) This is (...) There's (...) Yup. (...) an (...) I know, you're mean! (...) Hehe ;-) As I said before, I'm really glad I'm not attached to you :-P (and I pity the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | Tim, Wise words. It is a pity that some of these things have raised their heads before, let's hope this is the last time. The golden rule is to never say anything online that one would not say in person to anyone. I'm not saying I'm perfect (others (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) I really like this advice. --Todd (24 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | (...) I can see your concern but I wouldn't really worry about it. Although I didn't participate in the thread yesterday I did read it. To me responding to such posts is like throwing water on a grease fire and thats why I have come to avoid them. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A little self examination? —Kyle D. Jackson
|
| | | | | | | (...) didn't (...) G'day Eric, Y'know, I can't remember how many times I've read that advice in regards to disruptive posts or heated discussions. Having posted in electronic forums since before there really was an internet, I've seen it a lot. But (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Paul Baulch
|
| | | | | | Eric Kingsley wrote in message ... (...) didn't (...) such (...) attention 0>and if you ignore them they eventually go away. I know that is hard if not (...) for (...) While I would agree that ignoring someone rude is preferable to flaming them, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Disagree. I have reviewed more of that unpleasant thread and looking at the direct replies to the first post, none of them are anywhere near the level of unfriendliness that MM ended up at. If anything, most of them were friendlier than MMs (...) (24 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Rob Doucette
|
| | | | | | | "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G2tqEs.Asu@lugnet.com... (...) plainly (...) much (...) I, (...) the (...) of (...) friendlier (...) read. (...) what (...) Hatter (...) lot (...) inappropriate (...) why (...) good, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Paul Baulch
|
| | | | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) what (...) Hatter (...) lot (...) inappropriate (...) why (...) And kept it to yourself? That's a real shame. If' I'd made the connection, I would have used it constructively, to help persuade Matthew not (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes: <snip> I dispute that MM was "retrievable" or that it's my job to try. If you persist, I will politely point out what a fool you are for trying, in a friendly way, of course. I don't reason with rabid (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | | Paul Baulch wrote: .... (...) .... (...) Paul I can see your point, but I strongly believe that this is not a therapy club and I think most of the people here, surely including me, would not take the job. I still believe that there is a big (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Lemme interject something here. :-) Matthew didn't make any mistakes -- at least not in the usual social faux-pas sense. I've been speaking a little bit with him offline in email since Saturday and he considers himself a "Social Engineer" (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | | | (...) I must say I can't think of a place, either on or off line, where that kind of "social engineering" WOULD sit well. He must be quite used to being run out of groups on a rail... Kevin ---...--- Personal Lego Web page: (URL) Park: Limited (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I have a question (for anyone) about the phrase "Social Engineering." In your experience, does the phrase automaticaly imply causing disruptions, flamewars, etc. or can SE be done in quiet, civil ways? If the ToS for the discussion groups were (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Actually, that's something I considered when speaking to Matthew offline. I think my conclusion on the issue is that Matthew's approach (I.E. causing disruptions, etc) is a very fast, effective way of doing it. However, it causes unfortunate (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | I think Todd got "played". (And I recently said I didn't think Todd was easy to fool) Social Engineering my foot. If that was what MM was up to, it has no place here. But I don't think it was, I think it was just another layer of deception. This guy (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | (canceled) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | | | | | | This is tough but I think its a worthy discussion... (...) With all due respect to Todd, I think Larry is right to an extent. I told Todd in a private E-mail that I thought MM was mostly full of it. MM thinks very highly of himself and I would be (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) set (...) Check. Walk a mile in the other man's shoes and all that. (...) C/becuase/because/ C/to nice and/too nice and/ <GRIN> Seriously, without starting a big war, I think most of us know that you're a bit spelling challenged, Eric. And we (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) You want a war I'll give you a war... ;-). I don't pretend to be a good speller, I'm no good at the gramma stuff neither ;-). Never have been and probably never will be. I do try and (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I meant that in the nicest way, of course. (...) I think you left a comma out of that sentence fragment, big fella. :-) All (1) kidding aside (I should have set followups to .fun on the last post but they're set there now), I think if you (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Well I think you probably knew what I meant in that I leave final documentation to someone else, i.e. the copy the customer sees, I have to document my code for internal purposes of course. (...) Well I am not sure but I think it was the (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) <OBDisclaimer: I am not a professional sociologist, nor do I make any pretensions of actual knowledge in the field.> Social Engineering can be applied to a much broader spectrum of science and psuedo-science than MM is using it for. Not all SE (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Of course it's your call, but I don't think it's really necessary to put something like that into TOS. Current TOS is already forbids many things involved with this recent "social engineering" issue as you called. It doesn't matter too much (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think "Social Engineering" can mean many things. You can really only define it by its aim. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) We might be able to define it by its aim, but we can only evaluate it in terms of outcome. The recent episode may have been a noble attempt to shame us into some sort of community restructuring, but in reality Matt's posts came off as childish (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Good point. But before we can say "No Social Engineering Allowed", we have define what it is. Could it be argued that the rules of LUGNET themselves are social engineering? Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) define it by its aim. (...) Absolutely! They are, after all, the foundation of this community (or society?), so they would certainly qualify in my view. For that matter, the fact that LUGNet is a generally cohesive, friendly, and positive (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) (Just rereading what I wrote...) I didn't mean that to sound like everyone should have known this (what I snipped) and that Paul was wrong in what he wrote back to Larry. I just wanted to add some facts in an appropriate place to comment. No (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) I recognize that you're just the messenger, rather than the purveyor of this mindset, but such "social engineering" as Matt describes it is also known as sociopathy. The fact that it can be couched in politically correct rhetoric doesn't (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I don't know what else to call it. Any suggestions? (...) I really only "got" what he was trying to do after he explained it carefully. I played into his trap. Any others that come to mind? BTW, I can see that you get it. Say, do you remember (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —John Robert-Blaze Kanehl
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I strongly agree with this point... If I rob a bank, is it a crime?... or "a Meta-game in which I proposed to test the gullable nature of bank tellers, the resolution of low-light cameras, the competancy of local law enforcement, and the (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Naturally, it could be both. It's never not a crime, of course. If someone thinks it a meta-game, they clearly think quite differently from most people. Again, I don't care to judge MM's game or meta-game or tactics (or whatever you want to (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) You make a good point--it's hard to claim your opponent is cheating at checkers when he's playing chess. However, it's a cheap maneuver to say after the fact that you were playing a different game all along, especially when it looks like (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | For a guy who uses WebTV, this JohnnyBlaze is pretty eloquent! In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes: <snip> (...) Great, memorable acronym! And a good summation. (...) This statement is brilliant! For anyone who is wondering (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: Lar, Aren't you supposed to be on a flight somewhere? Drag your armored suitcase over someone's toes and get some sleep! Dave! (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) That was hours ago, I took an overnight monday nite, got to work around 1 PM GMT and did a good half day before I posted. Fortunately I got bumped from Delta onto NW, so I spent some miles to get out of coach and into Business, much better (...) (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —John Robert-Blaze Kanehl
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I read the first sentence and couldn't stop laughing... Thanks for the best laugh (compliment?) all day Larry! I'll read the rest of the post as soon as I dry my eyes... John (who prefers to think of himself as a slightly evolved (...) (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?) —Joakim Olsson
|
| | | | | | (...) *snipped some good stuff* (...) at (...) bit (...) his (...) absolutely (...) his (...) sociology. A vampire playing with Lego, thats a new one. That proves what a great product Lego really is... The "Malkavians" are everywhere and are famous (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: A little self examination? —David Low
|
| | | | (...) I think the Lugnet community needs to make a substantial effort to be inclusive, and a major part of this is how established members conduct themselves in the discussion groups. If someone is posting destructive remarks, don't reply to them in (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
