| | Re: Uselessness of .debate Larry Pieniazek
|
| | (...) My default in interpreting your words is to assume sarcastic intent. If you actually were complimenting me, sorry... but otherwise: What is the issue? Seems a pretty clear cut answer to a question. Was it that you didn't want anyone to answer (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | |
| | | | Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry Dave Low
|
| | | | (...) I know I'm not much of anybody here, but I'd like to request a moratorium on Scott and Larry replying to each other's posts. Please? --DaveL (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | | Dave Low wrote in message ... (...) on (...) Seconded. How about Scott and Larry only reply to each other in email :-) then the rest of us don't have to watch. Kevin (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Thirded "The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions." Scott A (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | (...) No, I think they should remain public. But for the next fourteen days, any snide comment (as judged by at least four of we who have posted >100 notes to .debate) should be assessed a fine of $10 paid to LUGNET. Chris :-) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | (...) This brings back a memory of a movie which I forget the title but it involves a family relocating across the country and all the mis-adventures of the move and the new house, and then I think they wound up moving back. In any case, in this (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) For the record, I made my mind up to leave Larry alone a while ago - unless he made a snide comment directed at me. I'm sticking to it the best I can. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) I can't agree to this request, it's too blanket. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Sure, you gave an answer. It is not reasoned though. Despite that, I do see a contradiction in your response - not a big one. I'd still be interested in Chris's reply. (...) It was my reply to the question _you_ quoted. Did you even read my (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |