 | | Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS")
|
|
(...) So you'd like to think pal, but you'd be wrong :-) The reason I snip a great deal of previous text from these messages is that they become incredibly tiresome to wade through (more so than usual), with one ending up reading one new line per (...) (24 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS")
|
|
(...) Uh, I hate to point out your hypocristy...but on the one hand you say it's easy to go back through the previous messages in the thread, and yet you add spaces to the subject line which as you know breaks the thread apart. Not only that but (...) (24 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is Robert Bevens exceedingly obnoxious? (was: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years...))
|
|
In just a few days in lugnet.off-topic.debate, Robert Bevens: (...) Makes unwarranted assumptions about other posters' experience. (...) Is a smart-aleck about it. Also: Ignores substantive point on how annoying tit-for-tat arguments are. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS")
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) [snip] (...) [snip] (...) Hmmmm. Robert, you're really starting to sound like someone else who came around here temporarily a while back - what was his name? Matthew Boulton? I'd almost forgotten..... ROSCO (24 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The play's the thing (was Re: Does God have a name for God have a name for God....)
|
|
(...) At this point a general warning should be given that in the near future Robert will likely announce that he has been playing a game with us to see how we'd react. I, for one, feel greatly privileged to have been a part of this bold and (...) (24 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS")
|
|
(...) While I am flattered by your attribution of devious directed obfuscation, unfortunately I must confess to not being as clever as all that in this matter - I've not knowingly changed the subject line in any of the messages I've replied to. That (...) (24 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The play's the thing (was Re: Does God have a name for God have a name for God....)
|
|
(...) Hmmm again. So, if he's actually _trying_ to come across as a complete failure, and in that, he's a resounding success, which is he? Jason (24 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The play's the thing (was Re: Does God have a name for God have a name for God....)
|
|
(...) No, not really. (...) You make it sound as if I've gone to some great length to hide my identity. A couple weeks ago I posted some links to pictures of some of my models, two new, and one old. So anyone following my work would obviously know (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Robert Bevens exceedingly obnoxious? (was: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years...))
|
|
(...) Uh, excuse your stupidity, but after doing it just once, one should be able to tell it breaks the thread apart...unless they're just blind or stupid, and I sure as heck wouldn't ever call Jennifer stupid. I mean if you're having such a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS")
|
|
(...) It's probably using the reference header to sort them instead of the subject. Just out of curiosity, what news reader are you using? Seems odd that it should randomly put spaces into the subject line. o_O (...) Gee, PKB lames, have ye reached (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The play's the thing (was Re: Does God have a name for God have a name for God....)
|
|
(...) Just try & cool it Robert. It may sound like that to you, but yours is only one opinion. (...) No, some may have followed your links - that doesn't imply they know who you are. ROSCO (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The play's the thing (was Re: Does God have a name for God have a name for God....)
|
|
(...) No matter what the result is, there will always be someone eager to: Misinterpret it. Fake it. Believe it happened according to his own pet theory. Robert (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The play's the thing (was Re: Does God have a name for God have a name for God....)
|
|
(...) I'm tryin to keep things as cool as possible, if any serious debate starts over it I'm not going to get involved, there's no need. To me this group is just a fun place to yammer back and forth over stuff that probably isn't taken too (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Courtesy? (was: lots of other stuff)
|
|
(...) Well, I'm not interested in getting into your other debate, but I disagree with your opinion on this point. I think that is *exactly* the *difference* between courtesy & respect - one is given freely, the other is earned. ROSCO (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Courtesy? (was: lots of other stuff)
|
|
(...) Agreed. Being at least somewhat courteous is an implicit requirement in the ToS here. Even to darn fools that you do not respect. ++Lar (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Courtesy? (was: lots of other stuff)
|
|
(...) Hmmm....I should probably clarify, my bad. I believe there is a certain amount of courtesy which should be practiced and given out for free, such as holding doors open for the person behind you, not parking directly in front of a guy whose (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
