|
|
 | | Re: who does chris think he is?
|
| (...) No, but I would expect you'd do something like this, so...carry on! :) (...) For THAT matter, I could also say Emimem or NWA made some excellent points using a LOT of profanity. What I'm trying to get across is, for the subject matter, that (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | | | Re: Hi there
|
| (...) The idea was to drive a boat from one end of a pool to another, where there would be a "buoy" (aka stolen road pylon weighed down with stones) where you'd have to turn around and drive back. I think we'd allow some non-Lego stuff, probably (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jan-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | | | Re: who does chris think he is?
|
| (...) And what I'm saying is, you don't NEED to. It's like saying, should I ever NEED to blow up a small sovereign nation, I want to always have access to a nuclear weapon (since everyone likes to call it the "F-Bomb" (?!#!@#)). It should never get (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | | | Re: who does chris think he is?
|
| (...) I didn't mean to imply that profanity is always wrong. I tend to agree with Larry's view on profanity use [1] and also agree (strongly) with Kelly's view of "free speech" on LUGNET [2]. My comment wasn't meant to address what was profanity and (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | | | Re: who does chris think he is?
|
| (...) I know that the admins set the rules and I know LUGNET is "non-free" in terms of the types expression allowed but I think the above opinion is very arrogant (that's not to say that you, Tim, are arrogant since I know you are not). The above (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
|
