 | | Re: use of anagram fun is bad in lugnet.general
|
|
(...) Because of the web interface, what you or anyone else say in "your" NG is hardly private. Many if not most view any post no matter which NG it's in. You may think you "get away" with stuff, but that's only an illusion. -John (23 years ago, 16-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: use of anagram fun is bad in lugnet.general
|
|
(...) Sorry, Richard. I cant speak for Calum. I can speak for me. I personally was not going to wade into this BUT you did bring up my name. I was not/ am not hanging my head in shame. What happened, happened. It was unfortunate that Iain, did not (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: use of anagram fun is bad in lugnet.general
|
|
(...) That’s –EXACTLY- how I felt! Why’d Tim have to ‘Five-O’ u on such a minor statement? He could of just ignored it and let it pass. (It’s not like the whole newsgroup was about to be spammed by ‘lewd-anagrams!’) This just totally wastes Suz’ (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: faster than a 48x CD re-writer
|
|
(...) HA, Dave, that's GREAT news. congratulations!!!! :) Of course as you have stated we both have LOTS of time to make the robot faster. I've got a few more timing tricks up my sleeve to try to speed things up. I've been in discussion with a few (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: use of anagram fun is bad in lugnet.general
|
|
(...) hey Bro, all you had to do was remove the lugnet.general newsgroup from your posting....that would have saved everyone from trouble... Ben (23 years ago, 15-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
