To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.org.ca.rtltorontoOpen lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Organizations / Canada / rtlToronto / 3287
3286  |  3288
Subject: 
Re: use of anagram fun is bad in lugnet.general
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
Date: 
Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:53:59 GMT
Viewed: 
605 times
  
Iian wrote:
How was I supposed to know someone felt it
necissary to tattle to .general.admin?

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’ time and makes her deal with irrelevant stuff.
                                                    (OR)
At the most, Tim could have just sent an e-mail presentin’ his distaste for
your statement.
                                           ~But he didn’t!!!!!!!!
(That’s why I took the time to attribute the appropriate anagram to ol’ Timmy!)
                 [I thought it mirrored his rash anal-retentive intolerance.]

Ben wrote:
hey Bro, all you had to do was remove the lugnet.general newsgroup from
your posting....that would have saved everyone from trouble...

---
Sometimes I just wanna *ignore Ben!
But he’s a good guy so I'll tolerate.        ;)
*I say this cause he +AlwayS gives a reply to every post…even when the post
is meant to be a one-point statement, a la Mr. K!
---

But, to answer Ben’s comment, I'll just reiterate my past post;
It was left in .general cause the response was “relevant to the context.”

               Sincerely,

                                      --==Richard==--

-Holy Freudian phallic afflictions Batman!



P.S. You know what’s kinda funny?
The way Calum and Chris M. totally hang their heads in shame
when things like this get outta hand.
I can see them going;
‘Oh god, there goes Iian… and great, Richard’s gone all ‘Defender of
Free-Speech’ on us.        This is sure to make us look bad!”      8)



Message has 2 Replies:
  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 (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
  Re: use of anagram fun is bad in lugnet.general
 
(...) Yep. I could have. I could have thought, 'why waste my time' and totally disregard the concern I have for the betterment of LUGNET. (...) If it isn't entirely obvious, I don't have much regard for this slippery slope opinion. This isn't (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: use of anagram fun is bad in lugnet.general
 
"Benjamin Medinets" <bmedinets@excite.com> wrote in message news:Gpytpv.I35@lugnet.com... (...) community... (...) as (...) How was I suposed to know someone felt it necissary to tattle to .general.admin? Iain (22 years ago, 15-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)

33 Messages in This Thread:













Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR