 | | Re: use of anagram fun is bad in lugnet.general
|
|
(...) Tim, I understand your good intentions. I think no one is doubting that Iain and Richard were against TOS. And you're right, we're all the guests of Todd/Suzanne or whoever is running Lugnet these days. However, you also have no authority for (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: use of anagram fun is bad in lugnet.general
|
|
(...) Certainly I understand I have no authority in your NG. But, the TOS does have an authority in your NG. The comments were crossposted to a mainstream part of LUGNET too. While I would still find the post distasteful, I would have less of a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: use of anagram fun is bad in lugnet.general
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang writes: <snip> (...) But the problem is that she shouldn't HAVE to say so each and every time. LUGNET is a community. As such, community members ought to be able to help each other out in conforming to the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: use of anagram fun is bad in lugnet.general
|
|
(...) Oooh, my second posting to a Larry post (too bad it has to be about this issue :( for I appreciate Larry, and Tim and everyone I've had dialogues with and or/read on LUGNet... In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Tim Courtney writes: (...) Both are (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: use of anagram fun is bad in lugnet.general
|
|
(...) I don't wish to add any fuel to this mixture, but do want to make a point that might help present another point of view. I read LUGNET through the web interface almost 100% of the time. I have no filtering enabled, so I see every newsgroup. I (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
