 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) For what it's worth, I do think that you've been annoying about your notes, but no one of them was bad...it's just that you're harping on the issue. :-) (...) Is that true? I suspect that if the NELUG members really approach unanimity on this, (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I would. But I wasn't really getting at a technical definition issue. From the perspective of posting to a newsgroup they're all functionally the same. They're just various opinions and regardless of how they're phrased, the NELUG readers will (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Ok, We'll leave the "moral" implaction off, (though I just used it as a figure of speech, and not a moralistic POV). It IS neccessary. But, it is NELUG's necessity, and not mine. Nor could, I'm sure, it be others. THAT is my point. Let NELUG (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Yep. Just as an aside, there is a process I often take architecture clients through (It's called QFD for the home audience to go look up if they want). It's quite formal and you get rather methodical and mechanical answers out at the end of (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) No it doesn't. You acknowledged that they could find a way to stop you. What it does is show that you are not seeking a consensus. That what you want is to belittle, demean, and bend people to your will. I suspect quite sincerely, that you are (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
|
