|
|
 | | Re: In support of Larry
|
| (...) Are you saying that I: a) have "had more spats with more people than anyone else on LUGNET?" b) have shown a "willingness to flout the rules"? and c) have caused trouble on bricklink? ...or are you just attacking me rather than answering the (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.people)
| | | | | Re: In support of Larry
|
| (...) Look at it from the realistic side. The more exposure you have, the more chances something you wrote will upset someone else. Ever since I joined the community, Larry has consistantly been the most active participant here on Lugnet. This and (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.people)
| | | | | Re: In support of Larry
|
| (...) I can agree with you that the level of communication has been rather low. In fact I'm almost getting withdrawal symptoms, as the 'signal-to-fight' ratio has gone so low. I *know* that Larry has done, and does, a *lot* of good work for the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.people)
| | | | | Re: In support of Larry
|
| (...) Now there's the pot calling the kettle black... :P Rob (21 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.people)
| | | | | Re: In support of Larry
|
| (...) Tim, With respect, you are being obsequious. Can people not draw any conclusion from the fact that Larry has probably had more spats with more people than anyone else on LUGNET? Can they not make a judgment based on his willingness to flout (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.people)
|
|
