I'm top-posting this for a reason. In the "Please don't Top Post"
thread, the reason given for not top posting was because you lose the
context of the discussion. I am hoping, no, *BEGGING* that this
discussion get's lost. *QUICKLY*
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 09:58, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
>
> [EMAIL P
In a message dated: 21 Mar 2003 09:58:55 EST
Kevin D. Clark said:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Understood, however, Mike stated he does not want OT posts, and
>> whether an OT posts is interesting or not is technically irrellevant
>> by Mike's standard.
>
>So, it is your contention that anyb
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Understood, however, Mike stated he does not want OT posts, and
> whether an OT posts is interesting or not is technically irrellevant
> by Mike's standard.
So, it is your contention that anybody who is subscribed to this list
can send anything they want to this lis
In a message dated: 20 Mar 2003 16:47:48 EST
Kevin D. Clark said:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> So why are you not filtering on 'Subject.*[Oo][Tt]\s*:' ?
>
>If Mike did this, he would have missed out on Eric Price's "[OT] help
>w/ bitwise comparison operators" thread, which I think is sufficien
As for making sure to hear all sides of anything, listening to
senseless propiganda like this song doesn't usually help with that.
This is part of the reason I make sure to get at least half of my
news from sources outside of the US.
This is one topic that amazes me -- the narrow range of US cor
Kevin D. Clark wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So why are you not filtering on 'Subject.*[Oo][Tt]\s*:' ?
If Mike did this, he would have missed out on Eric Price's "[OT] help
w/ bitwise comparison operators" thread, which I think is sufficiently
interesting to be discussed on this mailing li
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> So why are you not filtering on 'Subject.*[Oo][Tt]\s*:' ?
If Mike did this, he would have missed out on Eric Price's "[OT] help
w/ bitwise comparison operators" thread, which I think is sufficiently
interesting to be discussed on this mailing list.
Regards,
--kevin
> I like fudge.
FIREWIRE
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, at 4:23pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I strongly disagree with the please don't do it again statement. We
>> need to hear both sides to this so since it is off topic do as you
>> please.
>
> Off topic posts are, by their very nature, inappropriate, and don't belong
> h
Since it's an abuse to inflict one's non-Linux-related
views on this captive audience (gathered here because
we value this channel's blessedly high *LINUX-RELATED*
S/N ratio) and since there are eleventy-bazillion
other channels (email lists, blogs, barrooms, etc)
where war-talk *is* welcome, and
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, at 3:53pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I strongly disagree with the please don't do it again statement. We need
> to hear both sides to this so since it is off topic do as you please.
Can we please *NOT* get into a political debate on this list? The only
thing less productiv
In a message dated: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:51:34 EST
mike ledoux said:
>Look at my history. Off topic posts piss me off, as they defeat my
>filters and waste my time.
So why are you not filtering on 'Subject.*[Oo][Tt]\s*:' ?
--
Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Casey
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 3:54 PM
To: mike ledoux
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: Good (but probably controversial) tune
> Wonderful. A pro-war song that completely misses the point, and
> tries to connect the war we've just begin t
Wonderful. A pro-war song that completely misses the point, and
tries to connect the war we've just begin to the 9/11 attack on
the WTC. I'd like to believe that you posted this crap here by
accident, and intended this for another list, but the source address
and OT subject tag make that hard to
Paul Iadonisi wrote:
WARNING: You may love it, or you may hate it. I'm just sick of
Clear Channel's monopoly and want to spread the access
to this song and let people judge for themselves, instead
of allowing the media mogul's to act as faulty filters for
our
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, mike ledoux wrote:
> Wonderful. A pro-war song that completely misses the point, and
> tries to connect the war we've just begin to the 9/11 attack on
> the WTC. I'd like to believe that you posted this crap here by
> accident, and intended this for another list, but the sour
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 02:47:30PM -0500, Paul Iadonisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WARNING: You may love it, or you may hate it. I'm just sick of
> Clear Channel's monopoly and want to spread the access
> to this song and let people judge for themselves, instead
> of a
In a message dated: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:07:56 EST
mike ledoux said:
>Wonderful. A pro-war song that completely misses the point, and
>tries to connect the war we've just begin to the 9/11 attack on
>the WTC. I'd like to believe that you posted this crap here by
>accident, and intended this for
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 02:55:46PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, at 2:47pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It's an asx file, but the asf file contained within is playable with xine
> > (and probably with mplayer), though you might need the win32 codecs available
> > at the mp
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, at 2:47pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's an asx file, but the asf file contained within is playable with xine
> (and probably with mplayer), though you might need the win32 codecs available
> at the mplayer site.
And for those of us who don't have all that crap on our PCs,
20 matches
Mail list logo
