Prev: Google admits wi-fi data collection blunder
Next: SpywareBlaster Def Update
From: Jenn on 16 May 2010 16:32
Max Wachtel wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:15:26 -0400, Jenn <nope(a)noway.atnohow.anyday>
> wrote:
>> A missing image is NOT a warning. Most everyone considers a warning
>> on a ng
>> to come in TEXT format that says something like "Don't do that .. we
>> don't like it".
>
> many of the forums I frequent do not issue warnings,they just delete
> the offending link,text and/or image and if the poster keeps doing
> it,their account is deleted.

Maybe you don't get out enough or something, but I would expect to give
someone a text warning if I was going to claim in the future that they were
GIVEN a warning.


--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


From: ~BD~ on 17 May 2010 02:10
Peter Foldes wrote:
> There you go again twisting and spinning everything you usual way.
>

I said ....

"You will note that Peter Foldes has effectively called you a liar in
this thread. You said I was *not* given a warning - *he* says I was.
Only one of you can be right!"

So were *you* correct - or was Mr Lipman?

--
Dave
From: Bullwinkle on 17 May 2010 06:39
Care to comment on your favorite new 'buddy'
being a pot head?


"~BD~" <BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hsqn9r$uat$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...

--
Dave

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Google admits wi-fi data collection blunder
Next: SpywareBlaster Def Update