On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:17 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
Write the ticket and get on with your life so
I can get on with mine. Don't keep standing
there demanding that I apologize to you. I have
*no problem* with paying the fine. But just
write the ticket and stop demanding my attention.
Being booted off
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:17 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
Write the ticket and get on with your life so
I can get on with mine. Don't keep
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:16 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
You seem to be suggesting now that it's OK to
flame as long as you don't prolong
On Oct 2, 2007, at 1:00 AM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
You know what Off, that sounds pretty good. I'm not much of a beer dr
inker-too bitter, but I'll find something. Can you recommend a good
single malt. BTW, right next to my place of business a Scottish
restaurant/bar just
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:16 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
--- In HYPERLINK
mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.comFairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Rick Archer wrote:
Have to agree with Judy on this one. Not flaming was as much a
collective agreement as not overposting. To be diligent about one and
intentionally violate the other is inconsistent and even hypocritical.
Perhaps it takes more strength to abstain
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Sal Sunshine
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:04 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Rick Archer wrote:
Have to agree with Judy
On Oct 2, 2007, at 1:40 PM, authfriend wrote:
But flaming is often in the eyes of the beholder, Rick, and with
the post limit, IMO, is too much--hence you have people self-
appointing themselves as cop and taking it upon themselves to go
after the offenders.
Heck, that was happening with the
Sal Sunshine wrote:
On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Rick Archer wrote:
Have to agree with Judy on this one. Not flaming was as much a
collective agreement as not overposting. To be diligent about one and
intentionally violate the other is inconsistent and even
hypocritical. Perhaps it takes
On Oct 2, 2007, at 2:11 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
I agree. This group which used to be fun when it was like Rick's Bar
and Grill is pretty boring catering to a bunch of bliss ninnies and
quickly becoming Rick's Victorian Tea House.
Couldn't have put it better.
Sal
10 matches
Mail list logo
