|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 115 responses total. |
happyboy
|
|
response 50 of 115:
| 
Feb 11 07:07 UTC 2004 |
i think they're the pink ones, here.
|
naftee
|
|
response 51 of 115:
|
Feb 11 14:01 UTC 2004 |
Rosemary and burgundy
|
styles
|
|
response 52 of 115:
|
Feb 12 02:05 UTC 2004 |
"what are you doing?"
"merchandising."
|
happyboy
|
|
response 53 of 115:
|
Feb 12 08:02 UTC 2004 |
is she a NERD?
|
naftee
|
|
response 54 of 115:
|
Feb 12 15:10 UTC 2004 |
VEgan!
|
jp2
|
|
response 55 of 115:
|
Feb 13 14:05 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 56 of 115:
|
Feb 13 14:47 UTC 2004 |
I think it would be outrageous to put a time limitation on the other users'
decision (assuming they're available for notification) to scribble their own
responses. Therefore I'd want a scribble/restore decision from all
contributors before this could be implemented - no time limit.
|
ryan
|
|
response 57 of 115:
|
Feb 13 14:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 58 of 115:
|
Feb 13 15:05 UTC 2004 |
And scott is (best I can tell) saying that before the items could be
restored, all the users who posted in it should post their choice of
whether their responses should be delted or restored, with no time
limit on doing so. No items would be restored until all authors
have given instructions relating to their own responses.
|
davel
|
|
response 59 of 115:
|
Feb 13 15:13 UTC 2004 |
Yep. In fact, that's actually demanded by the principles jp2 claims to hold.
If people's words should not be posted without their prior, explicit consent,
then reposting responses without that consent may not be done.
|
jp2
|
|
response 60 of 115:
|
Feb 13 15:39 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
ryan
|
|
response 61 of 115:
|
Feb 13 16:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 62 of 115:
|
Feb 13 16:58 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 63 of 115:
|
Feb 13 17:01 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 64 of 115:
|
Feb 13 17:30 UTC 2004 |
THe context and the situation into which I put my words has been irrevocably
changed. To not ask permission before reposting my words is unacceptimle.
|
jp2
|
|
response 65 of 115:
|
Feb 13 17:48 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 66 of 115:
|
Feb 13 19:50 UTC 2004 |
Everybody must be given the option yes/no, and as much time as needed must
be used to contact everybody and to wait for an answer from each.
As you'll agree, it's important not to play favorites. Therefore everybody
must be contacted, not just those still active on Grex.
|
jp2
|
|
response 67 of 115:
|
Feb 13 20:01 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 68 of 115:
|
Feb 13 21:12 UTC 2004 |
So, you're playing favorites for those who are currently active. Gee, and
all this talk about your principles...
|
albaugh
|
|
response 69 of 115:
|
Feb 13 21:37 UTC 2004 |
scott, puh-leeze.
|
scott
|
|
response 70 of 115:
|
Feb 13 23:07 UTC 2004 |
What? I'm just trying to communicate with Jamie in his own language. ;)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 71 of 115:
|
Feb 13 23:39 UTC 2004 |
I recommmend the repeal be put in a separate proposal. Else, even if you can
convince folks on the first part, it will fail because the second part.
|
jp2
|
|
response 72 of 115:
|
Feb 15 00:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 73 of 115:
|
Feb 15 04:41 UTC 2004 |
You mean, when this attempt fails, you'll let it go? Good.
|
bru
|
|
response 74 of 115:
|
Feb 18 23:36 UTC 2004 |
this is just so stupod.
|