|
| |
|  
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
 | | Re: Looking for Motives
|
| (...) John, try to be a bit more serious... you'll never get him to ADMIT it. Normally I ignore him but he's gone too far this time. In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: "Please show me where I claimed the work of some hidden (...) (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| | Interesting juxtaposition
|
| first: (URL) you think the Iraqi conscripts might know more about reality than the SF protestors? I can't take credit for discovering this juxtaposition, I saw it on a blog. (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| | Re: More on the DPRK
|
| (...) Yes it does help. You're merely being dismissive of the author, writing him off with "nuke 'em all", as if that's what the author is advocating... but I made the mistake of taking your comments seriously, when I pointed that isn't what the (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| | Re: More on the DPRK
|
| (...) "Nuke em all." was the phrase you used. Did you mean something else by the use of "nuke" than nuclear? Nuke is colloquial english for nuclear. Hope that helps. As for N Korea selling stuff, do your research. (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| | Re: March Pictures
|
| (...) Some of us would love to hear a bit more about the mechanization you guys did to the monorail reverser and switch tracks... How reliable are these, and did they require any surgery inside the parts, the way that many remote controll 9V points (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.org.us.indylug)
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| | The Sun is not being very nice.
|
| According to the following Guardian story, anyway: (URL) if it's true? Wonder if The Sun will get fined... I guess I can see where they're coming from given this statement by Chirac today: ""France would not accept a resolution which authorizes (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| | Re: More on the DPRK
|
| (...) Doesn't say nuclear there. (...) Saying that nothing else will work does not make you "pro" war. It merely makes you resigned to the inevitable (assuming your analysis is correct). (...) Their track record speaks for itself. They sell anything (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| | Re: More on the DPRK
|
| (...) If that's a serious suggestion, it is a terrible idea. If sarcastic, well then, not reading very closely, are we? Or perhaps you were referring to the DPRK strategy? Mr. Kurtz is not saying we should definitely nuke anybody. Too bad we're at (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| | More on the DPRK
|
| In: (URL) makes the case (partly by reanalysing a New Republic article making the opposite case!) that either - war with the DPRK or - an eventual loss of a US city to terrorist nukes is inevitable as they have already been reprocessing and are not (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
|
| | Blogs
|
| I'm not a big blogger, don't normally even read them much, but lately my blogconsumption has gone way up. There are a lot of warblogs out there... Forbes picked their favorites: (URL) you follow some of the links, you'll find collections of other (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
pieniazek
(score: 0.278)
|
