General Discussions about LUGNET : 1536


Administrative / General / 1536

Terms and Conditions Question —Richard Franks

(...) There isn't a mention of any racist or sexist (eg homophobic) limitations. Like everything else, the chances of any of this arising remain small, but does anyone else think they deserve a specific mention? Richard (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Mike Stanley

(...) I would say that most (if not all) racist and sexist comments are obscene, and maybe some of those other words as well. Dunno about homophobic stuff - I've never been afraid of men. (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Todd Lehman

(...) I think they'd fall under abusive. But mentioning them explicitly might be a good idea. Richard, have you seen/read/discovered something disturbing? --Todd (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Ed Jones

(...) [snip] (...) [snip] (...) I think "abusive, ... defamatory, ... profane, or indecent" covers it very well without bringing direct attention to "Racist" or "Sexist". I fully understand the intent, but I would be astonished to find (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Larry Pieniazek

(...) We have plenty of other reasons to abuse you, no need to worry on that score. :-) Seriously, I think more general statements are better. In line with my Libertarian philosophy, I tend not to favor specific prohibitions of things that common (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Ed Jones

(...) from (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Ed Jones

(...) spam (...) from (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —John Neal

(...) As Ed McMahon would say: "Hi-O!" (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jasper Janssen

(...) Auctions yes, but spam and flame-wars? Read news.admin.net-abuse...il,usenet] , or (and this one is by rumor alone) soc.support-fat-acceptance. The last one has recently been taking their flamefests and trolls into news.groups, which I (...) (25 years ago, 30-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) I can't believe you fell for that! I hope that was sarcastic but I can't tell - homophobic - hating + despising anything homosexual. I don't think that the terms and conditions cover homophobic posts. A statement in an off-topic group LIKE "I (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

(...) no, but it could be considered defamatory. Also, another portion of that clause covers it quite nicely: "...including without limitation any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Well doesn't any flame-war have defamatory posts? Especially in off-topic-debate (...) OK, but some countries don't have the right to free speech so we can't post at all. I don't think that laws can affect someone's personal point of view and (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

<cross-posted to off-topic.debate> (...) Yup, they do. (...) encouraging (...) Laws don't affect our right to say things. Laws enforce the consequences of our having said them. (...) By using the term 'ill', you are implying that there is something (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) OK. (...) I'll have to check the particular Terms and Conditions for off-topic.debate but I thought they were the same. Some people therefore will be breaking LUGNET rules. (...) Acknowledged but some law somewhere won't like it. (...) Well I (...) (25 years ago, 9-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

(...) So? The whole "natural" point of walking is to move effeciently across land. Does that make people who walk around the block because they happen to enjoy walking "ill"? (...) ill people want to get well they just don't know it" OK. Here's the (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Nope that is not what I typed was it? Sex and walking are different things and there is no reason why they should behave in the same way. The whole point of walking is to get from A to B - whether A and B are the same place and the person has (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Denscombe writes: "The whole natural point of having sex is reproduction or the possibility of it (contraception isn't 100% safe) - with homosexuals this is impossible." --> Copied from your post. Please stop (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) For instance, they could be on a treadmill...not getting from point A to B at all. (25 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) As I said above A and B could be the same place, displacement = 0. (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Sorry my mistake - however we don't lose posts like on USENET - I must be getting lapse. <Stuff snipped about ill and walking> (...) Walking can be done on your own, coitus cannot. Sex is an intimate thing between 2 people originally for (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

(...) No problem - it's just easier to follow if I don't have to hunt back down the thread to figure out if I'm remembering something correctly. (...) Granted. I was, however, thinking at a level even more esoteric than this: both walking and sex (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) What other purposes of walking can u think of? One foot in front of the other causes a displacement away from where you was standing, enjoyment of it is irrelevant - you are still walking therefore moving. (...) Well it is isn't it - the (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

(...) <snipped most of the back and forth about 'what is walking'> (...) But you are not going anywhere. Therefore you are not fulfilling the purpose of walking. (...) People throughout the ages have been. Check your ancient history. (...) "it" gets (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) But you are moving - the purpose of walking. (...) Precisely - why are people dredging out ancient history. Lets go back to Roman times and get ourselves killed - back to the past! (...) The intial thought of homosexuality - if no-one knew it (...) (25 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) You brought it up! (...) Uh...then where did it come from? (...) OK, instead of cooking, how about sewing? Is it natural to wear suits? (...) Because the burden of proof is on the person with the ridiculous beliefs. (...) Exactly his point. (...) (25 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

(...) OK, I thought we'd hashed this out, but apparantly I underestimated your capacity for obstinence. Walking is moving. Your statement above is the logical equivalent of saying the purpose of carrot is vegtable. (...) Actually, until it started (...) (25 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Except for the slavery bit. Slavery is evil. But when we're comparing "kinds", early Roman slavery was a bit better than some. Still evil, but it did have the following positive merits: - slaves were captured as a side effect of war, not via (...) (25 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jasper Janssen

(...) Not to mention that most of the masters treated their slaves well. During the Saturnalia, for 10 days each year, the roles of master and slave were reversed - quid pro quo _will_ be offered at such a time, of course. Arguably, you could say (...) (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Richard Dee

On Wed, 19 May 1999 13:17:11 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) ^^^^^^^^ (...) The context defines, but I cannot find a definition in my dictionary. If anyone could be bothered, please? (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Larry Pieniazek

Need to try harder... :-) (URL) you won't find a definition for manumitted but it's a legitimate back-formation. (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Richard Dee

On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:21:03 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) Thanks for the link. I do read offline to reduce costs, so firing up the connection for a definition is prohibitive, cost-wise. It is also indicative of a (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jasper Janssen

On Tue, 18 May 1999 22:04:34 GMT, Carbon 60 <carbon60@bigfoot.com> wrote: <Lots of stuff> Who the hell are you, and what the hell have you done with the real Carbon60? Jasper (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Ed Jones

(...) I have stayed out of this debate until now, but this needs a response. First off, have you been living in a cave?? I am serious, didn't you ever study history? Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of man. If it wasn't, why was (...) (25 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) I got a grade B in History - one of the highest in my school. I live in a house BTW. (...) OK why is the statement in the Bible going against it - there obviously must be something wrong with it for such a statement to be made. (...) Now why (...) (25 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Oh? (...) I don't know, but what about cultures where it wasn't considered abnormal? (...) I believe in my perceptions...that helps my mind focus. (...) Bite me. I have a conscience and no religion. (...) I don't believe you. (...) What kind (...) (25 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

(...) First (...) I will assume you are talking about Leviticus 18:22, yes? Tell me, do wear cotton/poly blend t-shirts? How well do you keep Kosher? How about hair cuts? Do you trim your beard? Leviticus 19:19, 19:26, and 19:27, respectively. All (...) (25 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Oh dear you've decided to use the word bigot, now the debate gets stupid. You are bigoted because you are intolerant of the opinion I have expressed here. (...) You suggested terminating this discussion, I did a concluding statement and you (...) (25 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jasper Janssen

(...) You're a friggin' Nazi, that's what. There, now that this thread has been properly Godwinated, could we return to our regularly scheduled libertarian ranting & raving? Jasper (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —John Neal

(...) LOL Jasper!-- Where the Hell have you been? <g> I thought you killfiled *yourself*;-) Good to see you back:-) -John "Rumors of Jasper's demise have been greatly exaggerated" Neal;-) (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jasper Janssen

(...) Busy doing other things.. Life is too shortto be on Usenet anyway, after all. I just looked my author profile up oin Dejanews... Less than 25 posts to go til I hit 3000. Scary. Jasper (25 years ago, 30-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Other than LEGO? (...) I'll check mine... where's your I'm back post? One which goes like: Jasper Janssen - yes I'm back at the end... It says about 1400 articles for me... 'about' being the operative word. (25 years ago, 30-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

(...) Bigot: (n) : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices silly me, I used a "forbidden" word, simply because it seemed appropriate. Guess I'll have to stay away from those hot-button words. Next thing (...) (25 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Larry Pieniazek

Can someone summarise what this debate is about? I confess I have no idea at this point. If no one can summarize, stopping may be a good idea. (25 years ago, 20-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

<FBzz21.M93@lugnet.com> <374415C5.502DDE51@voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Historically, the thread has morphed, but the point right now is whether or not homosexuality is an illness (...) (25 years ago, 20-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Mike Stanley

(...) Hmmm... maybe it's neither an illness nor a lifestyle choice. Maybe homosexuals are just people, like the rest of us. (25 years ago, 22-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Ed Jones

(...) Mike, that is the best response!!!!!! Thanks for adding a voice of sanity!!!!! (25 years ago, 22-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jasper Janssen

(...) <slrn7ir9fi.4rd.cjc@...S.UTK.EDU> <372F66C2.91A22820@bigfoot.com> <FB89tD.IxH@lugnet.com> <372F821B.2FD75F41@bigfoot.com> <FBA13y.LxA@lugnet.com> <3735FE5A.62088FE8@bigfoot.com> <FBJEzs.Ey6@lugnet.com> <3739EE7B.64CD848C@bigfoot.com> (...) (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Larry Pieniazek

<37442038.5646F4D2@c...souri.edu> <slrn7kc7p4.2kv.cjc@...S.UTK.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Maybe a little of both and some of neither. Like so many other things about us complex creatures, (...) (25 years ago, 23-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —John Neal

<37442038.5646F4D2@c...souri.edu> <slrn7kc7p4.2kv.cjc@...S.UTK.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) It's not an illness, probably genetic, and, in (...) (25 years ago, 23-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Ed Jones

(...) As in, fine as long as they don't live on my block? And what stickers are on your car? Flaunting has a purpose, the more public homosexuals are about their homosexuality, the more people realize that homosexuals are everywhere. And that (...) (25 years ago, 23-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Larry Pieniazek

John, I have to confess I'm rather surprised at what I perceive as a lack of tolerance here, and a little disappointed. (...) I'd agree with this. In some cases there is a predisposition toward a behaviour. This is true in many areas of our (...) (25 years ago, 23-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jasper Janssen

(...) Yeah! Ban political Statements! Jasper (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Mike Stanley

(...) I've known people who have "experimented" - for them it was definitely a choice. For all of the homosexuals I've personally known, admittedly not many here in the heart of the South, it most certainly has not been a choice. (...) If you're (...) (25 years ago, 23-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jeff Stembel

(...) Well, look on the Bright side: within twenty years, the stock of hearing-aid manufacturers will skyrocket. ;) Jeff (25 years ago, 24-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —John Neal

<37477ECE.755D6E19@uswest.net> <FC67Iw.89r@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) How would I know? Why would I care? (...) None. (...) I (...) (25 years ago, 23-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Ed Jones

(...) Not at all, they are just attempting to make the world aware that homosexauls do exist and that they are not that different than anyone else. They are not asking to be treated differnlty, Excalty they opposite, they have historically been (...) (25 years ago, 23-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes. (...) Well, there's LEGO. But that's about it. :-) (25 years ago, 24-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —John Neal

<37477ECE.755D6E19@uswest.net> <3747E4F5.FE5BE1F6@voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Not at all. I am tolerant, that is my point. I just get (...) (25 years ago, 23-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Ed Jones

(...) when (...) gays (...) Blame that on the media, not the parades. The media chooses the most bizaare people they can find in the parade to put on the news - furthering negative attitudes against gays. Just once I'd like the see the news media (...) (25 years ago, 23-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —John Neal

<374838F6.FDB2A443@uswest.net> <FC7E9M.LGA@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I'll take your word on that since I have never actually seen (...) (25 years ago, 23-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Mike Stanley

(...) I can actually vouch for that. I was visiting a friend and his wife in MD in 1993 and we went down to DC during that huge rally they had down there. Lots and lots of perfectly normal-looking people. Quite a few wackos, but nowhere near the (...) (25 years ago, 24-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Fab Four(was Re: Terms and Conditions Question) —John Neal

<3748351E.406C0030@uswest.net> <37495DB6.C2FDB746@voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (...) Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll... AND LEGO®. The phrase (...) (25 years ago, 24-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Fab Four(was Re: Terms and Conditions Question) —Ed Jones

(...) three, (...) Visa, Mastercard and LEGO (we all know S@H doesn't take AmericanExpress) (25 years ago, 24-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Fab Four(was Re: Terms and Conditions Question) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I'm not sure, but I think Lego fits under the category "Drugs." It's become a rather expensive habit...gotta...go......*tremens* LFB (25 years ago, 24-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

<3748351E.406C0030@uswest.net> <37495DB6.C2FDB746@voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm the last man standing!! I win! It wasn't beaten to death by a stick after all :-) (25 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jasper Janssen

(...) Just go on telling yourself that. Jasper "I can't _believe_ how close I just came to killfiling on lugnet" Janssen (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Fab Four(was Re: Terms and Conditions Question) —Simon Denscombe

<374976DF.9361E5A6@uswest.net> <FC8z60.Jsr@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I don't get it... :-? (25 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Richard Dee

On Wed, 19 May 1999 20:19:18 GMT, Carbon 60 uttered the following profundities... (...) Where's that? I've had 2500+ posts to read or skip! (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) It's in this newsgroup entitled 'Genocide and Terrorism' - it's kind of gone onto a personal responsibility for others topic. I see NATO are bombing Albania and news reporters now - I saw it on ITV News - the reporter had to run for cover as (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jasper Janssen

(...) The friggin' Bonobo monkeys, which are apparently Homo Sapiens' closest living relative, have an attitude to sex apparently best summarized by "If it moves, fornicate with it". Regardless of gender or age. Just as an interesting data-point. (...) (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jeff Stembel

(...) <nitpick> Bonobos are a species of Chimpanzee, and chimpanzees are apes, not monkeys (there is a *big* difference, just as there is a big difference between apes and hominids). </nitpick> :) Jeff (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Mark de Kock

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeff Stembel writes: [snipped the important stuff] (...) Yeah, just ask a certain Librarian... Mark "What? FOUR elephants?" de Kock (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Still, you gotta admit, they have a certain style. Which, when I'm really drunk, I have a certain congruence with. (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I have eliminated text that was cluttering up that message. For sake of clarity, is what I left what you meant? (25 years ago, 28-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, in the humorous sense, yes. At least it seemed that way, while I was in college, anyway. But realise that I almost never get really drunk any more, although I was last nite. (25 years ago, 28-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jasper Janssen

(...) ^^^^ And you apparently still are... Jasper (25 years ago, 30-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Yeah, that's the incorrect spelling for night I think... A bit like labour is the correct spelling for labor - Jasper. :-P (25 years ago, 30-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jasper Janssen

(...) Did I somewhere accidentally forget an 'u'? Bad Jasper. No cookie. Jasper "Yes I'm back - there, you satisfied?" Janssen (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Yep, we will have 'u's in our words! (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The point of walking is clearly to get from one place to another for some purpose...not just idle movement. (...) The reason that sex feels good is because the organisms for which that was true, procreated, and the others died out. The (usual) (...) (25 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But I think what we need to know is which of these things make intercourse different from walking such that the use of the activity toward some goal other than the 'original' one is deemed an illness rather than perfectly reasonable? (...) If (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Richard Dee

On Wed, 12 May 1999 21:59:16 GMT, James Brown uttered the following profundities... (...) Does the argument change at all, if someone is walking from A to B, with the intent of engaging in sex upon reaching B? (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Mike Stanley

(...) Mmmmmmm.... dunno that I "fell" for anything. I'm pretty sure I understood what the poster meant. I'm not sure I was going for sarcasm, exactly. More like light humor for me. I've never fully understood or accepted the popular meaning of the (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Well that was the usual mis-meaning for the word homophobic you see. (...) Well I go by dictionary definition always the safest bet - I think mine was para-phrased a lot but I couldn't think of any other way of putting it. (...) Well when I (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

<cross-posted to .off-topic.debate, follow-up set there, too> (...) The dictionary isn't alway the safest bet - given that dictionaries will often include slang words and phrases. (...) Homophobic is a slang term, which derives from another slang (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Oh dear... (...) Well they are words too but not in this case. (...) Well homophobia is in regular use everywhere - I wouldn't call that slang. (...) I know that - homo also means man according to Mr Stanley - so it could be fear of men. This (...) (25 years ago, 9-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

(...) various (...) Yes, but as I stated above, it mimics scientific (medical) terminology, without actually having that scientific basis behind it. By doing so, it masquarades as a legitimate term for a condition, when in fact, it is a coined (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Steve Bliss

(...) Similiar to other made-up terms, such as "homosexual"? Steve (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Mike Stanley

(...) Well, imo, since "homophobic" is a slang term, and one intended primarily to demonize another group of people (ones who, in many cases, deserve to be demonized, to be sure), I don't think that a mostly literal interpretation of the (...) (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Steve Bliss

(...) Isn't "making bank" usually planning on, predicting, betting on? Steve (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Mike Stanley

(...) Well, my hip factor is a little low, so I may have misinterpreted it, but from the context it seemed to mean they were being well compensated for the work they were doing. (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Well it is isn't it? If a word has a different meaning than you said that's a mis-meaning, surely... If you thought professeur (French) means professor you'll be wrong as it means teacher a mis-meaning. (...) Slang is good among people you (...) (25 years ago, 9-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jesse R. Long

Carbon 60 <carbon60@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:37360D55.36235A...oot.com... (...) internet (...) too (...) define (...) You asked-- Merriam Webster's Deluxe Dictionary, 10th collegiate edition), 1998: 1Slang: (n., origin unknown, first (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Ed Jones

(...) I would disagree with your "PC definition". The terms homophobic, homophobia and homophobe are used to describe those who have (as your quoted definition stated) an irrational fear.... that is, they feel threatened by the presence or even (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Is irrational necessary as a modifier here? I guess I'm having a hard time coming up with a reason to have a *rational* fear of a person based solely on their sexual preference. But then, I can tolerate just about anything except intolerance. (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Well, I think he disagrees with it too. Unless you mean that that's not the PC definition, and then I'd disagree with you. I am a little uncomfortable with public displays of affection - I think it's crass, ill mannered, and impolite. I once (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Don't have that problem in the UK no matter what Stonewall do. Calling someone gay is a regular namecall in some places. Lesbianism is more accepted however because two girls to a male is appealing... (...) Hmm. Ronnie O'Sullivan - snooker (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Mike Stanley

(...) I don't quite agree with that. That's why I prefer bigot to homophobe, usually. I hate bugs. I have no fear of them, just a deep loathing. You might even call it irrational. Doesn't make me a bugophobe. Not equating homosexuals with bugs, btw. (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Mike Stanley

(...) I just reread what you wrote and think I understand it better now. I still don't like the word homophobe - it not only sounds silly it's just plain wrong, imo. I'm also not sure I think that in order to hate something (which is what I would (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Read it again. (...) The bit 'or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals' was the main bit of focus and the meaning I use. The word 'or' in this case showing an alternaive meaning to 'Irrational fear of, aversion to' (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Mike Stanley

(...) Well, you don't expect the liberals to throw it around conservatively, do you? :) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Ed Jones

(...) No, that statement is simply inane, uneducated and illogical. IMO, most Lugnet users would simply, ignor it as such or explain why the statemnt was illogical. Unfortunately its the kind of statement that runs rampant through rec.sport.boxing - (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Inane? Uneducated? Illogical? It makes as much sense as the reverse, that all heterosexuals are ill and can be cured by special treatment...after all, it's not the homosexuals that are clogging up the earth with over population. ;-) (...) Me. (25 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Well it wasn't covered by the Terms and Conditions though that was my point. I didn't think it was uneducated or illogical however. (...) Well the heterosexuals were here first without them the human race would have died out. There is (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jeff Stembel

[moved to off-topic.debate] (...) What treatment areare you talking about? Is it medical, i.e. involving only drugs and procedures(surgery, etc.)? If it involves cultural (therapy, religion) treatments, it is not a medical illness. If it involves (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Good. (...) You mean like humans? (25 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jeff Stembel

(...) One species Chimpanzees comes to mind first(1). I know there are others, I just can't think of them at the moment. :) Jeff 1 - Besides humans, of course. (25 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

(...) Wolves, as well as most other varieties of canine. James (URL) (25 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Please elaborate on this. How do you know this? (25 years ago, 9-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jesse R. Long

Carbon 60 <carbon60@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:37360AF0.C529D8...oot.com... (...) I think the reference is to wolves pecking order. When the alpha male (or any other male) is challenged for rank, the fight is rarely deadly. When one wolf (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I disagree. Complex animals (people included) use sex for feeling good. I would say that people may be the only animal to actually use sex for procreation. I really don't know what animals engage in homosexual behavior, aside from humans of (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jesse R. Long

Christopher L. Weeks <c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu> wrote in message news:3737225B.8E1F1D...uri.edu... (...) good. (...) for (...) them (...) It's not backwards, it's instinct. If there is any pleasure, it's an evolutionary motivator to encourage (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Of course, but it's also all the animal is concerned with. (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Ed Jones

(...) I disagree - the majority of mammals have sex only to procreate. The females of most species will only allow sex when they are "furtile". The males of most species still have the ability to determine when the female is in "heat". Only the (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Animal reproduction (was (of course?) Terms and Conditions Question) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The way I read this, it sounds like you think the critters know that reproduction is the outcome of their sex act. I don't think that's so. I agree that it's instinctually and hormonally driven, but I think the female allows and the male (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Animal reproduction (was (of course?) Terms and Conditions Question) —Linc Smith

Christopher L. Weeks <c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu> wrote in message news:37384BDE.5D9568...uri.edu... (...) females (...) of most (...) "heat". (...) I think that Ed is writing in a style that is used when discussing evolutionary life strategy. An (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Animal reproduction (was (of course?) Terms and Conditions Question) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) This _may_ be, and I understand the style and its purpose, but since the conversation is about personal motivation for animals to engage in homosexual behavior, that frame of reference is inappropriate. (...) Are you asserting this, or are you (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Animal reproduction (was (of course?) Terms and Conditions Question) —Jesse R. Long

Christopher L. Weeks <c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu> wrote in message news:3739A6C9.4D7137...uri.edu... (...) the (...) Hardly. The original hypothesis floated here was that animals engage in homosexual behavior, thus humans have some sort of natural (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Animal reproduction (was (of course?) Terms and Conditions Question) —Christopher L. Weeks

<3739A6C9.4D71376@cc...souri.edu> <FBMy2u.Hy4@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I missed the point (I guess) that this is the derivitave of 'natural' justification for homosexuality. That (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Animal reproduction (was (of course?) Terms and Conditions Question) —Jeff Stembel

(...) Actually, all animals have emotions. Mammals have much more sofisticated emotions than, say, lizards though. If the Discovery channel re-runs the show 'Why Dogs Smile and Chimpanzees Cry', check it out. It was extremely informative about the (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) There are special newsgroups devoted to this, ah...subject. ;-) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

(...) I assist in running a Werewolf: The Apocalypse(1) chronicle, and someone mentioned it to me in passing, and my curiousity was roused. I investigated on the net, and at my local University library. In a nutshell, there are numerous observed (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Mike Stanley

(...) You know they're going to release a PC version of this, right? (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Steve Bliss

(...) How does one make a politically correct RPG? Steve (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Politiaclly Correct, or Personal Computer? Werewolf, or the Massacre at Littleton(1)? 1. Some may be offended by this, but one of the first things I thought of after the Littleton episode was programming a Doom game using the school floorplan. (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Mike Stanley

(...) Computer. (...) Wereworlf. Dunno how much it will resemble the RPG, but there is a game that is in the advanced stages of development. (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Steve Bliss

(...) I believe we're at more than 2 decades now. Most people (around here, anyway) first heard of RPGs (D&D, probably) when a kid disappeared while playing a re-enactment type game. (...) I heard someone was calling for school dress codes banning (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

(...) Oh, we are beyond two decades indeed - I was refering to me, specifically - I've only been gaming for...(quick mental math)17 years(1), so I haven't hit my 2 decade mark yet. (...) Guns don't kill people. Trenchcoats kill people.(2) James (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Steve Bliss

On Tue, 11 May 1999 16:07:59 GMT, "James Brown" <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote: BTW, what's the scoop about Littleton and RPG? I haven't heard any links... (...) I don't know that anything is being blown out of proportion. Violence in the US, (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —James Brown

(...) Several of the early news articles cited White Wolf's Vampire RPG as a cause, because the two guys played it. I'm too lazy right now to hunt down any URL's and my sources all came hard copy, but I saw 3 articles that all either outright blamed (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jeff Stembel

(...) My dad said he read an article that said they played Final Fantasy VII, and seemed to use it as an example of what is bad about video games and RPGs. My (extended) family in Indiana think I am really disturbed for playing AD&D. One of my Aunts (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Mike Stanley

(...) The pastor at my wife's parents' church used to be an avid AD&D player. He still likes the game but says he bowed to silent pressure from his congregation years ago and stopped hosting sessions and playing. He did come to my defense, though, (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm just finishing up being a grad student in education and in a class I was taking this past semester -- where many of the other students were teachers -- I suggested during discussion that measures should be taken in school to address the (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Role-playing B@@Ks!! That's the ultimate babe turn away judging by my friends reactions: Rachel: What are you reading Phil? Phil: It's Bens... Ben: What? Ben is a role-playing friend : slander@fored.freeserve.co.uk - he mostly does Vampire: (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Steve Bliss

(...) Rats, under the right conditions (overcrowding). Baboons, sometimes (but it's more a dominance/pecking-order thing, IIRC). Steve (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Are you just looking for someone to disagree with you? If so; Oooh, Oooh, Choose me. By this logic, many people can be 'treated' with exposure to the sun's radiance, which darkens them - thus addressing their palid illness? (25 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Aww, third umpire called (1).... By the same token, sun causes skin cancer so skin creme is used. So the sun causes the illness. Try and comeback from that one! :) I dare ya! (25 years ago, 9-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Ed Jones

(...) Pregnancy causes birth defects. (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Terry Keller

(...) So true. And Life is a terminal illness. -- Terry K -- (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

(...) Nope, an error in pregancy causes birth defects. (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Ed Jones

(...) Moving this topic to the debate board. (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Todd Lehman

(...) I'm getting board of all these debates. ;) --Todd (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Tom McDonald

(...) That's knot funny. -Tom McD. when replying, laugh at the spamcake. (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —John Neal

(...) 'frayed sew! -John when replying, take Tommy McD's spamcake...please. [1] [1] apologizes if that's bean used. If not, apologizes to Henny. (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jeff Stembel

(...) Okay, stop me if you've heard this one before (and make sure you read it out loud): A piece of string walks into a bar. The Bartender says,"We don't serve your kind here." The string steps outside, ties himself in a knot and frays his ends. He (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jasper Janssen

(...) is that from rec.humor.funny? Jasper (25 years ago, 30-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Jeff Stembel

(...) Not as far as I know. One of my classmates told it to me a couple years ago. Jeff (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Steve Bliss

(...) It's just a really old joke. Steve (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Simon Denscombe

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) It's one which was overcomplicated: A string walks into a bar: "Are you a string?" "No, I'm a frayed not" You see with that you don't give away the punch line by an (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Terms and Conditions Question —Ed Jones

(...) I'm getting room for them :') (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)