 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
Scott and Chris, this has surely got to the point where it no longer belongs in admin.general. Kevin (25 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) "theft"? (...) If others have opinions which are based on emotion, rather than reason, it does not assist understanding. One should have a reasoned argument, not just gut feelings. To call taxation “theft” is not helpful. (...) Oh yes. (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I do not. I think it is potentially very valuable. But that depends on the way in which it conducted, like all issues of debate style. If you throw out questions that seem disingenuous, people think that you're sniping. (...) so. (...) I agree (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) We British are a subtle bunch Chris. (...) I really do not think I do "insult as a debate tactic". (...) It is pertinent to highlight that an individual may not have a belief on an issue, but may still question that of others. Or do you (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) rights, (...) valid, (...) What does that mean? :-) (...) to (...) then (...) Scott, I think that Larry meant you specifically, and others who behave similarly. I think that's clear. But at least his insult to you was thinly veiled. It would (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) <tummy tuck> (...) Chris, The paranoid part of me makes me think that Larry’s text above is, at least in part, aimed at me. The irony is, off course, that Larry’s well chosen words are nothing but contradictory subjective prattle themselves. (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I see the potential value in .debate, but the way it has started to go recently, I find I am getting frustrated and angry more and more frequently, to the point that I'm not getting anything out of it. One problem is that potentially each time (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Not sure of the answers to either of those, at least not in an idealised society. (...) I think my threshold is somewhere around large tanks and fighter jets. Any sort of nukes just sort of "feel wrong" to me. It's a fuzzy argument. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate)
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message <3A3F972C.2F1C@minds...ng.com>... (...) Having followed a great many debates here, on Usenet and in my workplace SPAM forum[1], I have watched some of the greats[2] at work such as the legendary Derek Smart, and our own (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
Yes, if you post to .lsahs, it requires a followup when sent via NNTP. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (25 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Agreed. (...) Out of curiosity, how does one show that and to whom does one make such an appeal? Use the example of strategic nuclear holdings. (And as an aside, do you feel differently about tactical nuclear weapons?) (...) I think that this (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I think this is a specific instance of a more general principle, one we've stumbled over repeatedly on vastly different topics. A says "I tolerate/enjoy X" B says "I don't tolerate/enjoy X" So far so good. As long as X doesn't intrude on B, B (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
Thanks!!!! Rose Rob Doucette wrote in message ... (...) would (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree with you to an extent, but surely if one wanted discuss, say, God should one not have a more fruitful discussion at alt.god? All lot of the posts in .debate really belong in a .opinion. (...) Fustrated - yes. Mad - No. Scott A (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that you're actually wanting an answer to this, since you go on to sarcastically point out things that we all consider negatives, not positives, but I think it's worth exploring. The value to _me_ of .debate is a place to civilly (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
"r2" <lego@r2eng.com> wrote in message news:G5vI3n.J1v@lugnet.com... (...) You should have an option in your newsreader to View all Headers which would give you the Followup-To:, Reply-To:, etc., fields. -- -Rob. ===...=== New sets and parts for (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message <3A3D4858.1F036B0C@m...ng.com>... (...) We almost always post through our newsreader. If I cross post something I can not specify where follow-ups are posted. Is there someway to do this? Rose (25 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Castle set rating curiosity
|
|
(Momentarily x-posted to ".admin", but re-dorected back to ".castle"... You'll see why below. ;-) (...) A single ZERO rating? Or a single "50(%)" rating? IIRC, Todd has programmed the ratings to automatically have a "balancing" initial/default (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) now (...) that (...) What is the added value of having it? People getting mad at each other? People insulting each other? People ridiculing ones faith / politics etc.? I think it is useless. If you want to debate, go somewhere else. That's my (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Ask Suz why -- she was the one who put them there. --Todd (25 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
