To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 8580 (-20)
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) Ah, Larry, always throwing a few snipes in to Christianity, huh? I expected nothing less, that's all right. (...) Folks, all I responded to was Frank Filz (SP?) discussion about debate, and according to what he thought, I agreed with him. I (...) (25 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) The way it's written one could almost read it as he hopes that you two have a lot of fights with each other, rather a mean thing to wish so close to Winter Solstice festival, don't you think? :-) So I'm doubting *that* is what he meant. (...) (25 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) About what? --Todd (25 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) Can the two of you please take all of this offline to private email? --Todd (25 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate)
 
(...) I read your other post, and you made some groovy assertions. I suppose I'm as guilty of "point-scoring" as anyone else, but I wasn't consciously doing it to amass points. Sometimes it seems to me simply polite to address each point in turn, (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate)
 
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) Well, Larry, surely you spend a lot more time reading these newsgroups than most, so perhaps only a few have ventured down to this part of the discussion tree. If you like, you could refer to the post in (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: i will hve an auction up soon on ebay
 
For future use, *all* auction announcements are supposed to be in ".market.auction", and *not* in any of the "themed" directories. Franklin (25 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate)
 
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> Whoops. Forgot to trim lugnet.admin.general from followups, please, if you respond, do trim your followups even though I forgot to. ++Lar (25 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate)
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes: <snip> I snipped the whole thing rather than responding point by point. I'll summarise my stance as follows: Great post. I'm disappointed that no one else commmented yet. Is it because everyone agrees (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) Or in this thread, unless one is trying to prove that people can't keep .debate topics in the right place. (25 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  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)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR