Set Reference Set Reference (Popup) Parts Reference News News (General)

General / 12889

Re: Remy's Big Lego Christmas! (was Re: Big Lego Christmas)   Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <386CBF20.F4D0D6D0@v...er.net>... (...) Mundanes! Yes! That's it exactly! AFOLs on the one hand, mundanes on the other. Suddenly everything makes sense. But it wouldn't do to discuss it in those terms with THEM. (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)      Swearing! (was something else)   (...) <editing mine> Folks, I hate to be a PITA, here, but will ya cut the swearing, please? I have to say the casual one-offs here in .general bug me a whole lot more than anything else. It just isn't necessary to do it. Take it as a challenge to (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing! (was something else)   (...) Another old fuddy duddy heard from. :-) Did you catch that I trimmed the old subject line down by one word too? I just don't get it. Why is this so hard? (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)      Re: Remy's Big Lego Christmas! (was Re: Big Lego Christmas)   (...) Ahhh, but in Psi Corp we^H^H, I mean they, use the telekinetic ability to manipulate the blocks, think of it as LDraw caried to the ultimate conclusion. Ray (thinking hard to pack all those auction boxes) f-ups to .off-topic.fun.shadows (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing! (can there be something else?)   (...) Oops. I noticed. Sorry. My misteak. It just seemed so.. so.. appropriate. But I'll tone it down. (...) It is a little difficult because swearing is being redefined all around us, esp. in the last few years. For example, "son of a gun"'s real (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing! (was something else)   (...) Someone pointed out to me in e-mail that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black (for PITA). I didn't (and don't) think that acronyms fall into the same catagory, but someone obviously does, so I'll refrain from doing it in the (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing! (was something else)   PITA is entirely different - if your child sees it, you can tell them it means just about anything you want, and they can't find it in a dictionary (except as a BREAD) ;-) (...) ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing! (was something else)   IMHO, acronyms DO fall in the same catagory because it is just a way to "push it to the limit" so to speak and all your doing is abbreviating the profanity that otherwise wouldn't be permitted and it really isn't that hard for a kid to figure out (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing! (was something else)   James Brown wrote in message ... (...) than (...) random (...) Wow. Do you know (in all honesty) that it never occurred to me that anyone here could find this offensive. So, ah, sorry. I won't get into the old argument about sense and sensibility, (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing! (was something else)   (...) Why not censor sware words if they are so offensive? Yahoo does it pretty good. For example the s word comes out as "poop" and more offensive words come out something as ##@$@#. (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Swearing?   WARNING: this post should not be read by children or those with weak constitutions, as it contains a word that some people have complained about. Look, this is ridiculous. If everyone is going to whinge whenever someone uses a word that *may* be (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing?   (...) "leaked 2001 scans?" :) (...) [dashing out of word is mine, and made only because my newsreader won't allow me to insert an extra screen of carriage returns.] I have to agree with Tony on that particular word and its ilk. However, it's not a (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing! (was something else)   (...) I should point out that what I find offensive is not the word. I swear frequently in spoken conversation, and in other forums. What I find offensive is the disregard for the Terms of Use, and the preferences of our host(s) - as expressed (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing! (was something else)   (...) Agreed. As one of the biggest "keep it clean advocates" (it was a post referencing a post of Tims that referenced a post of mine that James chose to reference, and it's a point I've been making for over a year) it's not the person I object to, (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing! (was something else)   Ryan Dennett wrote in message ... (...) think (...) I've (...) For what it's worth, over in rec.roller-coaster, we've been seeing a lot of SoB (^: (For the unenlightned, Paramount Kings Island is building the world's largest wooden coaster, and (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing! (was something else)   As I have said before - there are many younger people who read these posts. At least - I get emails occasionally from younger poeple who claim to read these posts... The cleaner the better... Eugwe Coral (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing?   Lindsay- That sound you hear is me weeping for the future. From where does *that* kind of nonsense come? -John (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing?   (...) It's a very ancient belief that one is not to utter (and by extension, express in writing) the name of God. Or YHWH, or whatever. It's fairly doubtful that "God" is the _actual name_ of any deity, but, y'know, better safe than damned in hell (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)      Re: Swearing?   (...) This isn't something new. It's largely a Jewish practice, I believe, a refraining from writing the name of God on materials that might later be thrown away, defaced or erased. See Deuteronomy 12:3. A better explanation can be found at the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing?   (...) You won't hear that word very often at my church, but then my religion doesn't believe in eternal damnation. On the other hand, there are some people in my church who are VERY uncomfortable with the word God. follow ups to (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) There is already regulation. It's in the form of the Terms of Use that you agreed to when you registered to post here. If you think swearing is ok, please go and re-read them. The one you are looking for is in "DISCUSSION GROUP TERMS AND (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing?   (...) I am surprised and intrigued by this notion. Why would this be? -John (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      (canceled)        Re: Swearing?   (...) I'm assuming your asking about the discomfort with the word God. The reason: atheism/humanism. Many (most) Unitarian Universalists (my religion) are humanist. Some take that all the way to atheism. It has caused much difficulty in many of our (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Laura Gjovaag (<Pine.SUN.3.96.1000...250.1332G- 100000@eskimo.com>) wrote at 18:56:39 (...) Define. To quote in full: 5. Post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Whoo hoo! One fo my very favorite debates has reared up again! And it's only been a week or so! You really can't tell people not to be "obscene", "vulgar" "profane" or "indecent" and expect them to follow those instructions exactly unless they (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Which nonsense, my feeling that it's unusual or the practice of eradicating the "o"? If the former, it's because I'm a Unitarian, and because most of the essays I get don't shy away from capital-G God in expository writing. (And no, I *never* (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Ah, I see. I thought it was because of an unbelief in God:-p It is confusing because, as you say, the Hebrew name for God as written in the OT is YHWH (however it's pronounced, no one knows for sure). So to spell the generic word for God (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Ah, one of my favorite debate topics - what is art, or more specifically, where is the line between pornography and art? Your examples of "art" IMHO aren't really art, but are (very intentionally) vulgar, obscene attempts to offend particular (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Yikes! Well, I won't flame you because I expect that neither of us is qualified to define "art." However, you've mounted some ad hominem attacks against prospective artists, and, in the end, these can weaken your own credibility and do nothing (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) I am working on a definition of art that enlightens through beauty. Obscene "art" which tries to offend or elicit certain thoughts I would say is a form of political speech. I am trying to distinguish the two. (...) Exactly. When art is (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes, in response to my questions: (...) Interesting. Without reducing this debate to equivocation, I'm still concerned that "beauty" is too nebulous a term to use as a benchmark for definitions of obscenity. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) I agree that the term beauty is nebulous, but I wonder if beauty is so subjective as to be *only* in the eyes of the beholder. Is there something (can there be something) that is beautiful outside of what is thought of it? I like to think of (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Are they really? The language is clear enough to me. If it is likely to be considered any of those terms by a majority of people in a social group, in this case a social group that involves children and their parents, then it is unacceptable. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Yes. Look them up in a dictionary -- you'll find all sorts of words like "perception", "taste", "regarded". (...) "likely" "considered" "majority of people" "social group" "in this case". (...) Smartness doesn't come into it. Anyway, insulting (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Dave Schuler wrote: Dave & All, (...) I think the biggest thing in regards to this was that the art in question (Madonna, elephant dung, etc.), in which Guliani was referring to, was paid for with taxpayers money. As an advocate of eliminating the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Scott: Wow! We're agreeing (mostly)! How did that happen? Wasn't part of Guiliani's problem that the state-funded museum was also charging admission? I seem to remember that, but I could easily be wrong. I don't think the NEA should be (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) It happens, really! :) (...) Hmmm...I think so. I will have to check on that. (...) That's for sure, but I would rather have the states have any money targeted to arts come their way instead, even to local areas, if possible. (...) Correct. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) This is so weird for me! Now I'll have to start taking those pins out of my Scott Sanburn voodoo doll... 8^) Dave! (whimsical followups to off-topic.fun) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Stop that! That offends me! <G,D,&R> It makes me think of that puking yellow happy face (YHF). The only thing that makes me feel better at that point is thinking of the YHF with a bleeding bullet hole in the forehead. -- | Tom Stangl, (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Art is whatever you can convince people is art. Yeah, I know, a provocative and somewhat cynical statement designed to drive art historians nuts (it helps to be familiar with the French Academie and the Impressionist movement). There isn't a (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) So what you are saying is that everything is art? Would you call child pornography art? How about performance art where the artist kills an animal-- or a human? I can think of many things I (and most others) wouldn't consider art. Why is (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) the (...) be (...) What gave you that impression? I most certainly did not. Would you call child (...) That's a crime, no matter how artistically put. Someone from France might have a whole different definition of what constitutes "child (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) ok, you guys have drawn me in... as an artist and drawing teacher, i do feel somewhat qualified to define some terms here. ;-) my favorite definition of art (which is like trying to define "love", or "god", anyway) comes from my art teacher (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Tom Stangl (<38726741.3242BBA0@...cape.com>) wrote at 21:33:53 (...) ARGHH! <thud> If there's one thing that ticks off us broad minded folks, it's people who are easily offended :-) (...) Hmmm... <bites tongue> (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Well, potentially, depends upon how convincing I am;-) (...) ??? A nude "child pornography"? You need a child in there somewhere! (...) It would qualify under many people's definition. 1. Art is subjective....check 2. Art is thought (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Something which sums up all of this is, and a definition I use, is: "art is expression which communicates at an emotional level". (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Welcome! The more opinions, the better, IMO (...) Ahh. I was an art major in college. (...) Interesting. Although I think that a lot of beautiful things have been created since the end of the abstract expressionists, perhaps the concept of (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   Hi all, (...) I spent six years and 30 college credits taking art classes and spent a fair amount of time thinking about this issue. To my mind, some, but possibly not all, of the criteria are: 1. It must be intentional. (a beautiful sunset is not (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Some people are smart enough to realize that they (and their children) can't be hurt by occasional naughty words. But Matthew's comments below apply to mine as well as yours... (...) Chris (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Agreed. (...) Why not? (...) By whom? (...) What you missed was that I was specifically referring to those "artists" who created the works described by Christopher Lannan: "A crucifix submerged in a jar of urine or a Madonna with feces for (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Because art has a much wider scope than that. Would you say that Picasso's Guernica is not art? (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Well, it's certainly a political statement about a horrible event. On that level no, although one can marvel as to how Picasso's fracturing, cubist style creates a mood of chaos and tension. It is arguable either way. -John (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) I think that what you're doing is creating a restricted redefinition of what art is. Historically, art has had a much broader meaning than the one you'd like to assign to it. (People even say this sarcastically: "Oh, that doesn't have to be (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) To state this another way: it's extremely useful to have the word "art" have the broader definition. If Guernica is a political statement, what makes it different from: "Corrupt government is bad." That's a political statement too. But it's (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) It's useful if you are a pervert trying to pass off obscenities as art. (...) Well, one is expressed in writing and the other is expressed in a painting. (...) How about Guernica is a painting that expresses a political statement? -John (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) <crassness> Incidentally, I had some bird dung on a brick once (don't ask, I left it out overnight in the yard accidentally). Does that make it art? :) </crassness> I'll say the same thing about the "shock art" displays that I said about the (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Now, if the NEA is funding the Virgin-Mary-statue thieves in Texas (if they're ever caught!), then I'll have a real problem. ;) But as far as a fund that doesn't cover artistic endeavours, but rather local libraries and other fora, what are (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I am not really interested in how the NEA, NEH, etc. work. I don't think they should be there, period. Any funding to the arts should be through private organizations. Artists have somehow survived and thrived before the advent of socialistic (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Yup. There is no useful definition of art. "All is art" or "none is art" are no less useful than any others you care to offer. Jasper (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) ^^^...^^^ (...) ^^^...^^^ You're making unwarranted leaps in your logic. (...) That they're illegal - and rightly so - doesn't prohibit them from being art. BTW, what's your definition of child pornography? Anything with a naked person under (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Does that really capture the difference between the two? (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) to (...) Perhaps there's a miscommunication in progress here; obviously there's no "inherent" definition of art, if only because the term is itself a human construct. However, it is falacious to suggest that, as a construct, art cannot be (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Lindsay: Thanks for some great insights on the topic, in the following quotes and elsewhere: (...) Just to dispel some of my own ignorance here, how "Christian" is the artist in question? And what kind of ties to Catholicism does he have? I mean, my (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Just to put my oar in here, I too oppose the NEA precisely because it is not the place of government to decide what sort of art to foster (which it, having limited funds, must inevitably do). It is sheer hubris for a government drone to think that (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) they (...) is "obscene", "vulgar", "profane", (...) that a (...) jar (...) IMHO (...) to (...) minded (...) OK fasten your seatbelts, this subject is one which is of tantamount importance to me..... This is the brilliant thing about art, what (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) That's pretty good, but I think a real Minimalist would've called it "Cherry on Crap #7" or something similar. 8^) (...) Oh no! You've opened a whole new lithographed soupcan of worms with this one! If the artist has to stand beside the work (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) "Pornography!" is a useful label if you're a reactionary who is frightened by art that might make people think. (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Yikes! We risk lumping The Ecstasy of Saint Theresa in with Larry Flynt's latest offerings if we hide behind the "make people think" shield with no other back-up. Dave! (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Possibly. "Makes people think" isn't the sole definition of art, though. (See my earlier post.) Part of the issue is that "what art is good art" (good for people, good for society, good as art for its own sake, whatever) should be seperated (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Here's my definition of pornography-(in jest, a little) pornography- the word a prude uses to describe media which portrays folks who are having more fun than he is. I guess my point here is that words like "obscene" "pornography" and "decent" (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing! (was something else)   A recent Austin Powers movie contained a word in the title that was very offensive to many English speaking people... but not to the vast majority of Americans. I think Americans find that word and the word "bloody" to be quaint, not vulgar. This (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing?   (...) An amusing answer, but I ain't convinced, so you are outta luck. Nyahh! :-P (...) have (...) I thought it obvious that is what I was refering to, but perhaps I'm being too clever for my own good. Yes, a nude picture of a child is considered (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing! (was something else)   The funny thing about swearing is that it is all "in the eye of the beholder." What I mean by that is that one word may be completely offensive to one person or group has little or no meaning to another. "Bloody" or "shag" are perfect examples, here (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing! (was something else)   I guess that what I mean by 'clean' is this: If you (whatever country you are from) would openly use the word(s) in question in front of, say, a six year old...go for it. If not, refrain from using it here. There are small ones listening...or rather (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Yes. But it won't be a useful definition. Picasso was not considered art in his time. Van Gogh wasn't. (let alone _good_ art, of course). Now will you argue that a definition of art that changes continually with time can be a useful one? The (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Yes, Van Gogh was such a bad artist. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Define "people". For any given piece, there will be at least one person who thinks it is art[1]. Jasper [1] The artist is usually the first. (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) A nude _child_. Duh. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Does a photograph of ~ count? (...) How many is "some"? (...) Mona Lisa. Why is she smiling? (...) And of a naked 14 year old? And 13? And 12? And 11? And photographs of ~? Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) ITYM "It's Modern Art". Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) there are nude chidren in brian froud's work. ( the stunning "fairies", "lady cottington's pressed fairie book", good fairies; bad fairies", etc.) anyone who would consider these paintings child pornography is themselves morally decayed. julia (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Van Gogh *was* bankrolled by his brother Theo. It just took a little time for the market to appreciate Vincent as well;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) And thank goodness he WASN'T state funded. Free money spoils people. If you don't want to suffer a bit for your art, you're not much of an artist, now are you? Note, that's a utilitarian argument against state funding... the art it produces is (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Mine as well! (...) Amen, brother! :) Scott S. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Hear, Hear!!! Time to vote. Who is in favor of un-funding all federal art subsidies?? It sure gets my vote. I prefer starving artists who have to work a little bit at their trade and thus, create much better art. If private individuals wish to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Well, generally speaking, a nude is not pornographic *because* it is nude. *What* the nude is doing or how it's being portrayed are important considerations. When I refer to child pornography, I am referring to portrayals of sexual acts by (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Why??? This statement seems more lazy than profound. Try. -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) So are you saying that we can only recognize art in retrospect? And since we cannot know how the future will deem our (the present) work, then we shall not try and judge it now? (...) I'm searching for a definition, not an inclusive data (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) I don't follow you. There isn't a difference except in style of expression-- both are saying the same thing. -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Although I agree with Kevin (how could I not, he's agreeing with me) I am honor bound to point out: (...) that the starving artists I see on TV (you know, on those 1/2 hour ads and such) seem to produce mostly Elvis on velvet... :-) Not that there's (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) No, I am waving around the term because I'm searching for something so vile and contemptuous that it is an example of something that art isn't. And I'm not talking about photos of nude, newborn babies. I'm talking about depictions of sexual (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) I'm not so sure (see my post above). Can't I come up with an idea so obscene that every normal, decent human being will say, "That's sick!" -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   I'm sure to regret getting into this at all, but... (...) why stop at art? -S (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Isn't there a difference of _depth_ as well? (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) I don't think you're going to find such a thing, because "vile and contemptuous" isn't something that makes something art or not. If a thing is truely vile and contemptuous, it might be something that, as you say, no one ever should be exposed (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) But this, too, is circular, since your question implies that a human being who doesn't say "That's sick!" is not normal and decent. Dave! (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) No. (...) I'm not saying you can't judge it. I'm saying you can't say it isn't art, but that doesn't at all preclude you from saying it's _bad_ art. (...) The definition doesn't exist, short of an inclusive data base. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) In other words, "neener neener, I can't hear you?" Whatever. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Because it is _bad_ art. Not because it's not art. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Just for the record, I fully agree. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) No, in other words, you're not moving this discussion forward because you're not doing what you committed to do, accept my premise and try to refute this particular point using it. We have a fundamental disagreement about rights. I happen to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) How does that help? Who decides what's bad? Aren't you still in the mode of not having an objective standard? Now, this whole thing may be futile, I tend to come down on the side of "there isn't an easy way to define what art is, it is based (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I disagree with the sentiment that suffering creates better art, or that worthy art can only be created by those willing to suffer a bit for it. Are some of the amazing LEGO creations and sculptures on LUGNET not examples of worthy art created (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I think this is a pointless argument, simply because a national defense was FOUNDED in the Constitution. The NEA was not. Artists have somehow survived since the beginning of time, and somehow, we seem to be in a notion that the federal (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art! or Not Art!   (...) Not everyone agrees with you on that, and the proportions that do or don't will change dramatically from culture to culture. (...) else (...) A reasonable desire, but again, "child pornography" means different things to different people. For (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art! or Not Art!   (...) art is (...) artist (...) everything? (...) Bad art is usually consigned to the Not Art category, but only over time. Unless it's an illustration, in which case it is Not Art immediately. :-) Bruce (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Art and Property ZRights   (...) I'm going to step out on a limb here, and try and weave something together from the two debates we have going on. ASSERTIONS: 1. Art is something that is created with intent to evoke an emotional response. 2. The VALUE of art is something (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art! or Not Art!   (...) who (...) "decent" (...) How about this one - a parent eating his child! Sick! Cannibalism! Disgusting. Certainly Not Art! And certainly on paper, this really seems like a candidate. Goya's "Saturn Devouring one of his Children". (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   One thing I'd like to toss in here is the possibility that it is ok for local government to spend money on social programs (including art and schools). This is subject to the limitation that state and national governments don't control the local (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   <FnvKu0.A5C@lugnet.com> <38742759.42A175DD@uswest.net> <Fnx470.15I@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) YES! We cannot float on the sea of (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Good. So do I. Fortunately, that wasn't what I said. What I said was that if you are not willing to suffer for your art, you are not a worthy ARTIST, not that your art isn't worthy. I would say that to be true for any endeavour. If you expect (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   <387426AC.7833B0B8@uswest.net> <slrn8796nm.341.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) That's my point, you see. I'm saying that such things (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art and Property ZRights   Frank said it, better than I've had time to say. Very nicely done. What a great running dog lackey I've created here... (go back to very early in the history of this group and read some of Frank's stuff and you'll find he wasn't nearly as right as (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art! or Not Art!   (...) like (...) And even more frightening if the academnic speculation is true that the painting was modified from its original form, with Saturn originally having a very erect phallus while he devours the child. -- jthompson@esker.com "Float on a (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: ] You know, the 1st degree kind with no extenuating circumstances: "you have a (...) Well, 'round these parts you might find a jury willing to acquit you on that defense! Dave! (who doesn't have a 4558 (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art and Property ZRights   (...) Some art is intended to create an intellectual response, not emotional, or as an aid to meditation (Mark Rothko's "glowing squares"), or.... (...) Each will assign their own unique value. (...) When Libertarians are the majority party, I'll (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Aw, Larry, you had me right along with you up till this bit. Well, I'm still mostly with you, but a considerable problem with art today--and this isn't just confined to our fine nation--is the predominant aesthetic trend as much as any dubious (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art and Property ZRights   (...) Start worrying. We are. If you go by sentiment, anyway. (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art and Property ZRights   (...) You may have a point there, although I would argue that is still an emotional response. (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art and Property ZRights   (...) Yowza! Sort of, maybe, but I don't think that too many of that majority think its goals are currently realistic, for some of the reasons already addressed in the various Libertopia posts! Dave! (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) You have a point, however, I think we are on the verge (if not already over the cliff) of having a market which will again support good art. This is due to the internet. With the minimal cost of distribution, who cares what the mass market (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art! or Not Art!   (...) Modified by Goya or some later censor? I presume that he may have thought it went over the line into "that's just plain sick" (and not justified by the myths) or it simply is a delusion by some scholar. It certainly starts to edge over the (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art and Property ZRights   (...) Then call a vote on it in congress while you can! :-) Bruce (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) That makes a lot of sense. My concern, at present--and forgive me for lapsing into my own pet crusade for a moment--is that the scourge of Postmodernism, among others, has yielded an unprecedented load of manure, and many (not here, (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art! or Not Art!   (...) Wasn't this painting found on the wall of Goya's hovel after his death? It doesn't seem likely to me that Goya would've censored his own painting to avoid offending himself. Additionally, I studied this painting in an Art History course, and I (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) People who write worthwhile material will be supported irrespective of ability to copy protect their work. In fact, ultimately, the consumers will protect the works (why should I let you read my copy of XYZ, when you can download it yourself, (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Where and when is this magical land? And how does one get there, because clearly this philosophy has little to do with the state of the market today, or of any time in the past four centuries, since the concept of authorship came to the fore. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Ooops! No, it doesn't, but I sure thought it did. Did it previously? Dave! (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   Laura Gjovaag <tegan@eskimo.com> schreef in berichtnieuws Pine.SUN.3.96.100010...imo.com... (...) and (...) Laura, I have one word (name) for ya: Nietzsche. -- Arjan Brugman - abrugman@casema.net Arjan.Brugman@philips.com (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <FnxK4w.Gt1@lugnet.com> <3874FDA7.2043@mindspring.com> <FnxMM8.6Av@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) My assertion is that the mass market stores are going to be pushing such drek, that (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art! or Not Art!   (...) Perhaps. If you'd like to check on the reference, find "No Go the Bogeyman" by Marina Warner in your library, and look up the painting in the book's index. I think I recall the book being well-documented with footnotes and references, and if (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I understand your assertion, and I still assert that it has little reference to reality. Your analogy with Lugnet is likewise still flawed. (...) Okay, then, how much money has Todd made on Lugnet? Enough to support himself with no other (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) It's interesting though. A lot of us here certainly would have the technical ability to copy and redistribute lugnet -- it's not that much harder than copying an electronic novel would be. But, there are other things that might be better (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Ok, enough is enough. Make fun of me, call me names, I don't care. You haven't changed my opinion that the terms of use state very clearly to anyone who cares to read them what kind of language is not acceptable. What this argument really (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Fair enough, but I still disagree :) I would say that a worthy artist is one who produces worthy art. I would also suggest that the requirement of any form of suffering or willingness to suffer, on behalf of the artist, is an intellectual one (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) john ~ there are better ways to define something than to say what it is not. it's like trying to describe an elephant by saying it's not a mouse. in your search for a definition of art has gotten off track with this pornography thing. have you (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Another reason no one's done it is that there's no point--Lugnet's value isn't as static repository of ideas but as a living forum for exchange of those ideas. A novel is different, since it's written once and then it's done--downloading the (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) It varies. Probably the most interesting open source/free software license is the GPL (GNU General Public License), which states (in as watertight manner as a bunch of lawyers could make it) that the software is free to use and modify as long (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) has (...) Ooh, even before I got better, I would never have supported this... (...) otherwise (...) sponsered (...) any (...) I used to have this opinion. My feeling now is that anything worthwhile that the (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   <387426AC.7833B0B8@uswest.net> <Fny1z1.DHn@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) You are correct, Craig. What I was trying to do was in reaction (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   Great post, Laura. Wasted, no doubt, on the target audience, unfortunately. I would be willing to bet that in my entire writing here on Lugnet, I've never once (I could be wrong, though) used a word that would be considered a swear word. Yet who (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: defining art (was "Swearing?")   (...) john ~ and what subject matter would exclude a painting or sculpture from being art, pray tell? child pornography? there are countless pieces of undeniable art that address the subject of child sexuality in forms both subtle and gross. from (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Larry Pieniazek (<38758096.3A4DEA40@...ager.net>) wrote at 05:58:46 (...) If somewhat tautological :-) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Political Poll Was (Art Debate, among others....]   (...) Ahh! I just got a Libertarian rating! Larry is changing my views, AHHHH!!! :) Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) B&N is a better online bookseller than amazon, IMHO. Especially their OOP/secondhand books. As far as online publishing by the author is concerned, I refer you to the messages posted to rec.arts.sf.composition by Gene Steinberg. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I didn't think there was a non-profit status, as such? More a sort of "not profitable right now" status, the last time this came up. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) No, we wouldn't, and yes, it would be. Only a snapshot is easy to make. Copying the entire underlying structure of dynamical pages would not be trivial, but not hard either (since Todd speaks of it fairly freely, and much material is (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) For one thing, I did not commit to refuting this particular point within your basic premise. That was another thread. For another, I said there that I would accept your basic premise that "all rights are property rights" You're trying to turn (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) The people looking at it. (...) Yes... and? Okay, so it's a mostly semantic difference, but it does exist. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art and Property ZRights   (...) Yah. Right. Show me election results and appropriate laws, then. Maybe you want to dilute your viewpoint to the point where it is acceptable to enough people that you can have a good share of votes, just like the two major parties, but it (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I disagree technically. It's almost impossible to make something available to the general public yet block copying it. But I conceed that there _is_ an essential difference between LUGnet and a book -- the dynamic interaction you mention, plus (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: defining art (was "Swearing?")   <387579FF.F0AA7C07@uswest.net> <FnyJnI.5L8@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit craig hamilton wrote: <snip> (...) Ah, this is an excellent point (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) A community I lived in for a while didn't have access to a public library, because the majority (but not an overwhelming majority -- something like 60%) of the people who lived there didn't want to pay the few cents in taxes to join the (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: defining art (was "Swearing?")   (...) morals are flawed (...) subjective (...) insight to me. (...) that person than (...) Everything isn't art, but those *you deem* to have flawed morals will accept certain works you consider obscenities. See the difference? You make the (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) that (...) That (...) taxes (...) So move to a community which does have a library. (...) If it's worth the cost, it will happen. If it isn't worth the cost, then it isn't worth the cost. Another thought, I (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) That's fine for the people who can afford to do so. Wouldn't this create a set of uber communities that had all the services, and lower class communities that had no services and people couldn't afford to move out of? Seriously, why not just (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) The house I lived in there was built by my dad on property given my parents by my grandparents. I grew up there and have lots of important memories of it. Many people are attached to where they live by stronger things than that; should they (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Yes. But doing so without Todd's knowledge, _while keeping it up tom date_, is next to impossible. I suspect somebody who downloaded the entire site would show up a significant blip in traffic, also. Then there is the fact that by far not (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Presumably, if a society as a whole gets richer from educating the poor, companies will donate enough to make it possible. The big fallacy is that the vast majority of companies don't look further ahead than next quarter, up to a year or maybe (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) You too? Smack-dab in the middle of left-liberal.. Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   weird problem.. (...) that (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Yes. Photography is a method by which a 2D image is fixed of a scene. And, photographic technology can be used to create abstracts. It's really just like painting...but different. (...) Well, I guess one. But the more people for who this is (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) I actually thought it was possible that someone might claim that a sunset was God's art. (...) As Matthew or someone said, because art handles a wider scope of issues. (...) Exactly! I think that the artist's ability to explain it aims us (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Yup. I agree. The problem is, when does something have a victim? For adults this quite clear -- only when there is not consent. For non-adults, this gets very blurry very fast. Does a photographer have the right to publish a photograph of, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Wouldn't be without his knowledge. He'd just be powerless to stop it without blocking large numbers of legitimate users. Not that I'm advocating such a thing in any way. (...) Yes that's again true. (...) This is a different topic entirely of (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Hey look, me too. (Anyone surprised?) Interesting the web version of this quiz is slightly different from the one I got off of Freshmeat (ported to Unix by Eric Raymond...). That version makes some of the questions be very loaded (to the point (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Not so at all. I'd just use a dialup account (plenty of bandwidth to deal with the discussion traffic) at one or several major ISPs. I don't think Todd wants to break Earthlink or AOL access for all of Boston. (...) Spoofing IPs probably (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) IPblocking such a thing would not block very many legitimate users. Unless you start doing things like spoofing IPs (which can be detected at a firewall level), morphing ISP accounts, etc.etc. Come to think of it, IPblocking of spoofed packets (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Subsidies have a place if you are of the opinion that it is in the National Interest to be selfsufficient to a degree in food. In a sense, farming subsidies are a part of National Defense. Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) library, (...) were (...) set (...) that (...) not (...) I don't think so. My feeling is that the reason we have so much crime is that there are so many people who have little or nothing to lose, so the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) So just because your dad happened to build a house somewhere, you think the whole world should bow down and provide all the "niceties" of life, regarless of whether the location your dad built his house on (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38bfb403.278198521@...et.com>... (...) Where are the parents when this is happening? I certainly would limit the permission I gave a photographer to publish a picture of my nude child if I thought the picture might (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) It's a very sensible location. It's land that has been in the family for a while and has unmeasurably high personal value. In fact, there are lots of equally valuable connections to places and people in the surrounding community, despite the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) If one must. I also think you'd have the lawyers sicced on you. Things like this are blatantly illegal. As added protection, Todd could make the NNTP connections password-protected (fairly easily, even, technically). In which case you'd need (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Oh, definitely. That wasn't the point at all. If I still remember the original point of this. :) (...) For the record, I totally agree and sympathize with Todd's decision to run things the way he currently is. There are clear and definite (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <Fo04xr.MoE@lugnet.com> <slrn87djsf.fag.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Not at all. Not all value can be as easily judged as the operating budget of a library. But if your property (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) [snip] (...) But the point to which I'm replying is that libraries _would_ get built! (...) Universal access to libraries is something that can obviously benefit society. As I've seen you say: take that as a given for this argument. Again, the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) So you would agree that education and poverty are areas which could do a lot more than they do now if they were more efficient with the money they recieve? Reorganise away, but remember that the Market isn't neccessarily the best optimiser, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Sounds that way to me. It's Better than a one-vote-per-person system, because this way those who are wealthy (and therefore more qualified to decide what is good for society) get more say. Bill Gates [1] obviously shoud have 25 million times (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) This was a common convention before the late 19th century, as well--but it was context-sensitive too; for example, when using in an admonishment or a swear, you would - the "o" (along with the "am" in d--n, much later), but in theological (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I don't think our current usage is enough to support a dedicated backup server, yet. I mean, we have, what, 1000 messages/day and 30k users? Still peanuts ;) By the time it gets up to 10-25k msgs/day, I'd be looking for a physical backup, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <3876E1AE.144F396A@voyager.net> <slrn87dqa8.j61.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You're right, I jumped in the middle and didn't check assumptions first. Fuggedaboutit. Frank's doing fine (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Only inasfar as Bill Gates is a nazi. And despite my intense dislike for the man, who definitely shouldn't have 25 million times more say than anyone else, I doubt he is _that_. Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) I'm not convinced that it's all that clear cut. I have observed age-peers of mine who are markedly less worldly and make stupid decisions about their lives. At what magic age is one fully capable of making decisions such that we can (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) millions of (...) But if production is made more efficient, this means that those doing the production will get more money, and when you dig all the way down, ultimately the only way to actually spend the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) This is precisely why Ford decided to pay his workers 5 bucks a day when people were making 1 and 2 dollars a day. He wanted them to be rich, relatively speaking, and be able to afford his products (and those of his friends). And it worked. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Exactly. That's why I used "adults" rather than "18+". (...) Ethical. I'm for the moment entirely uninterested in anything legal that may or may not coincide. (...) I probably agree. (...) Indeed. (...) By, or for? (...) Yes. And I would like (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   <Fo1y8z.Mr9@lugnet.com> <38781DD3.4545ED6B@voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Wait. Wouldn't that make you status quo guys happy? Our government is a dollar-electable government. Chris (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <3877B741.22DBA4E0@v...er.net>... (...) And in fact my assertion, which may not have been perfectly stated is not "every community will have a library", but that if the value of a community library is sufficient, (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff   (...) One minor point I'd add regarding the occasional need for government: the Securities Exchange Commission was established to prevent the same cataclysmic market crash from happening again. Among other things, the SEC requires that brokers be (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) True--they thrived, often, through the patronage of aristocrats or crowned heads. It's a different world and the shift has occurred. The NEH and NEA are part of the knowledge-based society we pretend to be. (...) Trying to imagine how the (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I have to break in here--do you know who these "government drones" are? Take a look at the message I wrote earlier about how the NEA/NEH operate--I've done some more reading, and while an appointed congress makes final decisions, the advisory (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Interestingly, that's a case of your almighty market defining what art is meritorious. When we get a black-velvet Rembrandt analogue, I'll concede it as a good development--until then, I'm firmly in the corner of mixed-source funding. The (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Not bloody likely--I can't tell you how many times I've hurt myself separating large plates. (...) When conditions are relatively good, we go after that which unsettles us. It's natural, and art funding believes in a certain amount of liberal (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <FnxK4w.Gt1@lugnet.com> <3874FDA7.2043@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Just an aside: The computer "revolution" and the much-touted paperless office in fact led to the paper (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   <Fo1y8z.Mr9@lugnet.com> <38781DD3.4545ED6B@voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Fostered by government? If so, only fostered by the government's complicity with the banking/savings and loan (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Well, yes, but they're not *our* dollars at the moment. ;) The important part at the moment is that we strive for it *not* to be dollar-electable--I wonder what would happen if cash-motivation were allowed to come out into the open? Just a (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) Okay, I'll chime in here--I feel very strongly about this issue, because I'm a member of that "other" group, the ones who never said anything (as children) or went to counseling or to court or anything after instances of sexual abuse. (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I don't think so. Anyway... (...) Who just happened to make IMO, the best country the world has ever seen, where people have unparalleled freedom, etc. This concept of how evil those dead white guys are always galls me. I heard countless (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) God Bless America. Freedom to be shot, be badly educated, pollute, destroy and watch as much mind-rotting TV everyday to fill a life-time. Biggest and loudest doesn't equate to being best. IMO some of the best countries to live in are the (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) You can get shot in any country, thank you very much, whether or not they have guns, illegal or otherwise. Did you hear of Bosnia, maybe. Chechnya (SP?) etc. Destroy what? (...) Ah, we have communities over here, Richard, whether you believe (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   Tom Stangl wrote in message <38726741.3242BBA0@n...pe.com>... (...) is (...) CONDITIONS", (...) that (...) Who watches the watchmen? -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (URL) weird Lego site: (URL) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I believe barnesandnoble.com is doing that now. (Or is it just that they've got it in development for deployment soon.) Either way. (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) But that doesn't exactly reduce paper consumption. :) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) However, the machines that can print and bind a one-off book from typeset files and do it quickly are getting there. In a few decades at most, physical distribution of books will be gone, except fro the mass-market things. Those can probably (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Are you _sure_ you're talking about the 1929 crash, and not the 2002 crash? Jasper (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Using a country in the middle of ethnic cleansing as a comparison is hardly flattering. You can get shot in any country, but it's more likely to happen if you live in the US than say the UK. (...) I find it easy to believe, however I would (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) It's fairly clear-cut that it *is* their reason for being. You may argue about whether they fulfill that mandate, but their reason for being and the intellectual trajectory that generated them are right in line with the idea that intellectual (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Could be either, but there are SEC restrictions on speculation now that would prevent the free-fall of 1929. 1997/8 in Indonesia/East Asia could have done the same thing as 1929, except that the response was very different--in part because we (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) It's also hard to compare even the US and the UK, much less Chechnya, Bosnia-Herzegovina or Kosova. But I'd argue that any of those three places in 1990--a better analogue of time--would have been *much* safer than the urban United States. (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Well, I was just showing that people get shot in many ways. I don't think I know of anyone ever getting shot, in my family, friends, co-workers, etc. It's not like you hear gunshots every where you go or something. (...) That is the funniest (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Lindsay, I seem to be repeating myself. But anyway... (...) cal truth is much more complex. Hmm.. Well, from the people I have heard talk about this, they are high up, this is another debate I don't want to get into anymore.... (...) en we're in an (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Depends where you live in the US! Where I lived in Elkhart, Indiana [1] as a child, it was fairly routine to hear gunshots. Not in the "nicer" parts of town, or in the suburban areas, of course, but certainly where I was. I remember finding a (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) That is true, especially places like Washington, DC, etc. (...) < sarcasm > Isn't there a law against fire arms being within 500 feet of a school? How could such a thing happen? < /sarcasm > I have heard gunshots in Flint, MI, every now and (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I agree that history, math, and etc., are important, but isn't teaching about caring for the environment important too? Is your fear that they're not learning both, or is it mostly from the fact that they're learning this at all? (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Caring about the environment and worshipping it are two different issues, and I don't think the present environmental movement, with its willing participants in the education system, is healthy. Kids should know both sides of things, not (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) And that is very sad. How should we approach it? Different opinions can swell here, but another debate, yet again... (...) Hmm... it sounded like that. But I digress, I have been called stupid, naive, so many times by leftist elitists that it (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) And a _lot_ of people live in those places. For those people, that _is_ America. (...) No one should be calling anyone stupid here. And I don't think he meant that. I disagree with you about a great many things, but I don't think it's because (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Well, if you don't learn anything else, it probably won't. But stewardship of our resources is one of our most important tasks as human beings, and it arguably benefits everyone to learn tools to help with that. (From a christian standpoint: (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Yes, but not with the militant attitude of the modern environmentalist movement. (...) Hmmm, I just read over Genesis 1:26 - 28, "The God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) "Rule" is a complicated word, of course. KJV says "let them have dominion over". I don't know what the original hebrew uses, or the cultural implications of the concept when this was put into writing. My understanding is that ancient hebrew (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Yes, how to construct a good society is an important issue. I think that the property rights discussion may eventually get there in a few months. *grin* You're welcome to join in or follow along. (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Ugh, I have had enough of debate for awhile, I have been following it. i am trying to lessen my standpoints every now and then. Scott S. (...) ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   [pardon the major snippage of Every Debate Known to Man ;) ] (...) I'm in agreement that it's flawed. I think where we differ is that I think it's better than nothing, whereas you believe that nothing would be better. Until it happens, the question (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Lindsay, (...) That's a good summation, if only I would prefer it to at least get to the community level. However, during the current administration, I don't anything will happen anyway. It has been a good discussion, for the most part. We can (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Ugh, no global government, please! Ours is bad enough, thank you very much! I would love to see that monster come out. Speaking of the Bible, Matt, did you ever read Revelations? The one world government? (...) Corporations are private (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Surprisingly enough, I agree with you on this in many ways, although there are some problems where I see a federal (or yes, even global) government as unavoidable. And I think that those problems are ones that are increasing more and more as (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Yes, and I've seen other such texts. I certainly wouldn't want a one-world government like that, and that's not what I'm advocating at all! (...) Ok, now we're back to the rights discussion. I don't see how a corporation gets the right to do (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) That's not what I'm saying at all, my statement above could easily have read "I believe that most people aren't part of such a community". (...) I believe that they get to spend their leave as they wish - some weeks before, some after.. go to (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I disagree :) As just because Marx described a system that involved 100% tax, it doesn't mean that 100% tax is Marxist. Leaving aside questions of how, if a sustainable Utopia was created that had 100% tax, then why not? In principle I'm (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Uh, no. The paperless office is a big myth. The ease with which paper is created id one of the biggest problems of our times, IMHO. Let printer ink and toner be taxed at an additional $2.50 per page, I say. _THEN_ we'll see a paperless office. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Wars don't count. Have you heard the statistics recently on shootings in .uk or .nl? (...) You are sadly misinformed (Actually, "prejudiced" would be the word I'd use. Ever lived in Europe?). The countries that have these policies usually have (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) "Leftist elitist"? Bit of a contradiction-in-terms, don't you think? Here's an idea, drop all the gratuitous namecalling and actually _reason_. Jasper (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Screw leaded gasoline - look at the dumping of heavy metals in every-place-they-can-find, historically. And lead, cadmium, and all the rest are much more heinous in those sorts of concentrations than in leaded gasoline. There's less problems (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Sorry, this got long, and you probably won't like it, but there is plenty to argue with. Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) a (...) of? (...) lot (...) recieve? (...) tax (...) up (...) millions of (...) it (...) Very likely, depending on (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Long and boring, yet plenty controversial... Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) library, (...) were (...) set (...) that (...) not (...) Why not? Those who can climb out of the "mines" will. Those who can't are a monkey on the world's back (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) the (...) sensible (...) more (...) I posted a message to RTL that said, WTB 4558, 4536, 4547, 4549, 4554, 2150 in boxes or sealed. Unfortunately, I can't afford them all right now. Will you buy them for me? (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) If having access to Lego provides a better [1] society, than it's probably something we want to work towards. (Having Lego in schools might be a good way.) Since I think that universal education is very beneficial, it's something I think (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libertarian splurf (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Gosh. The point that is that if you are uneducated, and can't afford to educate your children, then they won't be able to educate theirs.. and you're condemning generations to poverty.. that truely is only liberty for the rich, which is (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) What I'd really like to see is some sort of.. visualised plan. Like - stage 1, remove some taxes, implement dollar for dollar tax credit charity.. this is what we expect to happen, what has happened? If different then replan. Stage 2, abolish (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) To provide any clarification - I agree with this as well.. I just want to find the *best* path to utopia. Richard (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   <Fo8LLM.K4F@lugnet.com> <Fo8q9s.8p7@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Well, stage 0 is get enough people on the boat so that a reasonable plan can be worked out that won't be immediately (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Matt, (...) Well, going on the UN, and other organizations, like EU, etc. I would hope the US never joins it. (...) This whole rights discussion is pretty funny, Matt. Let's see, if corporations have no rights, than we should not have rights, nor (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) I think you already have enough people btw :) Looking at (URL) I see lots of research into the types of action they want to affect, but not too much research into the actual consequences that it could have. IMO it would be a good thing, as it (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Minority as in a small part. Sorry, I thought you were saying minority as in African American, etc. My mistake. (...) Interesting, but I disagree with it, simply because the government enforces it. (...) That would contradict the entire world (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) with (...) Wait, are you saying that the S&L problem wasn't directly caused and directly made worse by Government? Let's review, the FSLIC is a GOVERNMENT agency that charges each and every S&L the SAME premium no matter what the risk profile (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Living in Scotland and all.. you'd think I'd be the one with that message ;) I have a lot (maybe total) sympathy with that viewpoint though. (...) Because I spent my mid-to-latter teenage years doing so before deciding that it was a wrong and (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Yeah, actually, I thought the reason they do stuff like mandatory leaves and long vacations was to keep the unemployment rate low. I think we have to agree on higher taxes though (not like they're low here in the US). (...) For those of us who (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Bzzt. Wrong! No, both of my parents were registered Democrats. I looked at what the parties stood for, looked at my religious beliefs, and concluded the Republican party is more to what I believe in. Though I am definitely more to the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate   (...) it's better than nothing, whereas you believe that nothing would be better. So do I, by the way. One of the worst beliefs most politicians have is that in response to a perceived or actual crisis, it's always better to Do Something than Stand (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) In terms of total taxes raised vs GNP, NL comes out at around 25%, whereas the US comes in at just over 30%. That good enough? (...) Not really -- preaching too hard is more likely to turn people away from you than towards you, 9in this day (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I've been avoiding this debate, since there seem to be a lot of personal stuff flying about, but The above is one of the principle things that I can't quite fathom about libertarian thinking. Why is it that "government will take advantage of (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   James, (...) Can you please give me examples on how corporations can take away your freedom, your liberty, your rights, etc.? The government can and does. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) It would just be something new, something unthought of, not contradictory. (...) I said that there are people who find less money makes them feel freer. Whether or not they are delusional is a different matter. Anyway - that isn't even almost (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I think what you mean to say is that the government is not accountable at present, whereas corperations would be directly accountable to the people who buy their products, and shareholders. It's still not a solid argument IMO, but it's the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Richard, (...) Well, I think money (Which is a form of trading) has been around since the beginning of mankind. If man has nothing to trade with, which is 100% tax, I don't think it would work. I would that would happen, but we will see. (...) Well, (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Corporations can take away anything we allow them to take away, in the same way that government can take away anything we allow them to. Examples? I don't see why they're necessary since we're so far into the realm of theoretical, but ok. Coal (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) No, this tone that corporations have some unwieldy power of the masses is a joke. Tell me what power they have! Does GM go to your house, burst through your door, place you under arrest, and take your possessions? Does AOL pull you over for no (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Government vs Corporations - Was: (Re: Art Debate)   (...) Yes, I know about this, and have read about it in history class. I was talking about present day examples. I think this century has been instrumental in cleaning up the abuses of corporations in the early days, such as above. Compare a GM (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Government vs Corporations - Was: (Re: Art Debate)   (...) You are wrong. In my case, at least, I don't think that. What I *do* think is that corporations will take whatever advantages they are allowed to take, just as governments will. Libertarian theory does not account for this, to my satisfaction. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Government vs Corporations - Was: (Re: Art Debate)   <387E402C.5DDB2400@c...anweb.net> <FoAMsH.xF@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Libertarianism expects that companies will be held liable for the damages they do. Unfortuanately, government (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) IMO, shareholders and the purchacing power of a few knowledgable consumers isn't enough to control corperations. What are the evils that corperations *could* do, if they were allowed? * Education - biased or limited, creating clones to work in (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) Try the Federalist Papers, there should be links in past posts from this group. (...) care (...) It's (...) Then buy generic. Perhaps those companies that use advertising, and charge 1000% more for their (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Scott E. Sanburn wrote in message <387E3BDD.6A5F8473@c...eb.net>... (...) I doubt thats it, but funny if it was. Lets spend a collossal amount of finite public resources on the Anti Nestle, Advertising-Tax Campaign (ANATC) (1). (...) I agree, I (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) living (...) picture (...) one a (...) there (...) other is (...) which (...) My POV, the person who has more freedom has a greater ability to have more knowledge concerning freedom. He also has more (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Oh - I thought everyone knew! Basically Nestle heavily promote their processed baby milk in third world countries. Parents there, wanting the best for their children *believe* the adverts - it comes from the West - it must be great right? As a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I agree - the person who takes freedom for granted has different knowledge or opinions, as to how valuable it is, than someone who craves freedom. Richard (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) "Freedom is something you assume...you wait for someone to try to take it away from you, and the degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free" (U. Utah Phillips/Ani Difranco "Fellow Workers") James Powell (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) processed (...) their (...) them (...) Thanks. Thats reason enough for me to boycott Nestle. There are other chocolatiers, at least there are in America. As it bothers you (and me) that others are being (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   Rachel Kingston wrote in message ... (...) Its nice to find someone new to read, who happens to think (at least in this instance) a little like I do! (...) this (...) My definition of art: Art is that which man creates. Creation is a reflection of (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Government is vastly more accountable than corporations[1] at present. In both cases, virtually the only way something "bad" ever comes into the public view is through inquisitive reporters. When a governemnt is so affected, the people (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) I gave you totals. The total is what matters, not the composition. Jasper (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Good enough for what? What if you look at it differently? What % of your income do you pay as income tax? What would it be if you were in the US doing the same kind of work? What about other forms of taxation? What's your sales tax like? How (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Exactly! So you chose the opposite party. (...) Sure. I'm not saying that those things have nothing to do with it. You obviously give these issues some thought, but I still say that people have more hidden baggage behind these kinds of (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Christopher Weeks wrote in message <3880E975.C4916B4E@e...se.net>... (...) world (...) Baggage, hindrance... Yeah, your right, Chris. (...) While there is the similarity of the desire for a small central government with a limited amount of power in (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) I'm interested in breakdowns... as I've said here before, some kinds of taxes have a more pernicious distorting effect and therefore are worse than others. ++Lar (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Government vs Corporations - Was: (Re: Art Debate)   (...) How do you hold a company's officers liable? If company X spills toxic goo into a river, who is responsible? The worker who didn't close the valve? The supervisor who didn't make sure it got closed? The process engineer who put the valve near (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Government vs Corporations - Was: (Re: Art Debate)   James Brown wrote in message ... (...) The (...) put (...) valve (...) place? (...) impossible (...) event. From a civil suit point of view, it may be sufficient to sue the corporation. Ultimately, the board of directors is responsible. The (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I certainly question it. Fortunately it's not what I've been saying. What I have an issue with is rather the artist who is not willing to suffer, but instead feels the world owes him funding as his due, for deigning to have decided to be an (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) What my parents did have nothing to do what I believed in, thank you very much. I chose for what I think is best. My mom never cared too much for politics, and I have not seen my dad in many years. (...) Well, since you know so much about me, (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <387CF961.42F012A7@c...anweb.net> <FoAIpx.I2u@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) HI James, Governments, corporations, charities, people, etc. will all (in general) take and use as much power (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Ah yes... slap a tax on it instead of trying to set things up to get at the root costs, eh? Typical tax and spend thinking. Why not go after lumber companies for causing erosion when they clear cut, and charge the proper amount to dispose of (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Yes, but in my understanding (which I'm willing to admit may be flawed) a Libertarian system would grant corporations much more power than they currently experience. James (URL) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Which would those be? The site is at (URL) . You're probably slightly more up on what you want to know than I am. Jasper (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Uh, Larry? I _was_ kidding. (...) So how do you figure the costs of erosion? TIhe lumber companies own their land, usually, after all. Or they have permission from the owners. And if the use that land to deposit the waste on, why shouldn't (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   (...) While that is true, it is still wrong. If we were to prohibit things simply because they offended some group of superstitious primitives or another, there would be precious few things in the world. Music, technology, freedom of expression, art (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   "All art is utterly useless" - Oscar Wilde -- Mark Rendle rendle99@hotmail.com "Jasper Janssen" <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote in message news:38764671.535053...net.com... (...) to (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   This is just reminds me that the very obvious thing that why "religion" is nonsense: "Any given religion has always more disbelievers than its believers"..:-) Selçuk Mark Rendle <rendle2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:FoJDxI.L0E@lugnet.com... (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Any tax, across the board, incents some behaviours and disincents others. Broadly, there seem to be at least three classes of taxation, although there may be others. These are: Income - a tax on the production of wealth Sales - a tax on the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <387CF961.42F012A7@c...anweb.net> <FoAIpx.I2u@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I would tend to say both are equally valid. However governments have monopoly on the initiation of the use of (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) How did you arrive at that number? That's my point. (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Does that responsibility follow them from job to job too? What about when they've retired? If the answer is 'no' to either of them, then I don't think that will work. Richard (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <388320C1.F3E0E6D1@eclipse.net> <FoHr3F.Isu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) In some ways that might be true. In others, and I think these are more important, corporations would be (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) In the interests of not repeating myself: (URL) I don't think individuals have (in the general case) enough resources for personal liability to be feasable/sufficient. An example of this occured recently in Alberta - a number of people were (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   You know Scott, I really don't get you sometimes. My post was mildly derogatory to a faceless group - not to you - and you completely took it as an attack. (...) You're welcome to believe what you want. That's fine. I don't happen to believe the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Yup, one would - and that is the current set-up. But I believe(1) that I was responding to an impression that governments are evil because they'll do this, but corporations aren't, because they won't. James (URL) hunting through the thread for (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) think (...) For things done while they were in power, sure. Although I'm not sure how statute of limitations should play in, though the only things which should have a statute of limitations are things for (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <3884AEDA.9C6DA48F@eclipse.net> <FoJMsz.K0p@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I think that if the answer is no, then it will still help, but not as much. Or maybe cause a industry ceo cycle (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <3884AEDA.9C6DA48F@eclipse.net> <FoJnnJ.2xu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) -- How do you hold a company's officers liable? If company X spills toxic goo -- into a river, who is (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Ack! I don't like that. I'm a strong supporter of the idea of personal liability, but that ranks as an accident, if I understand you. We believe (don't we?) that the herb, rosemary is safe, so we dispose of it willy nilly. Twenty years from (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) <snipped example - I could counter it, but that would lead to wheel-spinning> (...) Hmm. That's not quite what I was getting at - I'm in favor of personal responsibility and liability, in a general sense. However, in a large organization, I (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Swearing?   Mark Rendle wrote in message ... (...) This is basically what I said in my post concerning art and artwork. Perhaps there is a more suitable word for my definition of the word art - anything a man creates. If so, then that eliminates the need for (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Christopher Weeks wrote in message <3884B49F.7877B548@e...se.net>... (...) You (...) designated (...) Democratic). (...) Hmm. Most people who I disagree with in real life would not score as Libertarians on that test. In fact I have talked a few into (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) VAT in practice, though, is more of a sales tax except that companies don't pay it. What happens is that everybody charges VAT on everything, which is to be transferred through to the government, but companies get any VAT they have paid back. (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Which is why you need said government fairly strong to be able to make sure those corporations _don't_ start doing things like that. Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Jasper, (...) Can you name one corporation that has the power to burst into your home, arrest you and your family, take away your possessions, etc. I would love to know? Until then, the government has more power than *any* corporation. Oh yes, the (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) We don't? Seems to me we're well on the way there. Corporations are the "slightly clean" version of the Family, after all. Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) As another example, look at the people that AIDS from blood transfusions, while there were already good indications that HIV was transmitted through blood-contact ("it hasn't been proven yet that HIV causes AIDS!" (which is still true)), and (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Why should they be responsible if there were no way company X could reasonably have known chemical X was lethal? That's just random killing.[1] Jasper [1] Of careers, and possibly the people affected as well, as a direct consequence. (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Which is exactly what is already happening with the increased threat of litigation and the _very_real_ possibility, nay certainty, of getting fired if someone can prove, or even intimate, that you were the cause of such an incident. Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <38850672.B6A753EE@eclipse.net> <FoK7Jv.LHr@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I think I'm willing to largely agree that those things will increase also. Paperwork for sure...and that's a (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) I've talked people into it who did answer the questions honestly, were placed by the test as libertarians, and who were similarly not tricked into believing that they were libertarians. It is my opinion that the questions on the test are (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   1) Disclaimer: I think Chris and I do agree on most things, I think our trains of thought have crashed or whatever, maybe missed the station? 2) I had to type this twice, as Netscape crashed. Tom S, were are you? (...) Well, I get attacked so much, (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snipped muchly> (...) Ok, looks like this is our sticking point. I think that erring on the side of inclusion is bad. IMHO, if responsibility can't be traced fairly directly, then assigning (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Perhaps they shouldn't have dumped stuff, which they didn't know what its effects might be, in an unsecured area. Think about how we handle radioactive waste. Some of it, we don't really know what effect it will have, so be bundle it up to (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <FoJtsn.C9w@lugnet.com> <38850984.18212589@eclipse.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Mostly that this sort of thing is hard to talk about in the abstract. I think the longer something goes, the (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <38850672.B6A753EE@eclipse.net> <FoK7Jv.LHr@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) One thing - at the point where a liability issue is at hand, the internal processes of the company become (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Granted. (...) Back up a sec. I never implied that liability shouldn't exist. The company would be liable for the bulk of any settlements, and any company that operated as you suggest above would get hit with lawsuits so often that it would (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <3885F82B.31DF@mindspring.com> <FoLIpw.MEu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) But if you don't ultimately hold the company officers liable, then there is no way to enforce any decision (you (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <3885C764.F1AF855@eclipse.net> <FoLCpu.CzB@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) In many (but not all) cases - yes. (...) OK, I'm in your scenario now. People dying as a result of _anything_ is (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Yup, I agree, but you missed the phrase "might have lead". If there's no clear indicator as to where the responsibility lies, how can it be arbitrarily assigned? That just screams "WRONG" to me. <snipped bits about the Pinto> Yes, I agree with (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) OK. I can dance with that. But, the courts have done some pretty silly stuff. (Like McDonald's coffee.) how do we as a society regulate them? Just fire judges? There should be some mechanism for helping the courts be reasonable. Chris (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <3885F82B.31DF@mindspring.com> <FoLIpw.MEu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Until August, I managed ~140 employees in a technical customer service setting. If one of them was rude to a (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) can (...) What if the guy who's rude isn't rude because of poor training, or anything that *you* did/should have done/could have done? What if he's rude because he just had a huge fight with his ex-wife, and took that baggage to work? If (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <3885F5ED.ABD@mindspring.com> <388625A1.F24912E7@eclipse.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Of course I see the McDonald's coffee issue as one where the system actually for the most part worked. A (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) You're harbouring the misconception that if it is illegal it won't happen. Jasper (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Yup. There are very good reasons not to let economic refugees cross into your country freely. Most especially if you are richer than your neighbours. (...) The problem isn't that the market wouldn't provide food. It's that the market would not (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Oh come now. You're acting like it never happens that a previously-thought-unharmful stuff is later considered extremely harmful. cf Asbestos. Greatest thing since sliced bread, right up until the fourties when the studies came out. I really (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Right. Guilty until proven innocent. Don't do this, please. Jasper (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) As you're so fond of saying, that's not the only solution. I'd posit: not even close to the best one. (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Jasper "I didn't invent Libertarianism, I just laugh at" Janssen wrote in message... <38b4684b.609370836@...et.com>... (...) Weeks (...) <Mega snip> Jasper's post is evidence of my case. Even though Jasper is from a country currently more to the (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Left out an assumption, thank you, as usual, for not letting me get away with one atom's worth of implicitness. Sigh. Assume the same total revenue take. 40% across the board is surely more distortive than 5% on everything except food (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) No, I think you give corporations too much credit in terms of their power, and you don't seem to care how much power the government has. I don't have to look to far in terms of "it is illegal it won't happen." The Clinton Administration has (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) No, I think you give corporations too much credit in terms of their power, and you don't seem to care how much power the government has. I don't have to look to far in terms of "it is illegal it won't happen." The Clinton Administration has (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Irrelevent to the appropriate punishment. I personally know several people who prefered it when the coffee was (to my judgement) assininely hot. McDonalds was supplying a niche product - ultra hot coffee - and people were buying it. They (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) My stance on this is surely colored by the history of the US, but I feel that the primary reason that I live in the greatest nation in the world is the melting pot effect. I would be completely open to allowing anyone who wanted a fair shake (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) And I wasn't thinking straight, or I'd have known what you meant. (...) Yes. And...? (...) When there is production that is going unbought because money that would have been used for consumption (in addition to there being larger production), (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Stop putting words into my mouth. (...) You mean it wasn't rhetorical? Besides, I did answer. Any big corporation has the power to do so. Just not legally. Jasper (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Maybe it'd be a good thing for the country or the world -- but not necessarily for the individual voter. Anyway, we currently get enough non-economic refugees here in .nl that it severely skews the population count -- and in some cases we're (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) No, by making them hired for life, or at the very least not hired on the basis of the Great Unwashed Masses. Makes for a much better judicial system if you don't have those pesky jury things, either. Crawl out of the judicial sixteenth (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) You know what _really_ bugs me about US lawsuits? Punitive damages. The whole _concept_ is just utterly asinine. Fines, if any are necessary, should be _fines_, and therefore payable to the government, not J Random Victim. Jasper (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3889b27e.4370108@lu...et.com>... (...) One problem with this is that in the US, minimum wage for 40 hrs/week isn't really a minimum sufficient wage (for most parts of the country). I do think that companies have to (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) You do then, as well. (...) I asked how many companies do you know that did break into your house, etc. You said they have the power to, to which I disagree. You never answered the first question anyway, which is which companies do so? I know (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Right, but you've set yourselves up for that. By having all those friendly social programs, you paint a great big target on your chest. My grandfather expatriated to (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Well, there is the occaisional landlord. There are also the bail bondsmen, but they are in a way an agent of the government. (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Just a quite note on gasoline: One of the engineers here at AEI has a husband who is an electrical engineer for a certain car manufacturer (I won't divulge too much) They have been working on hydrogen fuel cell cars. It has been so successful (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Government Power vs. Corporate Power [Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]]   Frank & All, (...) I don't know how simple I can make this. Overall, if you compare the power of the government that can dramatically effect your life, which there are examples, and the power of any corporation (If they do illegal things, that is a (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) The Kerr McGee corp running Karen Silkwood off the road and killing her for blowing the whistle on safety problems at their nuclear plant ... perhaps an example of, um, excessive liberties being taken by a company. -- jthompson@esker.com (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I hope whoever is responsible for that, in that company, gets tried for breaking the law. Breaking the law is never a excessive liberty, the exception being the Clinton administration, of course. Scott S. (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Actually, no. See, for example, any first year Macroeconomics text, for example Samuelson. Excess production (that is, more goods than wages) causes deflation. Excess consumption (that is, more wages than goods) causes inflation. Now, it so (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Yes, I know. I really do. But it's not just the dole. It's also generally the better economic climate. (...) If the government stopped feeding them, they would be fed by charities. Maybe. At least, that's what the libertarians keep telling me. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) FUp-to: geek. There are two kinds of car that seem to be surging ahead right now. There is the fuel-cell type, and the hydrogen type (which may also be fuelcell, but whatever.) Fuel-cells typically use hydrocarbons (ie, gasoline (but cleaned (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)      Re: Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Ugh. Yes, if corporations break the law, they do hurt people. They should be prosecuted. The government prosecutes corporations, right? I agree with you that the US government has a tremendous amount of power because of money, etc. The (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Two things: First, I think that there is a miscommunication here. You are saying that companies have little power compared to the government if they don't break the laws. Others are saying that by breaking the laws, companies have the power to (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Some would, and some wouldn't. Obviously if your culture feels that it's appropriate to feed them via the government, they would still feel that way if the government disappeared right? But they might make them work a little for it, which (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) I find this an exceedingly callous statement, on the surface. Explain further. (...) The disposable income of the US government isn't that high. (...) You are. The law just happens to be unconstitutional. Jasper (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Oh, I didn't mean it like that, I meant it like this: Where are we going from there? As a member (sort of) of the side (sort of) opposite (sort of) yours, I'm willing to accept that corporations have the power to hurt people inappropriately. (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <3884AEDA.9C6DA48F@eclipse.net> <FoJMsz.K0p@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I'd say the answer is yes to both. You don't get to commit a crime, then just change jobs and use that as a (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <3884AC5E.6720F61@voyager.net> <FoJsx8.7Dw@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Oh. Well, I'd say then that most governments today ARE evil. Further, many corporations of today are as well. (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I agree with you. I don't think that's the argument, though. I would expect that a defense of "we truly believed this was a good insulator, our research aligned with everyone elses" ought to carry some weight. Not get the company off scot (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   <FoKHoG.F5A@lugnet.com> <3885D04A.C01401FD@eclipse.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In response to the quiz analysis. Chris is right, to a certain extent it's a marketing tool. It's designed to produce (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) And if you give government assistance to those who are in need. Absent that, there is no good reason. (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Yeah, they can starve here just as well as anywhere else. But who buries them? That costs money and presents health problems if not done. Bruce (This wasn't meant seriously, but I suppose it does apply) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <3885F82B.31DF@mindspring.com> <FoLIpw.MEu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wasn't a 100% fan of Truman but he did have one thing on his desk that pretty much summed it up for me... A sign (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Right you are. But why were they starving where they were? Were they starving enroute? And why would they starve once they *got* to libertopia, if they wanted to work? (and, since there's no public assistance, why would they want to come to (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I understand the sentiment, but I don't understand the position. You(the collective you) appear to say that the officers of a company are liable for the actions of that company REGARDLESS of whether or not they are personally responsible, or (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <388E2BFD.FB5B993@vo...er.net>... (...) Interesting, I guess either of two cases would apply: 1. They're trespassers. I guess the property owner is responsible for dealing with the bodies (though his community (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   James Brown wrote in message ... (...) are (...) Boiled (...) contrary, (...) in (...) direction - (...) First off, the CEO is only responsible for the activities of his employees which are reasonably related to their job. If one of your employees (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Just to clarify - I'm assuming that responsibility goes up the management tree in a serious case? Ie, the employee, his boss, his bosses boss.. the CEO. In a lot of cases, managers would claim that sub-managers hadn't informed them of a (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Soylent green is people. Dave! (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <388E2A0B.67DF7930@voyager.net> <Fowz19.44A@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (...) Because person X _took_ that responsibility freely. I agree that it wouldn't be fair the law just decided (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <Fox8H5.9D4@lugnet.com> <FoxrLq.Cn8@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) That's basically what I was getting ready to say. (...) No, the courts have the power to try and fine/punish them. I (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Ah.. so after the second time they spill nuclear goo in a kiddies playground(1), things will change? Unless they've got a new CEO who does exactly what the old one did? My point is that having to wait for a company to violate rights a second (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) and (...) The marketplace has the power (or would have the power under Libertopia). (...) I'm not sure if there's a need to directly fine the stockholders. If you whack the company hard enough, the (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) It does in theory, but in reality the market isn't educated to the level this requires - everyone would have to research which toothpaste, which dye-companies contributed to which t-shirts, which rainforest their toothpicks came from etc etc. (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I didn't mention that aspect, I took it as a given. Sorry. (...) Yoiks! So if I go to my boss' house, tanked to the gills but very good at hiding it, he's responsible when I kill someone on the way home? Maybe I'm reading this completely (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) You tell me. It could equally be war, persecution, bad weather as crop failure. (...) As long as they were still physically capable of work, what does it matter? (...) You are confusing wanting to and actually getting work swiftly enough or (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   <FoyED8.8A8@lugnet.com> <FoyJxA.Kqw@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) You raise a good point, one which is often raised, and one to which considerable thought has been given. The stock (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   <Fowt5K.s1@lugnet.com> <388E2BFD.FB5B993@voyager.net> <FoynLG.JGJ@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Fair enough, why not me, I'm as good an example as any, and better than most. Posit for (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) They were on the toll walkway (no public sidewalks) and fell there as they died. Smugglers aren't involved because they weren't restricted at the border. Actually, they died on your neighbor's property, but he dragged the corpses over to yours (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   James Brown wrote in message ... (...) the (...) after (...) would (...) I didn't say "is responsible", I said "is probably responsible." In this case, perhaps not, however, anyone having the opportunity to observe that someone is drunk does carry (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) funds (...) perhaps (...) border. (...) Well, you are responsible. Now if you can ever prove that your neighbor dragged the body onto your property, you might be able to sue him for damages. He's also (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) <FoynLG.JGJ@lugnet.com> (...) You seem to be taking this as a personal insult, Larry. What's with this perjorative labeling? If it's flippant, it isn't really worthy of response. If it isn't, then aren't you just taking a cheap shot? I (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Any CEO that keeps that much distance between himself and the company he's running won't be running it for long, and I wonder how he got there in the first place. If bad things happen while he's using his unique "hands off" approach to (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Hey, no way! I left the country! It's on YOUR property. :-) Further, for the example, it is important that it happens on your property. Now if you can ever prove that your neighbor (...) Already addressed: You can't prove it. And it happened (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   <388F65A5.9AD75FB2@voyager.net> <Foyr5w.Fo2@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) You yourself said it was an example intended to amuse at the start of the sub thread... I'm just playing along. (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   <Foyq1t.BEt@lugnet.com> <FoysHv.tu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Mostly, I just can't FOLLOW it. (...) Yes. Toll walkways may well exist. And, property owners may choose to provide free (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) No, I said it wasn't intended to be taken seriously. I was refering to my example only. But after thinking about it, I decided it may have legitimate repurcussions. My point really is that there can be a cost to a society by having an open (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) centralized (...) Why in the world are you running on about it? I don't understand. It was just the shortest-to-explain-example that the guy was walking on some public area. Mountain out of a molehill. (...) Mountain. Molehill. (...) I can't (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) No he didn't. Not while the laws are not in place yet, certainly. And what makes you think there will still be people willing to take that responsibility should you pass this? This way leads to either huge CEO salaries, to cope with insurance (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Short answer: You want to fly, don't you? Long answer: insurance premiums, high, plane tickets at 10-100 times current cost. Jasper (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38ac87e0.517825005@...et.com>... (...) Because you can't put a company in jail if it refuses to pay the judgement. This is why a PERSON MUST have ultimate responsibility. If they don't, the corporation can just (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38ad8949.518186155@...et.com>... (...) Actually, the short answer is that international treaty sets a ridiculously low limit for baggage loss/damage on international flights. On domestic flights, the limits are (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   <388F7A61.E86A728A@voyager.net> <Foyv25.HE6@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm just completely lost, Bruce, as to what point you're trying to make and what assumptions you've made in making (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I think you're doing fine. We seem to be getting forced into an invalid either-or trap. Your opposition is taking the "Either the CEO is personally liable for everything or no one is" tack, it seems to me. And that's just not so. Companies (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Good/Bad/Neutral (Was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) :) This is another either-or trap. I don't believe that people are inherently good, neither do I believe that people are inherently bad. Rather, I believe that peoples actions and thoughts are moulded by the environmental and social structures (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) OK, I was talking about once we were at the fully implemented system. Transition is always a problem, but those problems are not enough of a reason to look at a better system and opt not to strive for it. If we adopted a gradual aproach to the (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Except that the fines from the first time would be sufficient incentive. And would also be sufficient incentive to prevent all the other companies in that industry from following their example. Perhaps I'm not following you. (...) I don't (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I agree. And children and underlings are examples of extra responsibilities freely taken on. Chris (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) I take it you don't read your own messages. You have outwiggled me the whole way. (...) For someone who doesn't understand, you summed it up pretty accurately. You basically said if their is no public assistance then there can be no objection (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) Maybe in the example of the toppling stiff, the responsibility is an assumed or implied responsibility that comes with owning land or property? As opposed to a direct responsibility such as that of your children etc. (...) Bruce, I know that (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) or (...) Toppling stiff? I don't know why, but that phrase gives me the giggles. I love it. "Dear, there's another toppling stiff out by the jacaranda. Do you think you could pop out and clean things up a bit before the Burgess's arrive? (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Christopher Weeks wrote in message <389057B0.D972D535@e...se.net>... (...) Two comments. First, what do you propose to do with the (few) people who absolutely refuse to follow the rules of the society they participate in? At some point, putting (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) No, actually. Try "Either the CEO is personally liable for everything or the company is." I have no problems with the concept of a group of people being responsible, as a group, for what they do. (...) And I would say that if you are dealing (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Good/Bad/Neutral (Was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) inherently (...) believe (...) social (...) One problem is that those who believe in the inherent goodness of people sometimes shortcut things. What we really believe is that everyone has the inherent (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   James Brown wrote in message ... (...) corporate (...) Well, you may ultimately have to jail more that the CEO. I wish I could remember more. I seem to remember a recent case where a company officer was jailed because the company wouldn't do what (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) I agree there's a cost to someone. I just don't see it as a cost to "society". Some one entity or group of entities is going to be, bad luck for them, stuck with it. If this is what the entire anti immigration argument boils down to, I (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) When you put it that way it gives me the giggles too :) (...) Me too, and one day I might actually be right, and then where will we be? (1) Richard 1 - Fear. (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) I should hate myself when I am right??? Whatever. Bruce (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) No, you just need to get a little better at saying "you are right" than you currently are, that's all. There's no need for you to hate yourself about it. (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Good/Bad/Neutral (Was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Agreed! (...) Fence suggests a dichotomy, besides which, birthing atop a fence could be dangerous! I am curious as to why you think we are born 'good'. Not arguing, just curious - my reasoning would initially follow the evolutionary model, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) Please elaborate. We each seem to have a perception that the other is wiggling. Why is that? (...) Not exactly. I'd state it as, responsible for some bad occurance on my property that was an accident, not as, responsible for the immigrant (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) Larry, you cut the attrib to Richard, so you make it look like I was saying that to you (wiggle). Further, you cut the part that prompted my response (wiggle). The part was more critical of the person I was responding to (wiggle). That person (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused   Yes, I cut some stuff away, but my point stands. You need to be able to admit you're wrong when you are, and you need to admit that a point is proven when it is. I have no issues with my own record on that score, my honesty and integrity are pretty (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) I did. It was right there. I admitted it. *You quoted me*. All you were trying to do is get in a cheap shot. (...) You asked me about where I thought you were wiggling. I answered. Note that you accused me FIRST. Sorry you didn't like the (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Larry isn't amusing   (...) The preceeding line did not appear in Larry's original message, and the way it appears it seems to be written by him. This is not the case. I'm not quite sure how it got there, but I have double-checked, and he did not say it. I wish to (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      This whole thread isn't amusing any more...   (...) Thank you. (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Keeping the record straight (Was Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) To set the record straight, since it seems to be a sticking point, this was said in response to Richard, not to me. Trimming the thread the way I did might leave readers with the impression that Bruce admitted I was right about something, (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) As clearly stated above, I don't know. If someone were hell-bent on murder, I suppose they should be put down and parted out to pay for the whole affair - or their assets given to the kin of the victims. I suppose there should be some method (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) For one, the electorate has to agree to go to libertopia in the first place. (...) Personal liability now includes not only things you might possibly be indirectly responsible for, which already is very insidious, but also things you are not (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) I don't know exactly what you're smoking, but I think I'd like you to keep it away from me. How, pray tell, could we prevent lightning from ever striking? Note, _ever_ means _one_hundred_percent_ effective. Jasper (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) Larry, attributions are never, _NEVER_ "some stuff". Snipping attributions is not a good debating tactic, it's not clever, and in fact, it makes you look like an ass, which I know you aren't. If some notices you snipped attributions, the (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) Because you're both right. The one does not exclude the other. (you a bit less than bruce, to be fair, but still..) Jasper (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) It's not a better system, so that's entirely irrelevant. (...) I was in fact suggesting that the situation does not currently exist to the extent that it would. (...) Yah. Right. Big companies will always spend a dollar to save a cent (and not (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) You can sell all its assets, quite effectively reducing it to rubble. (...) If the CEO takes all the corporate assets when there is a fine outstanding against those assets, something criminal is happening that has _nothing_ to do with general (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Try "either the CEO is personally liable for everything his subordinates do, or those people actually committing the mistakes are". (...) What if "some damages" comes out to more than they can pay? In the majhority of cases, this is in fact (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) Yes, you're right. I should have been more careful in snipping attributions, when doing so might have left the wrong impression. I've apologised for that. I'll do it again. I hereby apologise for snipping attributions. Although I certainly (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) Note carefully that there is no claim that the following is *practical* or a good idea. Merely that it is doable. In fact it is hugely impractical and a terrible idea. Lightning is a good thing, actually, despite the fact that sometimes it (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) even (...) Yep, and we collectively agreed that the more successful people would do the major part in paying these taxes. Against their will (and rights) of course. (...) can't (...) People who are on (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) neighbor (...) because (...) Good for you. I am sure you found a much better place to go. I'm really glad you left. Where will you be when the people you are punishing decide to vote with their feet? (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (URL) Larry, Is this a new on-line store? & another questions. I it any good? Thanks -J.W.Hummer (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   I decided to go back and see what the actual story here was, that is, what it was I actually said that started this thread. Every one has been making assumptions about it, even me. In a post which I otherwise heavily trimmed, Bruce said the (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Keeping Larry Amused   FUT .market.shopping as this is a shopping-ish question (...) No, it's not a store. Rather, it's a way to get rebates. Many e-commerce websites have so called "affinity programs" where they pay a rebate/kickback (1) to the site that gave them the (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.shopping)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   I wonder if I stopped beating my head against the proverbial brick wall whether my ear problems would go away???? Oh, well, I'll keep beating, maybe I'll break through... Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3899b9ff.91276137@l...et.com>... (...) (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Jasper Janssen wrote in message <389abd55.92129852@l...et.com>... (...) That sure isn't what I'm arguing. First off, the people making the mistakes are ALWAYS responsible. However, the CEO can be held responsible if there is some flaw in the way (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) No you're not. There's just such a vast conceptual gulf between those that think that man is innately evil and those that think that he is innately good, that you may never be able to bridge it, distracting and disingenious accusations of (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Jasper Janssen wrote in message <389abd55.92129852@l...et.com>... (...) Oh yeah, that really worries me. (...) But its easy to get away with not doing it. (...) Move to China for ten years, and come back to this then. Better yet, just unlearn (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Heavily snipped for dramatic effect, because I'm grandstanding. (...) On the bright side, at least Libertopia will let you leave if you want to go, and aren't currently wanted for a crime or judgement, unlike those socialist worker paradises that (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) this (...) toothpicks (...) to (...) It seems like opponents of these ideas always try to make things more complicated... If all of the above is important to consumers, they will do the research, or they (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Agreed, as someone who's often on the other side(1), you're both doing a good job (generally) of getting your points across. Where the communication breaks down is at base level assumptions, and the fact that the medium is slightly awkward for (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) The managers that I've known were typically not forced into management at gunpoint. Maybe things work differently in NL, but I wouldn't have guess in that way. (...) But that doesn't make the company feel fear or pain. It might - if the sums (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      (canceled)        Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   Christopher Weeks wrote in message <38959983.1F02FD9F@e...se.net>... (...) janitor. Its not at all ludicrous. Every nuclear generator, even the portable ones, have a meltdown button. You know, just in case. (...) Sure does... if your a CEO you want (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38951CB8.C009E530@v...er.net>... (...) No need to explain! I'm just as guilty... (...) You hit the nail on the head, Lar. When their stock hits 666 its a clear sign of the end times. (...) All right! Now you're (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) See the smiley face next to my comment? It's only for the purposes of a hypothetical situation. Since the Libertarians (okay, some, Frank is always a pleasure to read) here are getting downright hostile, I'll drop out of this conversation (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I also happen to disagree that Christian belief necessitates "man is innately evil." That's because my religion descends from a Christian belief that believes that man is innately good (though most people in my religion do not consider (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Well, I'd disagree there, as well. Well, ok, sort of. I would suggest that many mainstream Christians have this belief, but that it is a misinterpretation of what mainstream Christian churches(1) are teaching - namely that man is inherently (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Political Parodies Music - Was:[ Art Debate, etc.]   (...) That reminds me of another great Parody was a Paul Shanklin remake of the Coolio song, AlGore Paradise. Hilarious! :) I also heard of a great parody off the Beatles "Yellow Submarine", entitled "We All Live in a Mellow Apathy." I love Paul (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) I'm not one for using ROTFL or even LOL. But this really did make me laugh out loud. Bruce, you're great! Pot | Kettle == Black Chris (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])   (...) Indeed. They are. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused   (...) Absolutely, I agree. It's a good habit to leav all the attributions in until the lat moment, so you know how many to leave in. An advice i'd do well to follow myself, of course... ;-) Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Then it's gone, also quite effectively reducing it to zero. My point is that it's not a good thing to punish mismanagement as if it's the same thing as whatever things the mismanaged underlings get up to. (...) If your manager is a floor or a (...) (25 years ago, 6-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) Hah! (...) Friends who travel regularly suggest the percentage is around 10-20%. And yes, they need better baggage-handling. But who is going to pay for that? Oh, and one tip: Never Ever leave old routing-tags on your bags if you want them to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)      Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]   (...) I'd dispute this... but Frank's question wasn't framed very well. So I'll just provide some anecdotal evidence. Now, this anecdotal evidence is applicable to domestic flights only, and to the carriers I fly most, but I have checked well over (...) (25 years ago, 6-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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