| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> This thread was happily ensconsed in .debate, where it belongs.
> I'm not sure why SRC pointed it back to .general again. I didn't
> notice that, and I apologise that my (immediately prior to this)
> reply to him didn't correctly point it back to just .debate... sullying
> the placid .general waters with a riposte meant for the stormy
> sea of .debate alone. Sorry about that.
(“Back to .general again”? – It was never there that I’m aware.)
I sent a copy to .general since that was the best group I could
find to share Frank’s great nuke joke. I figured that any follow up
would be to the same .off-topic.debate group that it was in reply to.
I should have realized it would branch and explicitly set the RFT,
which I have done this time, now that I've explained. The sullying
is entirely my fault – I await my penance instructions. :-)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > The argument advanced by some that there is a clear and present
> > > > danger so strong that we have to ban SUVs a priori isn't supportable...
> >
> > " a priori " ???
>
> Sorry, that Canadian education must have been letting you down:
It did, but when I checked my dictionary, I found “priori” isn’t there.
(If a_priori is one word, why is it written as two words?) And lest
you think me too disadvantaged, should not ensconsed, apologise, and
inadvertant be ensconced, apologize, and inadvertent? 8-)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > Why, if these are good ideas, is it necessary for there to be regulation?
>
> I know this idea rankles your Libertarian side, Lar, but easily 80% of
> the US needs "good ideas" to be regulated for them, because they wouldn't
> understand consensual logic and working together if it bit them on the...
Exactly – Common sense unfortunately isn’t so common.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > we'll drive on the right side of the road, that red lights mean stop,
> > > that you have to pass certain standards to operate the motor vehicle
> > > on public property, that insurance is required, that all vehicles meet
> > > certain safety standards, (like having the same bumper height...) etc.
> >
> > Why, if these are good ideas, is it necessary for there to be regulation?
> If you'd add onto this a policy of full disclosure, I think I'd
> agree here. My concern is that there could easily be a practice of
> rug-sweeping, under which companies do whatever they feel like doing...
> And, while we're discussing the contents of hot dogs, let's not
> overlook rodent hairs and hog anus!
Good point – even WITH all the regulations we have problems, but eweh!
SRC
(Who’s glad he had fresh Salmon caught by a friend for lunch.)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
