 | | Bulk Purchases: 100 lb too small
|
|
The "funny" column of the WSJ today (9/10/02) tells how Adult Fans of Silly Putty organized bulk purchases and annoyed Dow Chemical with small 100lb orders. "Ten pounds is bigger than your head" says Jeff Kivert. But fans express frustration with (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Test
|
|
Just testing to see if i can post ok. Hasta La Vista, Sean (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | Re: Cool looking clone on Ebay
|
|
(...) (URL) It appears that the seller has saturated the market! Anyone who's interested should probably wait a few weeks to see if he re-lists any of the sets for considerably less $$. I have the Tank and the Police Copter on the way, and I'll give (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Hooray--we agree! That's been my intended point all along, in both this exchange and in the previous debate a month or so ago! I absolutely, totally, completely, and unequivocally support your right to religious freedom and freedom of speech! (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) My point is that it is okay to protect *all* matters of freedom of religious expression up and until people fly planes into buildings... k, that was a little far--my personal philosophy has *always* been that anyone can believe what they want (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) As long as you understand that "Young Hedonists for Satan" has the same rights of access and same protection under the law... Brucifer Devil's Advocate for the Day :-) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Re: The ballets are in.. attn: Daniel
|
|
(...) Nothing wrong with that - as long as the shirt is inside out! G. (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) When you adequately explain from where our government claims our rights originate, then we can talk about the constitutionality of "God language". -John (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) If "apples" = "why does the State in one case have the right to endorse or restrict religion" and "oranges" = "why does the State not have the right to endorse or restrict religion," then I am indeed comparing apples and oranges. What's your (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Apples and Oranges... In this one, a bonafide extra-curricular school group deserves the same status as any other extracurricular school group. It'd be like saying--'Hey you in the Chess club--we think you're geeky so you don't get any (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
