To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
To LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / *37099 (-10)
  weasels are eating my flesh...
 
(...) With the technology (similar to that of) Carnivore, it could have happened already, web crawling spiders may well have already taken down the names of everyone who ever posted to this newsgroup as potential subversives. How's that for a cheery (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  American soldiers in Canada...
 
I don't have a source available; I was wondering if anyone else has heard/read about American military forces joining with Canadian to "protect" the Northern coasts against terrorist infiltration. The idea worrys me. I've actually considered getting (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) "here" == lugnet.off-topic.debate not merely this particular thread. Our republic is broken, at least to some extent, I gave you 3 examples of why, out of many many many more possible ones. That's completely on topic to where this thread is (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  NEat-o keen!
 
I was playing with the Google catalogs beta I just posted about here: (URL) I came across these: (URL) went to school in Seward, so found these pretty funny. Also, I remember a thread about this Jeep set from Japan...obviously they do licensed sets (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.loc.us.ne)
 
  Re: Punk!
 
(...) Dunno about the Dead Kennedys, but I've seen Jello Biaffra on his own and he's worth catching. James (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
 
  Re: Punk!
 
(...) Yikes! So now the Dead Kennedys are THE washed-up, has-been rockers that continue far past any real interest in them. Who knew? Now they join the ranks of Pink Floyd, The Stones, The Who, etc. I wouldn't waste my time seeing any of these old (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
 
  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) I was just thinking, this last bit is the answer to the claim that we are stick on an outdated piece of paper. If the 2nd really is not appropriate as originally intended, then lets change it. The Constitution tells us how to change it. If a (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) to (...) But it's typical to assume that the factors which multiple study venues (in this case) fail to have in common are most likely trivial in their causative power when compared to a single factor that is common across the study. If a (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
(...) Sign me up for that! Darn solicitors--thank you but I already have one more credit card than I need (have a grande total of 1) I don't need any more newspaper subscriptions, I don't need my carpet cleaned, I don't need your magazine! Stop (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Gerrymandering? Brought up in this thread? Like h-e-double hockey sticks they have, Larry... Do a search in this *entire* thread and show me, up until this post of yours, when (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

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