 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) lol, sorry if I came across like that, I was just wishing that mine was not as high as it is. I have a one bedroom apt, so I know my bill is less than many others, so I do feel lucky for that. (...) True, but your state will follow soon, Cali (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: July surprise for castle fans!
|
|
(...) Absoloutely fine. Heck, that's probably why Anthony started this part of the thread. And I certainly agree that there are those who want 'em. I guess what I was suprised at was the sarcasm. [FUTting to o-t.debate just in case]. If you want to (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (was: Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section)
|
|
(...) lol, was it me? ( (URL) ). My post there says what I would have posted here. (...) Good point! Basically, the core of it is the same thing? Even has the 'cool' part. I can not recall many (note: I said recall, not saying there has not been) (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) No, that's not it. I'll try to track it down for you. I got it from a recent debate about the proposed Patient's Bill of Rights. D (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: But I was serious about the c/can/cannot thing. What does that mean? Dave! (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I am not aware of any deregulation of the medical industries, at least not in this country in the last, oh, 70 years or so. Can you elaborate? Or were you meaning deregulation like what California did in the case of the power industry. That (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) many cases, not all cases. So no, what you think I said isn't right. (...) Sometimes they are. Steve Jackson Games won a suit against the government I believe... The upside of small corporations is that it's possible to win against them. The (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (was: Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section)
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> (...) Good post, good point, good debate fodder, Tim. I'm ambivalent, I do think that maybe "cool kids" may be a bit TOO judgemental... but dodgeball (I was always picked last and usually out first (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Where does all this c/can/cannot stuff come from? Is it English, or is it some esoteric computerese? FUT OT.Geek? Is that right? The gov't can't be sued for anything? I thought they simply weren't subject to civil suits, but were subject to (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
I think you have a few nots missing, and a few added where they do not belong (...) c /can/cannot/ in many cases. Nor can government employees. (Libertopian corporations would have no such immunity for their personnel) (...) That is, has the power (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
