To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *11111 (-100)
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) At the risk of starting another thread, I have been reading the posts, but this whole new thing of reading a post, responding, then going and downloading my email, pulling up the emailed link for the posting, clicking on the button to post the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) Everyone that is bothered by it ought to. I ought to, for that matter. (...) I admit I ought to do a better job of ignoring Scott Arthur's drivel. But I just don't suffer fools gladly, and when he gets going full steam my perception of him as (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) You can clarify all you want, I've read them all. I think Katie raised a valid point though. (...) It may not be that it *isn't* convincing, or viable. It may just be that women and minorities are too busy fighting other fires to participate. (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Great idea! You wouldn't have lasted four years here though. My dogs would have just eaten all your socks in that time. You wouldn't have to worry about learning to wash them though, you'd just be buying new ones all the time :-) (...) (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) any (...) Amen! (...) or (...) Can't eat out. I live in the country, the nearest "town" is 11 miles away and only has *2* so called restaurants. Interesting thread though....... I eat soup out of a can and my dogs eat chicken, and fresh (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) Katie, at the risk of enflaming your obvious passion on this issue, have you been reading Bruce's clarifications (and/or mine) of Bruce's original point? He's several times rephrased the original post, but it seems that you're irritated at a (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) Duane, You hit the nail on the head. I was trying to respond to the "a failing on minorities and women to understand the Libertarian message." Katie (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) Insults are insults. I guess to apply an adjective depends on the perception. I've seen people insulted at the infantile level, and I've seen them insulted on a level so high that they didn't even know they were insulted. (...) They are never (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) It took my wife nearly four years, but she finally got me to pick my socks up off of the living room floor. Of course it might have been the fact that she taped them to a ceiling light fixture just as company was arriving.... :-) Anyway... My (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Self-made diet
 
(...) Mmmm.... Culinary auto-cannibalism! Dave! (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) I think you missed James' point - you can't control Larry, you can only control yourself. I need to remind myself of this all the time. :-) Bruce (ooooo, sorry, that was a dig at myself, not Larry!) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) When are insults not infantile? Whaen are they ever required? (...) I am trying to be constructive. Are you? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Idunno, faced with the prospect of eating my wife's cooking or learning to cook myself, I chose the latter. Don't complain about the moose-turd pie unless you are willing to become the cook. :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) I hear what you are saying James. But I have went much further than Larry ever has. I am not going to stand by and let him try to insult me. I do not expect you would either. Let's just wait and see how Larry responds to my posts. Scott A (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) "If only...." "Infantile insults"? That sounds like an insult in itself. It sounds like you are trying to avoid any responsibility what-so-ever. -Duane (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) In words, but not in deeds. <snipping again.> You're missing the point, Scott, and you're still trying to dance. I don't care if you think Larry is leading or not; every time you bring this up ("if only Larry" "if Larry just" "if he just did (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) I agree with you 100%. This would be much less mess if Larry just answered the points I put to him. He throughs insults at me, I ask him questions in return. He just is not willing to justify his opinion in any way: A recent one : (URL) older (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Katie, Sounds to me like you just have bad luck on finding men ;-) Men AND women should realize that they are NOT going to change their spouse in any major way. And there are men out there that like to cook, you just need to look harder - or (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) As I see it, her response (and she can CMIIAW!) was basically a rant triggered by issues you raised. You just happened to be the one to set it off. I recognize it because at one time or another I have agreed with everything she wrote-- okay, (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) You are correct - it's like the rest of the quote, even when I point it out, is invisible. Dang. Anyway, yes, I am of the opinion that women and minorities *do* get the message and don't buy it. But I was trying to leave it open at the time to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) <snip the "If only Larry" part> If you're really trying to quit, you're failing miserably. It takes two to tango, and you guys have been dancing together for a long time. James (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) I agree with you. I try my best – I really do. If Larry just stuck to the debate, rather than get personal, there would be much less noise. For the record, I try never to get personal / resort to insults and I never say anything here that I (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Yes, the racism was at least party government sponsored. But I think it is a mistake to blame some government bogeyman rather than admitting that it was a reflection of the electorate. And yes, there was pressure put on businesses and (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) As demonstrated by the +/- 300,000 votes the LP has typically garnered in presidential elections, many people apparently place the LP at a lower priority than other matters! In any case, Bruce's point, if I may be so bold, was not to assert (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) Nope. (...) Don't know. I've posted about it once before. I really wish they'd take it to email, or just can it. Barely anyone else finds the discussions intellectually intriguing enough to respond. -Shiri (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Nor any drop to drink
 
(...) That's not at all true--there's a toilet down the hall with blue water, and it's indoors. (...) <cap ish> adj. of or pertaining to a cape Dave! (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) As I interpreted it, and mind you it could be a case of snippage, she was responding to "A failing on minorities and women to understand the Libertarian message?". She seemed to be pointing out that she is a woman and does get the message. It (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Nothing personal, but...
 
Am I the only one around here who adds off-topic.debate to their skip filter whenever the Scott & Larry show gets going at full steam? Like I say, it's nothing personal, but it is blatantly obvious that you two don't see eye-to-eye, don't understand (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Yep... the molecules in the atmosphere are the ones causing the sky's blue appearance. That's also why the sun appears yellow on the background of the sky (blue and yellow are complementary/opposite on the RGB scale, which is what our eyes (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) The media says I should be. And I think the explosion of eating disorders among teen age girls says that they are getting the message. I personally ignore all advertising. I'm a marketers nightmare. I don't believe or pay attention to any ads (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Really? (...) I am not asking you to justify that - not even anything near that difficult. As I said before, I am only trying to get you to justify your statements. I have became tired of all your unsubstantiated facts and hollow opinion. (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) At least one person was found guilty. Fact enough. Is your line not that the proprietor should be free allow skin colour to decide the level of service s/he provides? That s/he should be allowed to humiliate a fellow citizen purely because of (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Yet again, you have snipped my points rather than respond to them. (...) It is my perception. I may set aside time to find a quote later. (...) Youch, another insult! (...) Is this a mantra thing?? (...) Perhaps you should read this (again): (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
Tom answered you quite adequately already. You, however, don't seem to grasp just how ridiculous you look for repeatedly asking me to justify my opinion that LUGNET is more white and more male than the averages when everyone else in the thread has (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
You ought to wait 2-3 days, at least, before bumping... (...) discriminate at all. Not enough facts in the story to judge what is going on in this particular case. Not an important enough case, really, to justify my trying to research it further to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Please provide a cite where I said this. I don't claim EVERY problem can be solved better, (For example the problem of your obdurateness is no doubt insoluble under any system) just that the aggregate of all problems would be solved better, on (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Gasohol?
 
Snip most of it (...) Me either. A number of relatives on my wife's side are farmers (corn in MI, dry wheat in Colorado, etc.) and I really really feel bad for the US farmer, he has been seriously messed with for 70+ years now. ++Lar (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) But I am sure that there would be many who would be willing to pay a premium to send their kids to a "whites only" school or use other whites only services. With your text above, we return to the LP's dilemma. The LP is made up of a membership (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
** bump ** (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) All (...) Really? (...) I am not asking what you *could* do, I am asking what you *did* do. (...) Nope, this is an illustration of how hard it is to get you to justify yourself on an exceedingly minor (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
It is your choice to put things on the petty level of "winning" or "losing." In my opinion, I find that attitude quite cowardly and childish and only contributes to the impression that you take little responsibility in your actions. Since rudeness (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Gasohol?
 
Ignoring the total net energy balance, here's another load of crap you can vent on if you wish: The EPA says 15% ethanol gasohol gets no worse mpg than 0% ethanol gasoline. Anyone with a brain can look up the BTU/lb output of ethanol and quickly (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) My last word on this - you are the only one showing hostility. I may be rude (In your mind), but if you equate rudeness to hostility, you have issues you need to work out with a therapist. That's it, I'm done with you. You can say all you want (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Gasohol?
 
Boy, that's an even scarier "solution"! I'll get fed up with Kalifornia sooner or later. It would probably be safest to move to Texas at this point, because if GW screws with his home state, he's liable to not live out the year (some of those (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Gasohol?
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes: Snip (...) ADM, just about my least favorite corporation. I don't know what I hate worse, their welfareism, or their smarmy ads on the sunday talking head shows about their goshdarn good for the world (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) <snipped my comments> (...) HE is the one who initially chose to be aggressive, not me. I never offered any deliberate provocation and never insulted his views, opinions or statements. When I told him to mind his tone (and this is not the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Gasohol?
 
Just move to Canada. (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) Look Dan, (is Dan right?) You're still inviting him to step outside. You aren't staying in the bar to smash a bottle over his head, but you ARE inviting some kind of further agression. Why? What if he did come down to LA, ring your doorbell, (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda (was incorrectly referred to as SPAM elsewhere in the thread)
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> ** bump ** (from UBB boards, the practice of replying to something that you hoped would get a reply so that the thread floats to the top of the list of things again) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> I think you raise some good points but I'm not sure how to proceed since we seem a ways a part. As with Shiri's post about working conditions, I am not going to claim that things are not (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
<Important message: Please bear in mind that my questions are meant to be rhetorical, and not attacking. I am a white male, but I am not about keeping the woman down. Thank You.> (...) You are? Says who? Who will refuse to speak to you if you're (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Is the sky blue in Libertopia
 
(...) You're only proving my point. :-) Beside, the sky isn't blue. Bruce (lost somewhere in the SoCal haze) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) ? But I didn't even mention absorption! Blathering on about absorption when discussing a phenomenon that is entirely due to scattering - now THAT would be anal-retentive. ;) Jeff J (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Wow. A delayed reaction insult. It was just sitting there saying "don't touch me". Scott A (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) "(we'll skip the dicussion on light absorbtion and leave it for some anal-retentive type)" (restored snip) I knew some anal-retentive type would take the bait.... :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Easy to ignore them, not so easy to deal with all the other people in the world/society around you that do not ignore them. And in fact buy into it. (...) Count? As in 2 plus 2 is 5? <grin> (...) As some one who lives within spitting distance (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) I think there are many pressures on men too. Modern man does not just go out and to a bit of huntin' and gatherin' - he also has to do all other sorts of other stuff. Both men & women are hounded by media images of what we should (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Actually... Although water and the sky appear blue for the same reason, it is not directly related to water itself (in vapour or liquid form). Oxygen, nitrogen, and water molecules are all approximately the same size, which happens to be just (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) This is a good example of poor snipping. Let me restore the salient portion to the above (before my name, immediately follwing the rest): "A fear by them that they *think* they *do* understand the Libertarian message (it's legit for businesses (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) Us "women" do understand the message. You think I have time to be active in the Libertarian party? I'm too danged busy fighting all the other stereotypes out there, such as, I'm supposed to be the size of Kate Moss and all the other starving (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: McViegh is no Libertarian
 
(...) You assume I am not one? :-) (...) Do not have to sign a pledge to be a libertarian? (...) Can you be sure of that? How so? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) So where would that outlook stand on this story: (URL) (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) So where do Dave and I differ on this? How is there a class is difference between our views? (...) Where did I say that? Where? I think they are less likely too. I think any ideas they would have would be treated very sceptically. But I do not (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) You are wrong. Youch, an insult! (...) Youch, an insult! Go back and read the 1st message in this thread, you will see this whole "debate" is a troll. BTW - I have no middle name. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  How to make the ¢ sign (as in "My 2¢")
 
(...) Richard (and anyone else who has been *aching* to use the ¢ sign: From: (URL) (cute page, go see it) Mac users have it really easy. In whatever application you are in, type option-4. Viola! (gotta' love them Macs!-Matt) Windows folks... well, (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)  
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) That was the quote! Thanks Shiri! Dan (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Waco (time for a Subject change already)
 
(...) Tom, I've made my points, and stand by them. You are attempting to put words in my mouth, and I'm not sure why. Try reading and understanding BEFORE you type next time, please, 'cause I don't appreciate it. (...) Not even interested in having (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) Selçuk both gave the quote, and couldn't remember who said it. Either way though, I still like the quote in its out-of-Stalin context. ("The death of one is a tregedy, the death of millions is a stastic.) The way Stalin used it, it's (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) Yup! Small steps leading to bigger, and bigger steps. Think of how far we've come just in one century! At the same time, as Carl Sagan said, we are still in our stage of "global infancy" and need to get past the petty, destructive differences (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: McViegh is no Libertarian
 
(...) I honestly don't know the answer to this one. Animals don't have rights the way we do but I still don't think that being cruel to animals is OK. I have heard claims the market can take care of most of it if a little publicity is used... But (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
I've made no threats to seek you out and do you any harm. If you wish to continue your hostility just know that you can ONLY do it on-line with me. Remember, that's your limit and that's the way it is. YOU suggested otherwise so if YOU would like to (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) My point is that while that is true NOW we would be foolish to let it be so for a billion, a million, or even a thousand years longer. Manifest destiny! Ad Astra Per Aspera. Our destiny is not to remain here, every single one of us, for the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
I'd much rather be rude than a threatening bully (used to be one when a child, when not being bullied, and choose not to be that kind of person again). You have been far more rude than me in this. That's it, I'm done commenting on your threats and (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
I'm giving you an honest appraisal of what I perceive to be your problem of treating me rudely on-line. I haven't called your comments ridiculous or idiotic, nor have I previously approached you with sarcasm or cynicism. Nothing you can say will (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Gasohol?
 
Time for a new topic. Is anyone else as sick of Bush as I am? That man's head is stuck so far up the ass of industrial interests it scares me. I can't imagine what asinine BS that jerk is going to pull next. All I know is that it is SURE to hit my (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: McViegh is no Libertarian
 
(...) Just curious on this last bit. One thing I've struggled with some is where it is appropriate for the law to step in. How much should the law step in to prevent animal cruelty, and how do we chose that line. This type of dilema strikes me as (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Waco (time for a Subject change already)
 
(...) Yes, you've shown yourself to be the polar opposite of someone else in this forum, and I can't understand why you're not debating HIM. To you, it's "all hail the gubmint, which can do no wrong" or "if it's a law, it must be right". The both of (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
Insults, insults, insults. Everything is insults with you. If you're not crying about getting them, you're dishing them out. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
This will be my last long post in this debate. If anyone has points to debate further with me, please break them down into smaller bite size chunks, where I can reply quickly. I have devoted far too much time to these posts, and it is starting to (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
There were many ways you could have approached my statement that reflected a desire for more clarity, yet you chose to be rude and obnoxious. You chose hostility over diplomacy. That's your game and I'm not impressed. You are the one with the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
Whatever. I'm not impressed. Learn some manners and treat people with a little dignity. You choose to be rude and insulting on-line, that's your choice. You choose to pigeon hole people in this forum, that's your choice. See where it gets you in (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) No, the only thing that inflated this was your blatant lack of clarity. You seem to put VOLUMES of extra background into: "Everything that has ever happened or will ever happen with mankind has taken place on this tiny, blue world. Since we (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) I see what you mean. Physical solutions are not my thing. I was hoping that my statement would be a reality check of sorts. Either way, his crude behavior toward me will remain on-line as far as I'm concerned. (...) Yes, I always welcome Tom's (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) I was going to post some other drivel (about on the level of the above - actually, I did post, but I Cancelled it), but I'll just drop it with... <insert picture of gorilla beating chest here> <yawn> And I really will drop it. If Dan wants to (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  (canceled)
 
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) Well, it kind of sounded (in two different notes) like you were inviting him to "step outside" about it. I'm not used to that kind of attitude. I am occasionally so put off by a note that I feel an urge toward violence. That is an immaturity (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) The (s) thing is new to me. Emoticons are OK sometimes, I use them when I think there's a doubt about my intent. (...) I thought I was going along with you. And I thought it was clear...sometimes I miss. Sorry. Chris (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) Personally, NO, because the earth has a history of mass extinctions that take place every so many million years apart. So, within a billion years there can be any number of mass extinction events followed by the rise of "new" organisms to (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Libertarian Propaganda
 
(...) What do you gain by being smug in your insults? Why not either discuss the topic, or not? (...) I haven't and won't pretend to know your mind. I will continue to assume that you mean what you say. I can hardly do anything but. (...) Maybe you (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) <snipped some stuff> (...) Hey, I don't want to fight Tom or anybody, Chris. If Tom feels he can constantly take a nasty tone with me on-line, that's his choice. It doesn't impress me. If he says he's this way in person, he's welcome to come (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) <snipped some stuff> (...) Hey, I don't want to fight Tom or anybody, Chris. If Tom feels he can constantly take a nasty tone with me on-line, that's his choice. It doesn't impress me. If he says he's this way in person, he's welcome to come (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) Why do I see Larry, and a bunch of other Libertarians, walking around in a pack, wearing leather and satin jackets, snapping their fingers and executing high dance kicks? 8?) (...) Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha...*ga.....s..sorry Larry...*guffaw*... Matt (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) Now, see? If you were truly using the criteria as you stated before*, I would have expected a smiley emoticon, or at least an (s), to help a reader understand the state of mind the statement had been given in. Did you really intend that as a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) Well I AM a troublemaker with a warped view of reality, trying to get some sort of club going, you know. What can I say, I love it when a plan comes together. (s) Seriously I ought to try to take your advice (that I snipped), but it's hard, I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) Oops...sorry to all the kiddies out there! X-P (All joking aside, I figure if I can hear words on the Simpsons at 6:00 in the evening, I can type them here...then we can ALL live like kings...DAMN, HELL, ASS KINGS!) (...) Yepp-ers...'tis true. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) Sorry for butting in, then, because I can see that you and he are doing *so well* at dealing with the actual assertions and issues... I don't know what I was thinking suggesting that you might be wrong about something or that you might be (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) I think you meant "darn" enlightening, bub. :-) Well I am not sorry for starting the thread, but I am sorry that it seems to be demonstrating what has been said about some people in the past as being valid. Some people more than others, but it (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) Yeah, Larry! It's your fault that Tom is rude and that Daniel wants to fight him over it. Shame on you. Actually, I have found it wildly instructive to force myself to appreciate someone who is being rude to me. In certain usenet forums that I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
(...) Boy Larry, I am SO glad you started the 'Libertarian Propaganda' thread. (s) This is just do damn enlightening. Matt [Remember, the (s) stands for sarcasm, in case anyone misses it] (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
 
Whatever. If you're saying you behave this crude in person, why don't you come down here to LA and show me? Otherwise, keep the bullsh*t to yourself and stop hiding behind your computer. Learn some manners. Dan (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more | 100 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

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