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 / *11126 (-20)
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) Now *that's* a worthy debate. It was actually my impression that the recent presidential election had higher than usual turnout, especially among African-Americans, but I don't have the numbers at hand to back that up, either (I'll check on (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) <snip> (...) That's not my intent at all. I'm sure we all could find other things to do with our time if much of our resposibility were removed. (...) Comprehension has nothing to do with it in my mind. I've seen the question arise about how (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say. (...) While I don't have numbers in front of me because politics is not my area of expertise, I am under the understanding that voter totals seem to be going down more every year, across the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) Ah, thank you. Your phrasing has made me realize what I've been missing in your previous posts, and some clarification from my "side" is indeed in order. Let me paraphrase and see if I'm understanding you: You're objecting to the assertion (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) It's easier to mock than say something substantive, I suppose. Let me note I never said I had superior knowledge of what it's like to be a woman. Anyway, here's some more rope - you're just proving the title of this string. Bruce (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) Fair enough. I should assert outright that a previous post of mine will probably have hit before this one makes it to the board, so I'm sorry if I overlap. We've gotten to the crux of your dispute with his post; that he seems to be speaking on (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) Applause.wav Clap, clap, clap, excellent performance. In one posting, you've relegated me as nothing more than a person with personal problems. Excellent comeback! I can see there is no point in debating anything with you. You obviously know (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Now: women and tools!
 
(...) Ah, women and tools. My favorite subject. I have several of the adjustable wrenches. Though I always use a screwdriver to pop open paint can lids, but it probably depends on what kind of paint can you're opening. I'm contemplating a new drill (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) I meant it as something of a joke, but I see I was correct: that ain't a chip on your shoulder, it's a boulder! If you are a Libertarian who can't be bothered, that's a personal problem of yours. If you are saying there are hordes of (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes: <snip...> (...) My wife says that opening jars is the only other reason women keep men around. ;) James (who probably does less than his "fair share" of the workload, but his wife keeps claiming she's (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) Not even going there. (...) party. Who is doing that? I'm certainly not doing that. If my posts sound that way, then I'm perhaps choosing the wrong words. You can take this whole "LP" thread and insert any other party you'd like there and the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) I do. (And I will again, if it keeps going.) I foolishly thought that I might appeal to reason, and see if off-topic.debate can be worth my while again, instead of being sucked up by the Scott & Larry show. <snipped 'He's the bad guy & I'm not (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) I was going to stay out of this but...(1) While I possibly agree with you Larry, this seems to be one of those times where it's appropriate for the parents to send BOTH kids to their rooms without supper. I still am not convinced it's good to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Now: Women Was: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
 
(...) I learned other ways from my mom that work a little better than those rubber thingies (we had those also). On a brand new jar, a well placed spoon does wonders to release the pressure. On an absolutely stuck jar, my mom had this adjustable (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: boulders on shoulders
 
(...) By her own assertion, though, she "was trying to respond to the "a failing on minorities and women to understand the Libertarian message."" She's responding to a point that wasn't being asserted; in effect, she's having an argument with an (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  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)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

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