 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Uh oh-- I better jump in and clarify. That sounded bad on my part. (...) I guess where I was going with that wasn't to suggest that having PMS *was* a choice-- I don't think it is. It was to say if it *were* a choice, would it be treated (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Tell me about it ;-) (...) Sure - IF it's part of the base PTO that EVERYONE in the company gets, not some "extra" PTO that only some people get. -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support | Netscape Communications Corp | A division (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Yes, I CHOSE to get pregnant - twice. I have an angelic son, and a beautiful baby daughter. I also discussed with my husband -before we were married- how *not* to get pregnant when we were finished with that phase of our lives. I can't take (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Not touching that one... That's a whole other heat wave. (...) My point was that it's an *elective* surgery. Pregnancy is generally an elective condition. Should people who choose to have an elective health-related procedure done be entitled (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Shiri, When you return to Israel, will you not have to serve in the military? Do they take your monthly cycle into consideration when they order you to fall in? As far as companies are concerned, you may be able to have a few options. Lots of (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) As I said in another post, though, whether they choose to GET pregnant isn't quite relevant. Whether they choose to STAY pregnant is their choice. (...) Lasik isn't relevant, really. I had it done, and was watching TV that night (I drove (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) PAID time off? If you don't also give Paternity leave, yes, it is. And that still makes it unfair to those that choose not to have kids. (...) Yes, it would be a choice, assuming that miracle pill had zero side effects for anyone. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Generally, I would say that this is the case, but not always. I'll leave that to another thread. (...) I don't necessarily agree with this, but I see your point. How about LASIK or other elective surgeries? As far as I know most people (at (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I dunno-- it may still be relevant... see below... (...) So, if they DON'T choose it, is it sexist/unfair to give women paid time off? Likewise, couldn't a woman choose to take the pill to at least lessen the effects of PMS? Or, embarking into (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Yes, yes, and no. This should really be in a separate thread, but... Women usually CHOOSE to get pregnant. I don't think they should get PAID time off for a medical condition they CHOSE to have. I also don't think parents should get paid Flex (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) <grinning> Well, it must really be your lucky day! I agree too. I don't think the government should regulate this either. It was made as a suggestion for private companies to decide for themselves - with the explanation of why it may be worth (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Wow, both Larry AND Selçuk agree with something I said in debate (oh happy day!). Magi (who generally posts here with fear and trepidation because of the mental energy expenditure involved in trying to defend oneself once one's views have been (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) How do you feel about maternity leave? Sexist? Should the husband get the same time off as the woman? Should they be paid? And yes, I do know some companies DO allow men to get time off. But it's certainly a lot more rare. I guess my point is (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
I would consider it sexist. I have no problem with giving the time off, but to be fair you'd have to give men the same time off. There are all sorts of physical ailments that people have that require time off, and most companies don't give paid time (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Hear Hear. My theory is that this is the way that a LOT of (most?) people actually feel. Despite that we have a lot of government meddling anyway. <snipped the rest because I agree with it too> (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I strongly agree about this point of view. I can see that this kind of privilege to women will reduce their employment, which is the real discrimination. I know this will be the situation in my country at least. You may also (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Are you suggesting that this time be in addition to any other sick time or PTO time? If you consider that a womans cycle is typically 28 days, this will occur 12.7 times a year, so lets round to 13 (1). This would result in 26 days off a year, (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Yeah, and it has seemed to me that when discussing how to solve some problem or social dilema, women are more likely to answer practically and men are more likely to answer with idealistic answers. And men and women tend to have different (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Right. (...) Hmm - yeah, many people seem to notice that. A lot of people mention how women seem to able to handle five conversations at once, while men have a hard time with two. Of course that's a broad generalization, but it's one example (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) My opinion on this issue is similar to mine on other issues regarding the personal goings-on of one's life (e.g., what kind of substances one uses, whether a person feels it's time to leave this earth, what one does with one's own reproductive (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) It certainly provides extra benefit to one sex (or both, if men get paid more because of it). Is that bad? I guess I think it's not ideal. (...) I don't think so. I can't pinpoint the differences, but it seems to me that men and women think (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
This is a non-issue if we pay workers for the work they do - not the time they spend at work. If we don't do this (it is not always possible), but give women 10% of the time off work, then it makes employers (esp. small ones) less likely to employ (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Well, depends how you define sexist, I guess :) Does it make sense? Sure. Is the impulse for you to suggest such a thing solely based on the fact that you personally (and women in general) would "benefit" from it (actually, as you implied, it (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is this sexism?
|
|
I'll try not to make this a long ramble, but a short and to-the-point suggestion, and a few questions. I think that companies should give women a day (possibly two) sick days off per month to deal with the physical symptoms of their menstrual cycle. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What the heck?
|
|
Lugnet said I was not allowed to post to lugnet.general in an earlier post. Someone please explain to me how I would not be allowed to post to lugnet.general? Here is the infamous red words you get when you screw up... Results: Your message was not (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Hehe. Good. I like you better this way! (From your .debate posts I barely recognize the funny guy I met at Brickfest last year! It took me awhile to convince myself I was not mistaken and it was the same person. You're usually so serious (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
Thanks for the response Shiri, I was begining to worry that my poor behavior had actually run everyone off from the topic. That, I think, would be an embarrassing first. I'll be disagreeing more politely now. :-) (...) In as much as you are (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Heehee - for a second there I thought you were saying that just coz *I* was popular doesn't mean I'm right. ROFL! OK, let me give a few examples, since it *is* a grey area, as Dave correctly pointed out (and you seemed to agree). I'm claiming (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET as an "Adult" site
|
|
(...) Seems a bit suss, although of course people can change over time. I had a go at the jal-baiting, failing to follow my own advice at (URL) : (...) IMHO the best response is to deal with them on their own terms. Leaving them alone is probably (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Lego buying stats
|
|
(...) My sister lives in a two bedroom two bath apartment in Santa Monica, probably considered a desirable neighborhood (whenever you see a Southern California street lined with those tall skinny palm trees in a movie, chances are good it is her (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) to (...) time. (...) If he had been so severe that I thought the other children needed their rights protected, I would have done so. In the instance that I'm thinking of, that wasn't the case. He wasn't bein egregiously abusive, he just wasn't (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) And in the meantime everyone ELSE has to put up with your child being a brat? You disgust me. You're one of the people that lets their children run rampant over everyone else, letting them "learn", and then "discuss" it with them afterwards. (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) But not unreasonable. Sure, some others may miss out on stuff of interest, but I don't think that makes it any less reasonable. (...) Thats a sweeping statement, and not always true. Sometimes continuing a conversation privately *can* bring (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Sure. Let me clarify the above. If we consider a spectrum of discourse from perfectly normal well intentioned fact and issue centric debate at one end, on through somewhat worse all the way to vitriolic insult orient fact free flamage at the (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) (And (...) I can see what you're saying, but that wasn't my intent. I would be satisfied to discuss the results of her (or your) attempt to codify (even with the understanding that the edges are hazy) what "too much," "too little," and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) You're creating a false dichotomy; by forcing Shiri to assert a hard line of distinction--knowing that such a hard line is by its nature impossible--you are attempting to say that no distinction can exist between "too much," "too little," and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) I do agree that as much as possible the "punishment" (consequences) should be related to the "crime". The consequences for mouthing off could result in no TV for the day if the consequence is actually "since you refuse to be civil today, you (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Why is there a limit? What is it? What is it based on? You go on to say some pretty commonly accepted stuff, but I'm not infering what this limit is. (And simply by being popular, doesn't make it right.) (...) It sounds like you think I'm (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it.....?
|
|
(...) Hmm.... I guess it depends on the contest. I mean, take the following three examples: 1) The Lottery. This is self evident-Winning is the only thing that matters. If you don't win, you don't get nay feeling of satisfaction or (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Well, would saying that mean that we would advocate keeping it public? I wouldn't. I'd just advocate dropping it, not spreading it into the public domain. (...) Again, are you suggesting that keeping it public would be better than keeping it (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Aint diversity wonderful? 8?) (...) Are you disappointed because you didn't get the answer you expected? Or just surprised? (...) Um, careful with the out-of-context quotes, Larry. I said "always a reasonable course of action". I then went on (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
I think we have discussed this before(?). I remember thinking that we are constrained by the attributes assigned to the "partisan" in the final para on this page: (URL) do not think the text I quote answers you question, because I doubt there (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) Moulton (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) It is the source of the collberation data I am taliking about. I have said this so may times, I fail to see how you could have missed this. Anyhow, I am actually fed up with all this now as it is clear to me that Larry is unwilling to justify (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
Some good discussion but nobody answered this question the way I expected, perhaps because I was a bit too subtle in trying hard to disengage from a particular situation (and Tim, you get marked down because you didn't stay general... :-) ) (...) I (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) I think I know the post to which you are referring, and it was so well crafted that I doubt the moron in question will even understand he has been dissed (rather severely for that matter). Anyways, I don't think its right to ostracise a moron. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) A large part of it seems to be the public performance -- if the only people who can see it are you and the person you're insulting, what's the point? But if you're caught in a cockfight it can be hard to back down without looking weaker, even (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Hmmmm. I guess that doesn't really answer the question, does it? But following on from what I said I guess when the negative feeling generated by a discussion out-weighs any positive interest, it's time to start thinking about going elsewhere. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Interesting topic. I'd say there are a couple reasons to both keep it online and to take it offline. The reason to keep it online is it's a newsgroup. As long as the topic pertains to the newsgroup, it MAY be of public interest to someone now (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GFB6DI.KC7@lugnet.com... (...) of (...) that (...) is (...) how (...) I think it ALWAYS a reasonable course of action. That doesn't necessarily make it correct. But I think anything (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:GFBCqy.Dw1@lugnet.com... (...) that (...) is (...) how (...) the (...) this (...) their (...) your (...) I think you should also start thinking even more carefully when others start emailing (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Ok. (...) :) (...) Well, ask yourself: Does my post, or my argument with this person, needlessly take away from the enjoyment of other users? Is this debate unnecessarily flooding the group? How many people am I currently engaged in argument (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) It was 101 for me!... Two years ago for me. Which is prolly why I remember better. ;-) -Shiri (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) I would like to dig into this notion a bit more. I think there are situations where it is flatly incorrect to advocate this. I want to stay out of the particular situation that provoked the request and not use it as an example, but I would (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Privatised endangered species
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote: <snipped a good reference that i'll read on my next trip to the public library> Part of today's" Diane Rehm show" on NPR focused on the conservation of Monarch Butterflies that I brought up in the same thread. I wasn't (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Ignore all the rubbish I wrote above I've now totally changed my mind. Steve (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it.....?
|
|
It's the cheese. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Ah, well. The point remains the same. Let me amend by statement thus: "It was too vague a punishment to have any lasting effect, even in terms of the removal of an desirable stimulus, to wit, dinner." And, anyway, it wasn't Psych 101--it was (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Surely the term Violence only covers actions that are meant to cause injury, permanent or otherwise. I'd be the last person to assult or injure a child, I just think with the undeveloped mind of a child sometimes a smack is probably the only (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is it.....?
|
|
I wanna know Is it the WINNING, OR the TAKING PART that matters!!!!? Steve (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) Below this line, you quote his stating that it was a hunch. What the hell more do you want from him. He stated clearly that it was just a hunch. (...) What the F are you talking about? What asinine story? Read the quote of him that _you_ chose (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." :-) Bruce (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) First off, quick comment. Negative reinforcement is the wrong term here - negative reinforcement refers to the removal of a bad effect, in response to a good action. Negative reinforcement receives the *same* effect as positive reinforcement, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) I agree with Dave and it's not like you have to smack the child for every transgression. Once you've smacked them for crayoning on the wall when they discover another inappropriate action you can inform them if they do it again, that too will (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
Firing up the ol' paranoia machine... (...) Matt who? Unplugging the paranoia machine... (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) Blah blah blah...WHO CARES!! I see you've been totally ignoring the point of this thread (The Scott and Larry Show has been reduced to childish actions carried out to the nth nitpick - and a bunch of us are totally annoyed with it) and my (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it ~OK~ for government to subsidise profit making industry?
|
|
(...) I agree with you. Like you say, it does make some sense. If there were jobs in that state it would make more sense (to me) to re-train them rather than export them. However, if you read the whole text, it is clear that they are moving from (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Postmodernist "power structure" drum-beating, if you ask me! Your assertion depends on the assumption that people can never grasp a concept of (culture- and society- based) right and wrong but instead must languish in an attitude of "the power (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it ~OK~ for government to subsidise profit making industry?
|
|
(...) Related: I had heard from a friend of the family when we lived in NY that NC had a history (in the 60s and 70s) of giving NC welfare recepients one way bus fare to NY. This got the person or family off the NC welfare rolls, and NY welfare (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it ~OK~ for government to subsidise profit making industry?
|
|
If it both saves money in the long run and gets people viable work, I don't see the problem (except of course that any government program is open to abuse or expansion beyond all reason). Reduces my taxes, too. This is a much better use of public (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it ~OK~ for government to subsidise profit making industry?
|
|
(...) It's probably cheaper to move the welfare recipient to another location with an open job market than try to find them a job in an area with a tight job market, and supporting them the whole time. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it does (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it ~OK~ for government to subsidise profit making industry?
|
|
(...) Because right now there are 1000's of people moving from the former eastern block to the UK under there own steam to work on UK farms etc. As far as I know, this is at no direct cost to the UK tax payer - why should it be? (...) Are the middle (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) Because it is laden with paranoia. (...) Now you are being obtuse Chris. The stats you mentioned are derived objectively. If, as you say, Larry did guess his stats, I would describe that as subjective. (...) You are being absurd. You need to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Several weeks ago, my step-son was going too close to the road. My wife and I gave him warnings and examples ("that's danger!") as to why he shouldn't get too close. He disobeyed soon after and was caught by me. I gave him another warning and (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) All US citizens, one presumes... (...) Well, it would be kind of hard to match those decimal places exactly when you had 10 points in the sample, but I see your point. :-) (...) Not a chance. You see, Lugnet does not represent the Lego-playing (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it ~OK~ for government to subsidise profit making industry?
|
|
(...) Why is that? (...) If they have to rob from the rich (or more accurately, middle class) to give to the poor, at least this way they're doing it in a way that supplies the poor a way to see to themselves. What could you possibly object to? (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) Wellll, one of you are anyway. (...) How so? (...) What consensus is that? What I think is that he made an educated guess. When you are quoting government statistics, those are also educated guesses. So his statistic is as valid as the numbers (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Lego buying stats
|
|
Thank you very much for the inputs Maggie..:-) (...) Actually, although we (me and my wife) earn quite above the average in Turkish terms, (minimum legal wage is 107 million TL here, and 1 USD=1.25 million TL), I think it does not buy us a decent (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is it ~OK~ for government to subsidise profit making industry?
|
|
Occasionally, I am in favour of government intervention in the employment market. Despite that, when I read the story below, I thought this was the one area where companies and individuals did not need handouts / subsidies. Can it really be ~OK~ for (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) Larry, You really are being obtuse. We could all speak many truths about many users here, but most of us do not - as we know it is insulting and because we are civil. I am happy for you to continue to insult me (just like, to a certain extent, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
I agree with you Dave. I think actual question I am asking Larry is very minor. But the reason I am asking the question which is important. As I have said time and time again, I have become tired Larry making assertions and accusations which he (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) My valuation changes on a session to session basis. I've been playing for almost 25 years (and I'm sure there's one or two people who can best me on the years). The biggest thing that I identify as a preference is not so much style of play, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) Well, the involvement of another person is certainly an important factor. Like I said, I haven't really dug into what the differences are between the various mental stimulations that I enjoy, but what I do know is that I need something beyond (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Privatised endangered species
|
|
Hi all, We were discussing free market solutions to environmental issues a while back. I was just reading the March 2001 Smithsonian magazine, and there is an article called _The Rhinos Are Baaack!_. In this article it discusses private game (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Punishment doesn't teach what the punisher normally expects. It merely teaches the recipient to avoid being caught. It also creates a divide between the authority and the punished, rather than bringing them together team-wise. (...) But I (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GF928K.xD@lugnet.com... (...) Some of the time, but not all of the time. And I'd say, beyond a certain point, the majority won't care who is at fault - because its been beaten down so (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> Like I said, it *does* matter who is at fault, some of the time. I reject the notion that there is no difference between the person who asks silly questions and the person who just can't resist (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
Frank and Lindsay write: (...) Higher than what? (...) I've been asking something of RPGers for years: Does what you value about playing RPGs lean more toward the role-playing (i.e. acting) or more toward the problem solving? I've been playing RPGs (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) True. But are problem-solving and critical analysis that different? The only difference I can see is that the latter is played out against a second thinking human being (which, granted, is significant). Is this why we engage in office (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Separate but equal?
|
|
(...) Yes and yes. I support the right of Mr. Livingstone in his attempt to form segregated schools in order to protect a class of students from society. But I think it is the wrong solution. From the article: (...) If this is a serious problem (I (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
Y'know, the odd thing is I usually find Scott's remarks to be rather arguing the absurd, but I will admit that he's not wrong. Just pointless. (...) You're absoloutely right. Larry should indeed indicate that his statistics for the countries he was (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:GF7zI5.LBL@lugnet.com... (...) Here you two go AGAIN! You obviously haven't gotten the whole point of this thread. I doubt many of us CARE who is right, who is wrong, who is insulting who, or (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Separate but equal?
|
|
(...) Yes. Was there something else you wanted to know? ;-) ++Lar (24 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) Programming does require higher brain function, but it tends to be very different from the critical examination used in debate. I haven't ever gone deeply into the types of stimulation I get from each activity that I do, but there are definite (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) I just re-read the page and the numbers are in thousands, my mistake.... (...) -Duane (24 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Separate but equal?
|
|
Anyone have an opinion? (Now THERE'S a silly question!) (URL) Dave! (24 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) OK, here's some personal data from my observations. All AFOLs (10) that I have met (granted, a small sampling) in person have been white. Of those, one was a female. According to November 1, 2000 US Government Census estimates: (URL) of the (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) Oh. My. Goodness. Say this isn't so, Frank! I'd debate you, but I'm afraid we don't have that much to argue about. :) I had somehow presumed your job would require some sort of higher brain function--but am I taking mental engagement for (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) I agree 100% Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
