 | | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) I agree. This piece by Gingrich touches on this (and other points you make). (URL) is quite thoughtful. I had no idea he could think this clearly. Why I am reading the NR so much lately I cannot say, exactly, but I wonder. I found Principle 8 (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) lack of clear, tangible objectives that have been communicated. There's been too much rhetoric issued from the White House. A War to eradicate Terror is just another War on Drugs - an impossible, wasted effort. Our primary goal should be to (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
|
(...) I doubt most o-t-debators would choose seriously from any of the above options other than the 3rd, though maybe that's just me. I can't see actually wanting to ban either of you based on your previous content. A poll to the first set of (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GL00zG.IEF@lugnet.com... (...) Lighten up. I should have put a smiley on it Oh, and my vote is no one should be banned. No one forces anyone to read or reply to what is posted here. (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) Here's some more for you to laugh at (and others to think about). (URL) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Propaganda War" from the Economist
|
|
an important PS... (...) impoverishment != 500,000 children starving. (...) So do I. *some impoverishment*, after all was the *point* of the sanctions. My beef with them is that they're not impoverishing the *right things* (his palaces and his (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
|
(...) "hit a nerve"?? Hardly. You get on my nerves, it is true, and your allegations have precipitated a call for action on my part. (...) I can see why you'd ask this question since you have so little acquaintance with it, but I can assure you, the (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Propaganda War" from the Economist
|
|
(...) I've given multiple cites. Who are you to question me this way? What informs your opinion of anything for that matter? Foamer. (...) No change of heart. (...) Still feel that way. (...) Still feel that way. (...) Let's review. It is possible (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
|
(...) Hear, hear! Bionicle has very little to do with LEGO, but it's granted its own on-topic posting group. OT.Debate need not be read by anyone not wishing to do so. Dave! (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
|
(...) I reminded readers it was a hunch, then gave my justification for my hunch, but you are still not satisfied. Whatever. Are we going to replay the statistics/hunch argument again but with even less basis? You have more fun bludgeoning than (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
|
(...) The argument has been made in the past that having .debate as a place to send off topic debates is good for the rest of LUGNET. If you want to discuss LEGO, do so. Nothing is stopping you, nothing is making you post here, and posts here do not (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GKzyrx.D4z@lugnet.com... (...) What about a fight to the death? Via webcam of course. Or better still Ban lugnet.off-topic.debate, so we can get back to discussing Lego. regards (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: PA censoring journalists again, but repudiating bin Laden...
|
|
(...) Despicable. But not quite the same as broadly hinting that journalists would be murdered if they tried to report on something factual. (not opinion, mind you, but fact) So ya, it's way worse what the PA is doing. Doesn't mean the US shouldn't (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
|
(...) I appear to have hit a nerve. Does the truth hurt so much? Scott A (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Propaganda War" from the Economist
|
|
Larry that was your opinion before the 10th October (the date on the text). What informed your opinion before then? Why the sudden change of heart in justifying yourself? Lets look again at your words: ==+== I reject that the sanctions are the (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) That proves he's not particularly libertarian, then. Small parties do sometimes have to take what they can get at local levels but I'd support his ouster. Unfortunately these sorts of organizational issues give ammo to foamers drawing (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
|
(...) Nothing tangible then? (...) Don't be a fool. The truth is not about a popularity contest. Scott A (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) De facto or de jure? My experience has been that it is almost always de jure. <snip true (I have them too) account of horrific service and product offering> (...) No. Sans barriers to entry there are no natural monopolies. You have a (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Anyone else think this is a bad idea?
|
|
(...) Read for comprehension, Scott. Not saying any such thing. Dan is saying that all countries are equally bad. I just gave an example of a randomly selected country (just like I did the last time I asked Dan) that I think is less bad than Syria. (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
|
(...) My basis for "not being convinced that we didn't get snookered" is lingering doubt that maybe, just maybe, bin Laden actually *was* the owner or part owner of that plant through some twisted chain, whether or not it was completely harmless or (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
