 | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
(...) I did. He chose to deny it was a lie. At that point it's a difference of opinion, I suppose, but you cannot say that I did not show it. (...) When I posted that, what I had to go on was the timestamps on the posts. As LFB said, they are ALL (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice')
|
|
(...) I'll just cite what I learned in Transportation Engineering. The proper way to set speed limits , on a road that wasn't explicitly engineered with limits in mind (1) is the 85th percentile rule. This rule assumes that people basically are (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
(...) But it makes it a community. (...) I'm reading this in a similar way. Your losing points in my book everytime you say 'shun him', 'ban him', etc. Denying response to difficult or 'unworthy' questions aren't good debate rules. (...) think of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice')
|
|
(...) Please elaborate... with statistics if you so prefer. :) Are you denying that speed limits also serve to regulate traffic patterns, allow drivers to avoid accidents by reducing stopping distance(dependent on ~following the limit of course), (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) either (...) in (...) Is there a "wrong way"? ROSCO (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry?
|
|
(...) their level. Sooner or later we'll find someone who *is* willing to impart information - patience is difficult in such situations, but necessary IMO. ROSCO (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
(...) Is he to ignor the slurs and accusations you have made against him? Isn't that exactly why he keeps asking you to show where he lied? Its a two way street. Yet you continue to call him a liar and beg for his banishment. (...) community. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tolerance of vice
|
|
(...) Agreed, it wasn't the best of examples, but hopefully you got the general idea. A better example would be (I suppose) whether you think someone who shoplifted a stick of gum should be sentenced to death. Again, I just think the punishment (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tolerance of vice
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: (snipped) (...) The ancient greeks devised a special punishment for those they considered to be disgracing their community. I am unsure of the English name for it, but it should be something like (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
|
| |
| | Re: Tolerance of vice
|
|
(...) Bad example... since you're referring to noncommon law. Speed limits tend to be revenue generation devices nowadays more than anything else. But I can tell you that I would not patronise a private road that used that particular punishment. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tolerance of vice
|
|
(...) But I never said it was acceptable. I said the punishment you betrothed to it was overzealous. Is going 31mph in a 30mph zone an offense punishable by death? Ban him? You really think that's a good solution? I don't. I think the appropriate (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Tolerance of vice
|
|
(...) So you think there's a tolerable level of theft? Some shrinkage is acceptable? Don't ever work for me unless you are prepared to set that attitude aside. No level of theft is "acceptable" and no level should be "tolerated" because it's too (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
(...) Ah, but while petty theft may still be wrong, is it worth capital punishment? Or maybe just cutting off their hands? Is it worth the time? (...) Should we expect one? Aren't you always on the side of retaining people's liberties? Suppose "the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
(...) And only respond to theft if the item's big enough to worry about? Works for TARGET. Doesn't work for me, though. It encourages the notion that small thefts are OK. If it's OK for theft, is it ok for antisocial behaviour? I ignore minor (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
(...) Would you rather play the part of the o-t.debate police? Do you feel obligated to correct *everyone*? Assuming yes, should we always assume that when you DON'T reply that that means you find nothing wrong with the statements made? Should you (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
(...) Meaning what? I am to ignore every slur he makes so he gets away with his lies scot free? No. EVERYONE has to shun him or tell him to stop, or send him mail when he's being a twit. If that happened I could shun him too. But right now he gets (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rules
|
|
(...) I am not being 100% clear here. I did still write posts which questioned Larry, I just did not authorise them. If you look at some of my posts which appeared on Friday, you will see that some are rather old. Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rules
|
|
(...) I actually tried this last week. I stayed away from Larry as much as I could. He was busy with the Dan and Larry show at the time. Once Dan got tired of him, Larry turned on me like a drunk looking for a fight. That is my view. See: (URL) of (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
(...) I hate to repeat, but take your own advice. Don't bother responding to useless posts. It brings your own image WAY down. As far as I'm concerned he's only a part of the problem. Stop encouraging it. You're more likely to get a "Ban both" (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
(...) Thanks, I have asked for two to be deleted already. I won't blame the newsreader for that problem. :-/ (...) Indeed. I am re-thinking this approach. The thread died when Larry failed to submit himself to questioning. This was an attempt to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
