 | | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) As I'm sure you'd expect, I don't think the poll would be done as proposed. I think it's an all-or-nothing type deal. I think given the choices, I'd rank them as: 1. Ban neither of you 2. Ban both of you 3. Ban Scott 4. Ban Larry If I were (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Yeh, he pointed that out. I'd forgotten that the town was named that--I just refer to it as the Tasmanian mass murder (which, of course, betrays my geographical US-centrism). best LFB (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Ross was referring to the murder of 35 people in Tasmania in 1996. There's a comprehensive collection of links at (URL) . --DaveL (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Same Old Same Old
|
|
I forgot this one: Who is the biggest trouble maker on Lugnet? (URL) A (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Same Old Same Old
|
|
Every time I get Larry over a barrel he pulls this old same trick. Rather than answer the questions, he starts tossing mud. Take a look back through the posts, every time I have Larry sweating he starts up a new thread to take the heat of himself (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry?
|
|
We could always go and bomb them, and those that house them also. But we're peaceful non-terrorisers arent we? Santosh * Operation Infinite Tackiness, now fighting a War on Poor Air-conditioning. Action figure dolls coming soon. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
(...) Because it is not a lie. You know it. I know it. I noticed you have not replied to this one, where I ask about your "lies": (URL) At that point it's a difference of (...) The truth is not about opinion! (...) "Claimed" - to you have any other (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
(...) Because it is not a lie. You know it. I know it. (...) The truth is not about opinion! (...) "Claimed" - to you have any other explanation? (...) I think they were all still relevant? Had you answered any of the points elswhere? (...) *Sigh* (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
(...) He does this with every issue. When questioned, he starts slinging mud, and hopes it will go away. He needs to get his head out of the sand. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
(...) Take a look Larry. You are the one who is getting the big name caller around here. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise.
|
|
(...) Yeah! Who let that woman in here in the first place? Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise.
|
|
(...) Hey guys! Did'ja happen to notice the makeup of the participants of Lugnet, and in particular those who regularly post to .debate? Gosh, it looks to me as though the demographics are quite similar to those of the LP, age and concomitant (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) However, many species manage to survive (& flourish) without cleverness, simply be breeding a lot. My point to Scott was I don't think right & wrong have any relevance to evolution - local populations may evolve in ways which are advantageous (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
(...) Come on, Lar, to ban either of you would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We all know it bothers Scott that you made a comment about his making fourteen posts at once, snide or not, just as we know it bothers you that he called the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) Optimization for local conditions can be suboptimal for global. I would hold that humanity's chief survival weapon is cleverness. Anything that selects against cleverness/intelligence/drive (the cited example, for instance) is bad for (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
