 | | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) That's certainly the option I'd choose, though from a technical standpoint the most difficult to enforce. Plus the fact that I would tack on the addendum "ban each one from talking about the other"; as I've seen both mention the other in (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | rules
|
|
(...) I don't think formal debating rules will work, here. The set I'm familiar with are too formal (8 minutes for argument, 8 minutes for response, 4 minutes for rebuttal, 4 minutes for rebuttal response) since they're structured for face to face (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) The reason, fairly obviously, is that there are only two real offenders whose behavior requires the formal implementation of formal rules. Larry and you both contribute useful points to some debates, but far more often than not, your (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) Perhaps there should be a "poll of polls". :) (...) Why not just institute basic formal debating rules? What is there to be lost by doing that? Scott A (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) How about 1a. Ban both of them from replying to each other (at least as a trial measure)? Or, at least, a moratorium on the codependent "he's a liar, he's a squirmer" drivel... --DaveL (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise.
|
|
(...) I am a libertarian. I can prove it: (URL) A FUT lugnet.off-topic.fun (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) To answer this question you first have to answer two related and subordinate questions: Is the function that this facility carries out itself constitutional? If not, then requiring ID or not is a moot question since the facility SHOULD be (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Did you want me to dig up a price sheet for OS/370 circa 1976? It wasn't free. It cost more than you or I make. UNIX System V wasn't free. BSD was never free (California taxpayers and DARPA paid for it) Or did you mean PC operating systems? (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Is it, therefore, unconstitutional that the government require ID checks prior to allowing admission into CDC labs, for instance? These are government property, ie: public property, are they not? Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) She has written a Second piece for the Guardian. Again the text is strongly worded, but well written. Before anyone reads it, what do these nations have in common: China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Thank you. (...) There is no market incentive to do so, though, given the regulatory shield. (...) Intent notwithstanding, this nevertheless tends to be the outcome. (...) You're starting in the middle. The company would never be allowed (by (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Right to privacy. Right against unreasonable search and seizure.... Absent of being suspected of a specific crime there is no constitutional requirement to say who in particular you are if you are in a public place. Certainly private property (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Violence created by presence of guns? (was: Gotta love Oracle...)
|
|
(...) Which every single piece of legislation I've ever seen (except for legislation REPEALING gun control law) does. (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Horst, in future please don't trim the "who wrote what" lines away... if you cite some prose at 4 or 5 or 6 nest levels deep it's important to know who said what else you run the risk of severe misquoting. So the referenced post should have (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
|
(...) And you would hold that even if what they take away from you is pure luxury, whereas they need it to survive? Well, a humanistic attitude IMO goes a bit more towards enabling a decent life for everybody. It also does not contain a right to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Pardon me? Operating Systems didn't cost a cent before Microsoft entered the game ... (...) So, Windows is a better OS than others in the marketplace, Word is better than all other word processing apps, Excel is better than Lotus 1-2-3, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
|
(...) This is probably the best statement I have read here on the topic ... Thanks for it, Ross, and greetings Horst (who is a bit behind in reading news ...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) If security is a good, then the right to live has very little value as well. (...) It seems to be more in Europe than in the US. (...) That was too quick a victory for you to let it go ;-) First, I already have said that I see no way to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Well, I may not be able to ... (...) Not if the interest to conform to the minimum standard is complemented by additional interest to do even better. (...) I never intended to *replace* tort law by regulations. I always thought of them as (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Whatever we in Germany have set down as basic rights can only be changed with 2/3 (instead of 1/2) of the votes. Not a perfect solution, but there has to be a legal way to change things that don't work well, even with basic rights ... :wq (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) So, being asked for a proof of identity violates one of your rights? Which one? I would be opposed to any other than a very brief use of my ID information, but giving it out to briefly check whether I am on a list of wanted people seems OK (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Violence created by presence of guns? (was: Gotta love Oracle...)
|
|
(...) ... within the US, because there is always a place nearby where it is easy to get arms. (...) Quicker in the US than in Europe, for example. What makes me think so is the simple difference between how the average Europe Gas Station robbery (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Well, open enough for my taste, given the fact there are very few other countries which have that many people per square mile. As far as fair treatment is concerned, I think there is two answers: - On one side, there is the official side of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) We should USE the legislation we HAVE. Of course, this will NOT solve all problems, be it in the area of organized criminality, or terrorism. We also need to evolve or society, and the world order, into something that gives people less reason (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) No, since I neve had a beer with you, I can only agree that banning beer or banning cars seems exaggerated. (...) The world we live in is based on mono-causal relationships? I don't see it that way. And I am probably more pro sharing than a (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
