 | | Re: Novels are now airline security risk...
|
|
(...) still... (URL) Matt, just posting, not looking to debate anything. Julie (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Or I'm missing why it's not a bad thing... ;^) (...) Huge snip, while I actually print out Larry's post and think about it (scary stuff). In the meantime, where did you pick up Holden "Commie"? Did someone from Australia actually say that or (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Novels are now airline security risk...
|
|
(...) It fits anywhere. There were so many bad decisions made during the course of this little charade that just about anyone can use it as ammo... argue against federalization because the feds and the NG were involved, argue against privatization (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Horseless carriages (was: Gotta love Oracle...)
|
|
(...) ...and are sub-human enough to actually *want* to do *anything* with a Falcon...8?) And how many more twists is this thread gonna take???!!!??? ROSCO (fanning the flames of the Ford-Holden fire[1] after watching the Bathurst race the other (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
Whoops. Let me apologise in advance, the FUT was set to fun and I missed that. Sorry peeps. My bad. FUT re-set back to .debate (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Yes, yes, yes, it does. But I'm still sort of missing how that's a bad thing. By developing both the engine and the transmission that 90% of users want, already preengineered to work together, GM, Ford, Daimler, Toyota, et al gain a massive (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is off-topic.debate a competition?
|
|
(...) Where did this come from? Sure, Larry like to win, don't we all? And there's probably an element of that here, too, but I personally think a large percentage of what he posts here (except when personal comments are involved) is *very* (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A modest proposal from a modest person
|
|
(...) Slashdot uses a system called "karma", and it is described in a little detail here (URL) it seems to work pretty well, but it's a fairly complex system - and the hassle involved in implementation may be more trouble than it's worth for a (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) <text circumcision...snippy, snippy!> (...) Hit... (URL) run! Matt (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Okay, another couple of points. 1. It's not about the OS, whatever the merits of DOS/Windows//NT. It's about producing the OS _and_ the application software (whatever the merits of the Office suite). By developing both the platform and the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A modest proposal from a modest person
|
|
(...) I think it's got potential, although as you said here: (URL) dross itself is pretty distracting. Maybe we can keep a record of Debate RhinO Poop Posted In this News Group -- too many DROPPINGs and you spend some extra time in the sin-bin (Aus (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is off-topic.debate a competition?
|
|
(...) I don't see this comment as useful. Or true either, for that matter. In fact most of your comments lately have seemed to be trying to carry the notion forward that all I want to do is insult others. That's just flat out false and my record (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is off-topic.debate a competition?
|
|
(...) Hmm... the hockey analogy seems to bring the whole issue home. It seems that for Larry, debate is not about discussion, its about WINNING the debate. Its not about learning something new, its about supressing/discrediting the opposing (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A modest proposal from a modest person
|
|
(...) Yes. If JimmyBob makes a post and JoeLuke votes the post as bad, JimmyBob's rank has a 1/4 chance to go down, and JoeLuke's rank has a 1/4 chance to go up. If JoeLuke votes JimmyBob's post as good, both their ranks have respective 1/4 chances (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: A modest proposal from a modest person
|
|
(...) The person who posted or the person who is ranking? (...) How does this differ from Slashdot ratings (which I admit I have not closely perused the mechanics of)??? It sounds kind of similar. (...) Unless you can find some other Dave, yes. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A modest proposal from a modest person
|
|
(...) It's really a rather good idea actually... A good bend on the original proposal, though as usual it's the implimentation that's difficult. As more of an aside, anyone familiar with perlmonks? They've developed quite a good system for behavior (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Novels are now airline security risk...
|
|
I found this interesting for several reasons. I don't want to debate it, but this is the only place it fits here. You all can decide whether/where to plug it in to your arguments. (URL) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Shamelessly Insisting I Get What I Want (was Re: Larry's behaviour)
|
|
(...) Uh-oh! I sent you this email on the 22nd: (...) When I didn't get a response, I figured: a) You were snubbing me b) You were rendering a really cool model with the new elements and couldn't be bothered with an email c) Had been abducted by (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: rules
|
|
(...) No frigging way. You're a great big rhinocerous for even suggesting that these debates are not absolute life and death, and I "mark territory" in your general direction. My second will be contacting your second. Bring your wet noodles. (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Nothing is stopping anyone else from writing a better OS. Novell tried. IBM tried. Novell tried buying one from AT&T... (...) Nothing is stopping any hardware vendor from not installing it and going with a different OS, or any end consumer (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | More Shamelessly Insisting I Get What I Want (was Re: Larry's behaviour)
|
|
Say Dave!, could you stop wasting time on this issue and send me that clones.zip, dammit!!! =oP -- Hop-Frog (hopping mad) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A modest proposal
|
|
(...) I'm pretty good at ignoring those, actually. YCLIU. (...) Define "reasonably well". How is 7-10%? That's my current track record (in a small enough moving average). I think ignoring 90-93% of irrelevance is a pretty good approximation of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: rules
|
|
(...) Agreed. Although I don't see any way to enforce such rules, I fully agree that trying to abide by them would make things a bit better. Rule 1: (...) I like that enough. Rule 2: (...) Agree. "Close to it" being hard to define, but in general, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rhinos
|
|
(...) On further reflection, I see that you are correct, although I further assert that I did not claim that Scott accused me of calling him a rhinoceros; I merely asserted that I had not thus far called him one. Regardless, my apologies to him for (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) I would contend that it _is_ a barrier to entry. No other application producer has the same access to the OS. The efficiency accrues from interactions between the OS and application packages, as much as from any inherent superiority in the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Rhinos
|
|
(...) I think it is equally important to point out that Scott did not say you did, in fact, call him one Dave! He merely inquired if you wished to retain that right (if in future you decided you felt you needed to). Seems a reasonable question to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A modest proposal from a modest person
|
|
(...) In fact, the more I think about this, the more I like it. It gives a very strong incentive NOT to post irrelevant things, and instead to post things that are so compelling that people want to reply to them. As long as I'm the one "in the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A modest proposal
|
|
(...) The reader, obviously. I don't think you think "what, no answer?" is a particularly relevant post. Unless you're saying you can't judge relevancy for yourself. I think you can, but you choose not to. Maybe I'm wrong? And since your proposal (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) Without calling into question your ability to read, I am obliged to point out that I did not, in fact, call you a rhinoceros. Further, I am indeed entitled to call you anything I wish to call you, barring slander. If you feel slandered by your (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A modest proposal
|
|
(...) Who judges relevancy? Scott thinks every one of his posts is relevant, presumably. No, this is a better proposal because it removes human error. (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: rules
|
|
(...) Yes. These are all good rules as far as I am concerned. They're not aimed at you, they're aimed at bad behaviours. Love the sinner, hate the sin. But do go ahead and post some proposed rules too, you can direct them at things you (and others) (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A modest proposal
|
|
(...) Pencil out the "relevant or not" and change "ANY" to "any irrelevant", and it's a done deal. From my perspective. But just because you abused your privalages doesn't mean we should all suffer for it. The only reason I don't think everyone (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A modest proposal from a modest person
|
|
(...) Fair enough. In fact why don't we take turns. Each time someone else slips up it's the other one's turn not to get replied to by the group. (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: rules
|
|
(...) Key word "basic". (...) There are more than one version of debating rules. I am sure ones could be made which would suit this forum better than those which you mention. Do you think otherwise? (...) Are there any others which you think won't (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A modest proposal from a modest person
|
|
(...) I'll give you a different proposal... I'll forego replying to ANY post of Larry's, relevant or not, if everyone else does too... and I'll hew to that just as long as everyone else can hold out too. As soon as some regular slips up, (we'll (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) Like I said yesterday, I did try that last week: (URL) A (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) So, if we had rules how would things get worse? Say we had a rule like: "No name calling permitted" - why would that be bad? Do you feel you have to retain the right to call me a "rhinoceros"{1} from time-to-time? Scott A {1} I rather like the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Why not? This assertion has been made in this and other antitrust trials but has not been justified. I see nothing wrong with it. It benefits everyone to get more efficient products. There are no barriers to entry, so dominance is due to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) What about the integration between OS and applications? Different market segments right? So why should one corporation be able to leverage its products in one segment as a direct consequence of its dominance in another segment? Cf Nestlé. No (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A modest proposal
|
|
(...) I'll give you a different proposal... I'll forego replying to ANY post of Scott's, relevant or not, if everyone else does too... and I'll hew to that just as long as everyone else can hold out too. As soon as some regular slips up, (we'll (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
