 | | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Okay, this is a troll, but I'll bite, since Larry's my chum... Spite? Hardly. Larry, the picture is taken out of context. Presented by itself, yes, it depicts a spiteful god. However, so would a picture depicting only the scene of a parent (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) So it's only being honest when the other person hasn't lied to you? What if you don't *know* that they've lied to you? Or that you don't know that they *haven't* lied to you? Nah, I completely disagree. If someone's been dishonest to you and (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
is illustrated here: (URL) What sort of god thwarts his people out of spite? Not my sort. Brick Testament is absolutely gorgeous work and I think the Rev is to be commended for some very very well done models and pages. Bravo! But I can tell you (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) Can one draw a parallel to the way Easter is celebrated among catholic cultures? Not in the religious sense, but in the overall outcome. (holidays!) (...) Yeah? (Like I didn't know *this*... :-) Cool, I love turkey! One of these days I'll go (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) No, I would argue that it is *not* dishonest to lie to someone or something that has first lied to me. Which is why I put "honest" in quotes because the definition of honesty that would require me to sacrifice myself at the whim of a (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) But you would probably argue that you are *moral*, while dishonest, or at least "not immoral", I'm guessing? Or at least that you would argue that one could *be* dishonest (by marking "gift") and yet still be moral, even though maybe you're (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) You were asking him, but I'll answer with my opinion anyway... No, it is not immoral to lie, in general. Was it immoral for the UK to place large inflatable tanks in empty fields to mislead the Germans about where the invasion was being (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Is that how you define "honesty"? Or is that how you define "moral"? Is honesty necessarily moral? If you ask me, if you're honest with respect to putting the little "gift" mark on a package, then you *DON'T* mark it as a gift no matter *WHAT* (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) No, I don't think all lies are equal. But shouldn't we try to avoid lying when and where we can? As I already said in a reply to Richard, the end result is that you, for yourself, have to decide what works for you in your life. What "Little (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) No, I guess you shouldn't care what laws of another country you break. (...) Yes. I am willing to accept that. We do pick and choose which ones are important to us, as individuals. (...) I think your wrong on that point. I know I don't contort (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Actually, no. Since we are essentially immune to this silly customs tax (certainly, I have never been thusly taxed as a person in the U.S.) if we white lie by marking items as "gifts" or "cadeaux" we do so for the benefit of others. I have (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) So who gets to decide what is morally incorrect? You? Me? Isn't breaking the law, breaking the law? (Hmm, about to kill my entire arguement here, but I guess I break the law regularly by speeding.) (...) But is this a victimless crime? If you (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Is it a sin to break a law that is morally incorrect? Is it a sin to abide by a law that is morally incorrect? Stealing is way different than evading customs impositions that hinder free trade or than evading laws against victimless crimes, (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) In our family there has always been a break. We usually didn't start the Christmas preparations until a week or two before. Commercially there certainly is no break (the holiday season for retail these days seems to be all year, but certainly (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) I always thought of it as the closest Thursday to the 25th. Both methods yield the same date, which can range from the 22nd to the 28th. Canada also celebrates a Thanksgiving, but theirs is on a different date. It's basically a harvest (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) An Kuwaiti- American friend of mine always tells me that a holiday atmosphere exists in many homes (and work places) in the USA from the week before Thanksgiving to the week after Xmas. How true is that? Scott A (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) Is that anything like an eye-bitin' monkey????? ROSCO (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) Well, I can give you the date: The fourth Thursday in November. That's how it works. But as for the holiday itself, it's very steeped in lore--a lot of it contradictory--but in short it's time to "give thanks" for good fortune. The context of (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: All important (was: Amtrak Told to Plan Liquidation)
|
|
(...) Uh...sorry. It seems that we're in essentially complete agreement. I must have misunderstood your points...or they changed...or something. Chris (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: All important (was: Amtrak Told to Plan Liquidation)
|
|
(...) I'm *happy* for airlines (and building managers, whoever) to pay for extra security *if they choose to*. I'm *happy* to pay an extra fee to increase my safety when I fly. I should, however, be able to choose. (...) for (...) planning (...) OK. (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: All important (was: Amtrak Told to Plan Liquidation)
|
|
(...) Not sure here, but are you implying that the existance of the WTC buildings was less to blame for Sep 11 than the existance of the aeroplanes? (...) for (...) If you come to us & say "This polution can only affect you 8 people, and I want you (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) Uh, I am unsure about this, but an expert has said on national television that this is *supposed* to happen in some cases. He did not specify, however. Probably this plane was unable to maneouver due to the low speed and altitude, much like (...) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) reported (...) Indeed, these days the engine fuse pin is designed to release the engine when any unexpected substantial forces are applied to the engine, rather than transfer the forces to the wing, which may result in wing failure. Even a (...) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) Not much more to report now--except to note that the engine- falling-off-the-airliner thing has at least a half dozen precedents, and the most famous one I can think of involved the plane continuing on safely (!!). Another link: (URL) However, (...) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) As Mark said, it was an American Airlines Airbus A300. Current reports say the plane came apart before crashing, and there may have been an explosion. It seems this was a mechanical failure, and NOT a terrorist act, but there is no direct (...) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Airbus (Was Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC)
|
|
(...) It's an American Airlines Airbus A300. Supposedly an engine or engines crashed in a separate area. That's about all the news is reporting at the moment. ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Erik Olson writes: <he's OK> Yaay. But our hearts surely go out to those who are not. The major news sites are doing better at handling load than during 911 but just in case people can't get to them, here's a short (...) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
Hi folks, I think you know more about this than I do. I'm in Manhattan. My home is in Kew Gardens, a short distance from JFK airport. -Erik (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) I have been to Eriks house & it is not to close to where the plane went down. I don't have his number with me. I will drop him an email. I live in Queens as well & know the area. Jonathan (...) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:GMoz9A.MHE@lugnet.com... (...) from (...) day. (...) Ick. I tried getting ahold of Erik Olson by his home number and his cell and no answer on either one - but it also looks like its (...) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
Hi all, It looks like a 767 just went down in Queens New York about five miles from JFK. No one knows anything yet, but I bet this'll be our big news for the day. Hopefully it's a random fluke rather than just the first. Chris (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: All important (was: Amtrak Told to Plan Liquidation)
|
|
(...) I think that a security company would typically charge a fee for their services. And their services could include defense against missile attack. So it's just a matter of people feeling properly motivated. Some people are willing to work in (...) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: All important (was: Amtrak Told to Plan Liquidation)
|
|
(...) Maybe I'm still not following you here, but I would tend to say yes, the things that are a RESULT of the building's existance ought to be borne by the building users (...) This doesn't follow. Just because some fair thing is hard to do is not (...) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Site
|
|
"Mr L F Braun" <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:GMJvx9.1G0@lugnet.com... (...) Uh-huh. It's when people start taking anything seriously it starts to get old, really quickly. Whenever this happens, I highly recommend sticking on some (...) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Site
|
|
"Mr L F Braun" <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:GMJw8t.29z@lugnet.com... (...) need (...) College.... (...) Yes, that was a true hassling. I hope you consider yourselves hassled, or else more hasslement will ensue. I am over it. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | More scary stuff
|
|
(URL) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: All important (was: Amtrak Told to Plan Liquidation)
|
|
(...) to (...) When I lose mine, I generally find them a couple of months later, all mashed up down the back of the couch 8?) (...) And buildings exist for the convenience of companies to house their workers. They're not necessary, but they're (...) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Moral Relativism
|
|
(...) Those who don't get their news from entertainment channels know better. You said this not all that long ago: "My beef with them [sanctions] is that they're not impoverishing the *right things* (...) *enough*, and that they give foamers like (...) (23 years ago, 11-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Wanted
|
|
(...) That is not the point. The point is that the community is not 100% with the way you contribute. Nobody doubts your intend, only the manner. Read Eric's words again: "Please understand that while you may have sufficient logic and a decent head (...) (23 years ago, 11-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Wanted
|
|
Best to ignore them, or else they see the smallest portion of attention and then break into epics of bad teenage angst poetry. Santosh (...) (23 years ago, 11-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
