 | | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) I *might* believe the former, but not the latter as much. I am willing to believe that the U.S. govt. supported a plan that they were not fully aware of ala "The Tailor of Panama." (...) Of course, I agree totally with this part. But what (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
Hmm. Your post is amazingly similar to junk mail I received today. Funny that. (...) I agree, I'm all for effective cannabis-based prescription drugs. But then many illegal drugs have a place in medicine. What is the big deal? (...) Paranoia. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) professionals and executives were the group most (...) yeah well, us folks from the 60s are getting on in years. (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Well, I wasn't (see my followup to His Royal Majesty the Frog Prince) but thanks for thinking of me just the same :-)... (...) I think most US pot is domestic "greenhouse" grown. Pot's too low value for the mass to smuggle. Cheech and Chong (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
"Lawrence Wilkes" <lawrence@thewilkesf...rve.co.uk> wrote in message news:Gn7M3B.64z@lugnet.com... (...) most (...) Sorry. Northern Alliance! (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
"Lawrence Wilkes" <lawrence@thewilkesf...rve.co.uk> wrote in message news:Gn7L6H.412@lugnet.com... (...) And if you are looking for consipacy stories Larry, we could ponder on the fact that only earlier this year the government refused to do this - (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:Gn7J4q.Mt1@lugnet.com... (...) The UK is apparently going to licence the use of Medical Marijuana Also, it has been reclassified so they the police can effectively ignore possession (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) Because I thought it was an interesting link and that it would spark some interesting discussion. And it was, and it did. You all know that I'm mostly in the "can't trust government" camp. And I have no doubt whatever that (to pick one facet) (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Medical Marijuana
|
|
There is substantial evidence that marijuana has significant medical uses. Several states have recognised this and authorised doctors to prescribe it (for uses such as an anti nausea drug for chemotherapy and AIDS patience) and have authorised the (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) Very True. I do think it was dealt with in the most unfortunate means though (shot down)- of course i have no proof, but lack of evidence rarely stops the big media, so why should i worry? ;-P (...) Good point. I guess the conspiracy stuff can (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) Was there not a news item reporting that debris from that plane had landed same way before the actual impact site? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) You're right that such thinking is predicated on a logical fallacy, but that doesn't make assertions on either side true or false on that basis alone. And I found your "snopes" site to be no more reliable (plenty of asserted *truth* there, (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) This bit in particular: (...) Seems, for the conspiracy-minded, too good to be false. However, another website at (URL) offers a nicely straightforward counter viewpoint: (...) I know, I know. "Of course they're going to deny it--that's how (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) That's one of the million dollar questions, and we may have to content ourselves with "the passengers appear to have disrupted the hijackers' plan which then resulted in the crash of the plane." It doesn't seem likely that we'll ever have a (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
What i would like to know is: 1- what really happened to the flight over pennsylvania 2- what happened to the 5th plane that was initially reported to have been highjacked 3- what happened with the car bomb that was reported to have exploded outside (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) So why post the link here? I actually found some of the stuff at the website pretty good. Most of it seems in keeping with what Bill Moyers and the Christic Institute announced on PBS TV about 14 years ago -- stuff I found more than pursuasive (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) (Honestly curious) So how would you categorize subsets of morality? I've basically attempted to come up with different ways in which to violate morality. The two most basic being "that's not fair" or "that's mean". One might also say "you (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Conspiracy theories
|
|
Sometimes I find the strangest links in the strangest places... (URL) link was in someone's sig on a www.megatokyo.com discussion forum. I'm dubious at best about the veracity of this particular theory. (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) even (...) was (...) Well, your three categories of morality isn't my baby, and I'm not even sure I agree with it as morality-o-meter, but let's look at it this way: (...) You're defining justice as truth? I think it is fairness and/or equity. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) anyway, (...) Whether or not they know the declaration was untruthful, they have failed to pay duty on goods which require it by law. If you're importing goods, it's your responsibility to pay the appropriate duty (at least in Australia). The (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
