 | | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) Hooray! I read all eighteen hundred posts in all seventy threads, and this is the only solitary one that actually refers to LEGO BLOCKS! Thanks, Frank!! You win!!! How has this perfectly fun little toy brand come to be a means to an end for (...) (23 years ago, 27-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Using Lego to build weapons? (was Re: The Lego Beretta just won't die)
|
|
(...) Fortunately, people would still tend to see Lego as a toy and not a weapon IMHO. (Those who seriously consider Lego a weapon already have serious issues that this particular model won't affect one way or another.) Folks tend to associate with (...) (23 years ago, 27-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) Check the post dates. (...) Why is that people like you think it is OK for Larry to be a pest. But as soon as I defend myself I'm a "troll"? Is this the type of "debate" you want: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Whatever
|
|
(...) Larry, you are the troll here, not I. Do you seariouslsy doubt that? Really? What was this thread all about: (URL) was a troll to start the "god" debate *again*. (...) Rubbish. I mostly only post here or loc.uk. You have started more arguments (...) (23 years ago, 27-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Whatever
|
|
in article GnFpB6.6pB@lugnet.com, Larry Pieniazek at lpieniazek@mercator.com wrote on 11/26/01 6:57 PM: (...) Thus spake the Marvel comics villain. (23 years ago, 27-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Whatever
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GnFpB6.6pB@lugnet.com... (...) care, (...) not (...) Well, at least 17 people have approved. As for the rest of the people here? We will never know. Note, there's no longer a way of (...) (23 years ago, 27-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Whatever
|
|
Larry: I think that you are seeing your own role in this in too positive a light, I even perceive that you are trying to dress up your contest with Scott as somehow heroic on behalf of the greater community on your part. It just ain't so -- at least (...) (23 years ago, 27-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Whatever
|
|
(...) Yes, but do they care enough to do what needs to be done? And if they care, is that thing a doable thing just because they care? I don't think so. Any call for a penalty for anyone is just whistling in the wind because it's not the community (...) (23 years ago, 27-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:m3pu65cvzh.fsf@...ldomain... (...) Yep. And its also a good thing we have people like Chris, Lawrence, Shiri, Richard, Lindsay, Frank, etc are here to do the same. (People who (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) It's a good thing we have you here to make sure that the show goes on, then, isn't it. If you want the debate to die out, you may want to avoid joining it, and especially in that tone. I've seen you doing this a lot of times, BTW. You shout (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Was it a PR plug? (was: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool)
|
|
(...) Not measurably better. No lives have been saved. But sure, I agree there will have been a benefit. (...) No. (...) No. (...) I don't really think that is where the UN's skills lie. I'd be a little worried if the UN chose to help that cause in (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Was it a PR plug? (was: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool)
|
|
(...) So? Do you have an eBay page? Do you list information that will help you to get better sales? (...) Sure. (...) Probably a little. (...) I imagine it would depend on the mechanism behind this hypothetical "chance of negative PR." Now I get to (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) You all take this far too seriously. If you can detach yourselves a bit you'll see it's kind of like observing an exhibit of dung beetles in a glass case. They roll up great balls of dung, periodically have territorial fights and displays of (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Was it a PR plug? (was: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool)
|
|
(...) From the ebay LD page: ==+== LEGO Shop At Home LEGO Shop At Home features the newest items, plus hard to find toys, reissued classics, and special items not available in any store. LEGO Shop At Home offers the fastest, most convenient way to (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
NO NO NO NO NO!!! Don't you see the point of all of our posts expressing our COMPLETE DISGUST with the Scott and Larry Show???!?!!!?! All you're doing here is continuing it with half a dozen more PETTY BICKERING POSTS amed at Larry. Grow up, get a (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Was it a PR plug? (was: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool)
|
|
(...) They had to announce the auction. I mean, it only makes sense. Further, letting us all know that by bidding on those items, we could be helping the victims of 911 only makes sense too. That doesn't make it a cheap PR plug. (...) How could _I_ (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) None of us are perfect Chris. Staff groups can raise all the money they want for charity as far as I am concerned. I'm just not all that hot on companies using charity for cheap PR. Look at the time and effort LD spent on those auctions. Cost (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) Scott, Showed more tact! I guess there is nothing wrong with your thinking what you think. And there's nothing wrong with stating it in the right venue. And there's nothing wrong with exploring that idea with others in a productive way. But (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) My view on that still stands. Perhaps I should have bit my lip or showed more tact, but my view still stands. I'm afraid I would rather have unpopular views than change my views to represent public opinion. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) You are deluded. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) I have made the choice only to post in a couple of groups. I read a great deal, but LUGENT is not the place it used to be. I agree that Larry does post more than me. The difference is, when I post outside this group I try to be 100% (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Junk mail (was: Apology.)
|
|
(...) Sigh. Where have I lied now? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Where did I say that? Where? (...) Where did I say that? Where? (...) Where did I say that? Where? (...) Where did I say I wanted to unsubscribe? All junk mail is this “Unsolicited commercial mail”. Unsolicited means not asked for - it does (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: how to lie with statistics
|
|
(...) My above comment stands. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) "consistent liar" can you justify that? You really are slime. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Perhaps he should have. (...) No. What would the point of that be? I'll even admit I subcribe to "talk.politics.libertarian " for the bile. (...) I did not. (...) Thank you. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Did I say I do not want it? Did I really say that? Where? (...) I assume you unsubscribed me from here: (URL) the test on that page: "Use these forms to manage *your* subscription to announce@lp.org, the Libertarian Party's news, updates and (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Did I say I do not want it? Did I really say that? Where? (...) I assume you unsubscribed me from here: (URL) the test on that page: "Use these forms to manage *your* subscription to announce@lp.org, the Libertarian Party's news, updates and (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) In the thread Larry mentions, I questioned a company who was apparently noisily giving a token amount to the WTC charity. I questioned their motives. Tim and John claimed that perhaps I was being insensitive. Perhaps I was. I welcome both John (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Larry, by your own measure, you are a bare faced liar. Calling me a "liar" without being willing to justify it in any way does nothing but emphasis that point. You are deluded. You need help. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET at risk
|
|
(...) In the thread Larry mentions, I questioned a company who was apparently noisily giving a token amount to the WTC charity. I questioned their motives. Tim and John claimed that perhaps I was being insensitive. Perhaps I was. I welcome both John (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) I've got to agree. But the crassness was cemented for me when Scott jumped on LD for the auctions--that was so very beyond the bounds of good taste, tact, and simple human empathy that I'm still astounded (but not entirely suprised, sadly). (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET at risk
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GnDq4w.EJq@lugnet.com... [snip] (...) to (...) demonstrated. (...) well (...) one (...) term (...) You have made the case many times that Scott contributes nothing positive to the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | LUGNET at risk
|
|
(...) If his mischief were confined to off-topic.debate I would readily agree. But it is not: (URL) stirred up trouble in a vile and malicious way and maliciously redirected his bile to the wrong newsgroup, repeatedly, despite several people's (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
I'll chime in here also as being sick of this. Part of me does want to slap both participants. Part of me realizes that much as I hate to single out folks, Scott seems to contribute almost nothing to Lugnet, except for an occasional interesting (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) No, it leaves him talking to himself unless he can learn to play in a more friendly way. And it needs pointing out that I don't mind ALL of Scott's contributions, just some of them...esp. when you two start to go at it. (...) Larry, this is (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | test
|
|
i will try my lugnet. hello all (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) The problem with that line of reasoning is that it still leaves him starting wars and casting slime elsewhere. He's trouble of the MM sort. Not the same degree, but the same kind. It's not just me he starts trouble with, I'm just a lightning (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) You know how this line of reasoning ends, right? Some sort of discussion may well ensue to ban you both. Not one or the other, both. I wouldn't support anything else (or less) -- this is a "it takes two to tango" kinda thing. I will admit to (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) There's really nothing to debate. Scott's the twit who starts trouble whereever he goes. Go see lego.direct, for example, where his hateful slime caused a great deal of hurt within LD. My only chargable offense is that I let him get to me too (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:GnCxDG.JGr@lugnet.com... (...) No. I agree. Asked pretty much the same the other day (URL) no surprise that ignored it and carried on arguing. What is most annoying is that it seems (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
(...) <snip> Hear hear. It was soooo nice to read debates. There were actually intellectual topics being discussed. Midwest or not, Chris, you're dead-on in this case. Somebody's got to put an end to this silliness that keeps ensuing between these (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
|
Howdy, I'd like to state that I'm really disgusted with the thread du jour and the two key participants. It was very nice here for about a month after the last big blowup. Why did you have to go and mess it up? Without going through the last month (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Possibly. It's a very grey area. (OBDisclaimer: I'm only really arguing this to refine my understanding of what the ToU might mean in a fairly grey area.) (...) It is unreasonable to hold Lugnet's ToU to any authority beyond Lugnet, so the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) I believe you are incorrect. First, if it's against the spirit of the ToU for a spammer to harvest email addresses against the will of the participants, it's against the spirit of the ToU for an UNspammer to harvest a single email address (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) I refuse to support the banning of one member of Lugnet over a dispute with another member of Lugnet unless both parties are banned together. So I think you should be more careful of the things you are seeking to achieve because you will end (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Actually, I think you're both wrong. I just reveiwed the terms of use, and there is nothing in there about e-mail addresses, except the requirement to have a valid one in your posting ID. So if you still feel that Larry violated your privacy, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Dave sums it up: (URL) did what he did *knowing* it breaks the ToU here. He did what he did *knowing* it was a violation of my privacy rights. He did what he did in his usual belligerent manner: ==+== See, I march to my own metronome, and the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
My My, someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.... I normally stay out of debate, I don't need anymore crap in my life, though you brought this into the public forum where I do read, and of course, I had to go back and look at the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Something needs to be done. All of our e-mails are displayed here based on trust. If members here feel they have the right to abuse that trust, what sort of place will this become? This person has taken my details from this forum, and used (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) I found the following: Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Scott: (...) I don't see anything where he said he didn't want to actually recieve the email. I mean, I can imagine wanting to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) No. Remove "think". He SAID it. Either it is true, or he's a liar. (I am not going to argue epistemology with you on this) My mistake was twofold (1) First, forgetting that he's a consistent liar and thinking that I'd be doing him a service in (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) And that's what made you think he didn't want it. (...) Sure it can. But only if my reasoning is faulty. Point being that people aren't necessarily rational. If I'm mentally retarted perhaps I'll come to that conclusion. And perhaps as such (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | how to lie with statistics
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur twists reality thusly: (...) I post a lot. So any metric ought to be on a per post basis. That winnows it down significantly. Else we're saying that Johnny one post gets the nobel peace prize because his one (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) No. Because he SAID he didn't want it. (...) Actually, I apologised for neither of these reasons. I apologised because in hindsight it was a violation of his privacy to unsubscribe him, even if he *wanted* it done, which he said he did, just (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Yes you did. You acted because you *thought* that he didn't want it. And now you apologized. Which is *supposed* to mean that you agree that in retrospect, your action was incorrect in some way. Assumedly because you understand in hindsight (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) No, judge the outcome. He said it was junk. He said he didn't subscribe to it. He said he didn't want it. I acted based on that. I acted to ensure he wouldn't get something he said he didn't want. The *outcome* is he's not getting it any more, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Doesn't that invalidate your apology? Aren't you just saying "I'd do it again in a heartbeat?" Do you have the right to excersize that power over Scott's email account, regardless of whether or not he wants it? Maybe if you asked him (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Junk mail (was: Apology.)
|
|
(...) Your analogy is false. (...) You should share your perspective, then, in admin.terms, where this issue has been raised. I'm prepared to be ToSsed over it, as I've admitted that my anger at Scott when he lies about receiving junk email is so (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: the LEGO corporation is a sinister arm of Western global hegemony?
|
|
(...) And I'd like to know where I can get all 6 Toa for $19.99! ROSCO (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What makes larry think I am too lazy to unsubscribe?
|
|
(...) What do Mladen's comments about automobile components have to do with this? Dave! FUT: OT.Feeble.Puns (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Whoops! Hoist by my own petard. Drat. I was trying to say that the putative public opinion (which we have discovered is actually false, at least currently it seems to be) is DETRIMENTAL to the effective prosecution of war. War is messy and (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Junk mail (was: Apology.)
|
|
(...) Well, many people I know still complain about junk snail mail, but can't be bothered putting a "no junk mail" sign on their letter box. They just throw the junk straight in the recycle bin. Maybe they think one day they'll get something (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What makes larry think I am too lazy to unsubscribe?
|
|
(...) me and *many* others, I would reconsider... but for now Mladen has received a free pass from me and I no longer directly comment on what he did or did not do, said or did not say. That Amy was gracious enough to let him off the hook for it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) While the manner in which wars are executed is influenced by these institutions, I don't think they're responsible for the wars themselves, which is what I hoped to say. The fact that they're the current flavor of the month for influencing war (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Actually, it is my understanding that the 16th Amendment has no REAL force in law -- the Supreme Court itself stated this in the case of STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916): "But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Yes, but aren't they in fact responsible, not for war as a concept, but for certain kinds of war, and certain ways of carrying out war? Arguably focus groups and the media had convinced successive administrations that the american populace (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry - Scott - Please call it a day
|
|
"Lawrence Wilkes" <lawrence@thewilkesf...rve.co.uk> wrote in message news:Gn9rt2.Fo2@lugnet.com... (...) And dont EITHER of you reply to this post! (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Larry - Scott - Please call it a day
|
|
Why must every thread here turn into the Larry and Scott show? Come on guys. It's like you are both itching for the other to make a post, so you can post something anti in return. Regardless of the topic, you just HAVE to take the opposite view to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Unsubscribe from the LP newsletter
|
|
I wonder if Todd &/or Suz intend that members should use the e-mail addresses of posters in this way? I expect not. Is it even within the TofU? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | No thank you!
|
|
(...) Well I was, but I'm not any more. I've got to stop actually taking you at your word, I really should know better. I've apologised and I'll do it again if it will help. I apologise for taking you at your word that you did not want to be on that (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:Gn9n82.12G@lugnet.com... (...) listen to the BBC radio program I mentioned in earlier post for discussions on US governments role in creating the drug problem (URL) 15 minutes in till the end (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scott's too lazy to unsubscribe
|
|
(...) What is the "You're welcome" for? Are you expecting thanks? You really are an arrogant sod. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Me too. We just disagree about how to get from here to there. (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) It would indeed be nice if a war-less system had *ever* existed. Obviously a world without war is preferable to a world in which war is common, but wars were fought for stupid reasons long before focus groups and media polls existed; there's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Apology.
|
|
I apologise. It was forward of me to try to assist you and I regret any inconvenience it may have caused you, because your words did not match your desires, and I made the mistake of taking you at your word, something I promise I will be more (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Well, Scotland. And let's take care of Luxembourg while we're at it... All right, though--I see your point. Perhaps what I'm envisioning requires greater individual responsibility and participation in the Government than is currently the case, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) I want a system where countries do not want to "nuke" others and where wars are not fought via focus groups and media driven opinion polls. Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) I'll buy that, at least about certain issues. It seems to me that some states would immediately erode civil rights if given the chance and not prevented by the Fed from doing so. Yes, we always have privacy and search-and-seizure issues (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Oh ya. We're not arguing about that!!! I think maybe you can even argue that you get the results FASTER with many smaller organisms competing (in the market of bad ideas fostered by the very existence of big government and the system it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | infringement of my privacy
|
|
(...) What gives you the right to delete that? Did I even imply I wanted you to? Is this the kind of thing you normally do? I see this as a gross infringement of my privacy. I demand an apology. (...) I think I have 3 id's on Lugnet. One I can no (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scott's too lazy to unsubscribe
|
|
(...) That WAS me... (URL) welcome. (...) Oh please do, as that will forever put to bed any lingering question as to whether you can call it junk or not. You couldn't before I unsubbed you of course... but now you definitely cannot. (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Smaller states == smaller tyrannies. More states == more of a marketplace of ideas. Do you want a system in which the current population of China and India can vote to nuke Scotland??? (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Yeah, but... Doesn't the Constitution also expressly empower the judicial system to interpret the law as it applies case-by-case? That seems a fairly clear indication that the founding fathers "intended" to have the justices making the exact (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) I deny it too. I just think that you can get the same results with smaller factions all vying for power. -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Yes, there is a benefit. One leadership at that scale cannot see the trees for the forest -- only the big problems could be dealt with, and not the smaller local ones. It is my assertion that I have no idea from here in CA what would suit the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scott's too lazy to unsubscribe
|
|
(...) Interestingly, my subs has just been cancelled: ==+== You have been unsubscribed from the mailing list lp-announce by WWW form: (URL) shall miss the paranoia, I'm almost tempted to take the time to subscribe myself. Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Right. And I take my read on what's constitutional from what the founding fathers *intended*, not from what the current supreme court says about the matter. As I've said before, many times, effectively answering the question posed. As an (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) They're true assertions about how things operate. Further, they're extremely valid reasons for the powers that be to want drugs illegal although I deny that they've organised into an overarching conspiracy that has thought things through. But (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) There is a FLEXIBILITY built into the system. Sometimes it's a good thing in my view, sometimes it's a bad thing. My argument is less with the govt. system than the people of this country -- they often seem not to care about politics, and when (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Unsubscribe from the LP newsletter
|
|
I checked. Scott is not subscribed to the LP newsletter under the current email tag on his post: eh105jb@mx1.pair.com... but he WAS subscribed under a tag that was in use some time ago. Not any more. Note that I only tried one address, I don't have (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) I must confess that this has always puzzled me. Why are "states" preferable to a single state? I can certainly understand how in earlier times the limits of communications and geography necessitated the subdivision of the nation, but this no (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:Gn994v.CIp@lugnet.com... (...) Because taxing it at 80,000% would simply continue the demand for illegal, untaxed product lawrence (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) ? I admit I'm not up on the issues, but essentially the reasons you give are "under-the-covers" reasoning. And as such, are they encouragable? IE is having "slush money" and "overseeing drug trade" and "illegally dealing in drugs" something (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
But does your constitution not give you supreme court the right to do “all kinds of crazy things” with your rights? By the way, I was talking about this story: US outlaws 'medical' marijuana (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Depends on the court we are talking about. The current court has done all kinds of crazy things with our rights. That the power of the single state is losing ground to the idea of a single nation in an era of "globalization" is hardly (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Hmmm, no answer to this: (Re: Scott's too lazy to unsubscribe)
|
|
Hmmm, no answer to this: "Does your supreme court agree with that view? I hear not." Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What makes larry think I am too lazy to unsubscribe?
|
|
(...) Youch! An insult. (...) No. (...) Its content is mostly junk. I did not sign up for it. It is junk mail. QED. (...) In what way? I have a lot "priorities", I can't think of any which are directly related to LUGNET. (...) I have said it before, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Oops! (was Re: Medical Marijuana)
|
|
(...) "foreign companies" sould be "foreign countries". yeeeesh! -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
