 | | Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
Lately I've been lightheartedly condemning a coworker for his habit of signing CD's out of the local library, burning copies of them, and returning the originals, all without paying a cent to the copyright owner, of course. But in considering a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) I thought that Walker was charged with acting against coalition forces in Afghanistan – not involvement in the events of 11.09.01? (...) That was my understanding. (...) Given that his change of sides was so complete, I must admit it did (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) I certainly agree that taxes can get outta hand and in this case, overtaxing would defeat the point of legalizing. Bruce (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Yeah. After I sent that, I didn't like the way I'd worded it. (...) Sure! So things in general should be set up to motivate people to do good, or not motivate them at all and let their inherent goodness rise to the surface. (...) or (...) (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Or, more accurately, above the price it would be if legal. (...) People are also motivated to be 'good' when it is highly profitable. (...) That terror may well subside. Doesn't mean it won't be replaced by other kinds of 'badness'. These guys (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Not so much now, as when they were at the ~50 cdn/carton level. (I don't care, since I don't smoke) As long as it is cheaper/easier to get them legally, then most people will do so. But, I can remember seeing _lots_ of DMK packs (DuMàurier (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) The UK detainees are still different from Walker. The current action in Afghanistan is a direct reaction to an attack on US soil. This Walker is alleged to have treasoned against the US, the UK detainees are just non Afghans, just like the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) My gut feel is that for a while the violence would continue as those currently in positions of power because of the current system attempted to maintain those positions. Eventually they would be unable to maintain their positions. (...) My (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Don't forget, you can't tax it TOO high or it won't work... people will bootleg it. I hear cigs in Canada are getting to that point, people smuggle them in. (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does it pay to be a Patriot?
|
|
(...) Well, they certainly want to be freemen, one of the 22 enumerated statuses of persons in the U.S. Constitution, and that is a worthy goal. But... Patriots, as both you and the govt. call them, are probably a very misunderstood group. Many of (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does it pay to be a Patriot?
|
|
(...) Hah, hah. (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does it pay to be a Patriot?
|
|
(...) Dunno, but I'm optimistic they'll win in the end - by a field goal in the dying seconds! ROSCO (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) What *are* the present security measures? Are they that intrusive? And isn't it the best way to prevent weapons/bombs in planes to "kill" the will to bring 'em? By hitting *the source*? If nobody wants to take a bomb to the plane, nobody will. (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Does it pay to be a Patriot?
|
|
I've been reading a lot about supposed infringements on civil liberties lately. It doesn't require a significant search to find a site highlighting an "infringement" that most citizens are ignorant of. I find much of the subject matter to be over my (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) Not really. It would be disturbing if this were standard procedure in peace time (let's not forget "W" declared war against unknown targets). Or if it kept occurring forever, under the excuse "The war is long, and the end is unforseeble (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) I guess I'm not quite so optimistic. The fact The People have allowed tanks at a public event at all is disturbing. Of course, there have probably been situations like this before, but these security measures seem to occur more (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) It was claimed that they were "happy" - which I thought odd. (...) Concerned, but non-troubling making is how I’d describe it: Straw to quiz US on UK captives (URL) (...) That is irrelevant (even if true). But I do wonder how the next US POW's (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) are (...) have (...) With which part of what I think is obviously the truth do you disagree? My statement breaks down into: A) The price of coke is inflated above the consumer-market value. B) People are motivated to be 'bad' when it is highly (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) Oops. Fair enough. (...) Maybe--has the UK made any effort to extradite those detainees (who have, I understand, reported that conditions in the detainment center are perfectly adequate)? That's a good question, though. What's the UK's policy (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) is alleged to have (...) alleged to have been (...) Indeed. But there are UK "detainees" in Cuba too. Could these guys not have committed treason against the UK? Could they not go on trial in the UK with real charges against them? (...) One (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) The problem isn't so much that it's illegal, but that we've accepted that it's the law's job to police morality. The danger of legalizing drugs isn't the legalization itself so much as the direction our society is already going with personal (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) (URL) That's a pretty interesting discussion of lawful combatants versus al-Qaeda. Personally, I'd like for the determination of "lawfulness" of the combatants to be made by a judge or somesuch, because then it would be "official" and written (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) One might *suppose* the violence would settle, but we have no way of knowing that, much less calling that hypothetical "truth". How many Americans would you suppose could use a highly addictive drug such as cocaine "responsibly"? If cocaine (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) I invite anyone better informed to comment on this, of course: It's my understanding that Walker has committed crimes different from those committed by the other detainees. Since Walker is a citizen, for instance, he is able to commit treason (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
It's easy to put the terrorists and drug lords out of business: just legalize the stuff (and in case that sounds too Libertarian, tax it and use the money for drug education and rehabilitation! <g>). Personally, I think Bush could have inserted (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
The White House Office of Drug Control Policy has started an ad campaign in which they are attempting a clever diversion through the logical equivalent of smoke and mirrors. Their assertion is that by consuming product (cocaine) from places like (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) I don't think so. Simply, the money has to come from somewhere and The People aren't going to be willing to pump 75% of their produce into such security measures. In the worst-case scenario that you seem to be imagining, the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) Uh...I know lots of folks who want it back. Heck, I want it back. This airport security is highly inconvenient. I'm hoping that technological means will be able to replace these procedural security measures in short order. It is more important (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) And totally misses the point, though the first one about standards of justice stares it in the face and still misses it. The point is whether they are being treated better or worse than American citizens accused of similar crimes would be (I (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: State of Emergency? (Since 1933?)
|
|
I think this is one of those articles that is half truth, half B.S. -- probably written by someone with a very specific set of fears and a very specific agenda in mind. It has enough of the truth to look and feel like the truth at first blush, but I (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) Lawrence You are nothing but a left leaning pantywaist! Below are two views on this issue which I read at the weekend: From the New York Times, Jan 29 ==+== Following the standards of the Geneva convention, a treaty signed by Washington and (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) Actually, the same people in charge of security at the Super Bowl are headed to the Olympics after the game. (...) You're assuming, of course that are government is not actually in a perpetual State of Emergency right? Because it could (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: State of Emergency? (Since 1933?)
|
|
(...) Well, if we have operated under some sort of State of Emergency since 1933, it could explain a lot about how so many things have gone wrong in our government. A lot of things in that article were over my head or I simply brushed it aside. What (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: State of Emergency? (Since 1933?)
|
|
(...) I have no information at all about this, and I did not read the whole article (?). But I did get suspicious when I read the parts about "return to the feudal system", "return to the League of Nations" and "worst economic condition after the (...) (23 years ago, 3-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) What, you never went see a football match between England and Germany? The population living near the stadium would be pleased to have the tanks... ;-) Now for real: I guess it is getting a bit out of hand. Sure, it is protection; but isn't (...) (23 years ago, 3-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
In addition to a list of typical fan items that are no longer allowed at the big game and the thousands of secret service agents waiting to search and pat down ticket holders, there are also tanks. Feeling safer already!! (23 years ago, 3-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | State of Emergency? (Since 1933?)
|
|
During one of my random searches for "conspiracy" fodder, I came across this; (URL) link may not work of course, the *wavy* symbol appears to be a superscript in the origional link but I'm a bit ignorant about linking) The document appears mostly (...) (23 years ago, 2-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Article quoting (was: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
(...) quoting what's relevant to the reply and quoting the whole post. ROSCO (23 years ago, 31-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Modern Libraries (was Re: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
(...) I liked RPI's online card catalog. The nicest part was you could log in remotely and use it. It also had an extremely nice search engine, where you could expand and shrink your search. I never tested it for how complete the coverage was, and I (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Hi Mike: This is just a follow up to our discussion so it doesn't seem like I was dogging you arbitrarily. I haven't yet found any "original" source for this quote (by which I mean the actual document or speech in which Brady made the comment) (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Modern Libraries (was Re: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
(...) I think the cords I seen were faded red. Th guy called them "papal bulls"? (...) The building is called Thomas Thomson House. It uses a siphonic roof drainage system{1}. We study these things for various reasons, and the facility manger has (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Floydian slips (Re: Modern Libraries (was Re: Bad news for TRU))
|
|
(...) Should be Freudian Slip. I had just been enjoying the Floydian slip web site: (URL) was lucky enough to get Echoes from Santa, and I have been slowly rediscovering my Floyd CD's. Right now, I can’t get past Comfortably Numb on the Pulse album. (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Article quoting (was: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
Yes : (URL) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Modern Libraries (was Re: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
Alas for "dead storage". Do less people browse now? There is nothing like flipping through the card catalog just to discover the breadth and depth of what exists. There is nothing like wandering the stacks and discovering that your library posesses (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Article quoting (was: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
(...) Scott, is there any reason you continue to quote entire messages in order to reply to a single paragraph? ROSCO Sent to .debate - because there isn't a .off-topic.questions (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Former Yougoslavia. Chechnya. The streets of "Anytown, USA". The Middle East. Taiwan. The Russian mob (no kidding, a month ago a whole bunch of russian military arms was found in a house in the Algarve, owned by russian mobsters. Scary!). And (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Modern Libraries (was Re: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: (snip) (...) This is interesting. I've seen lead seals that were cracked, apparently just by rough handling over the last 700 years, but the only problems I've seen with the cords that attach them to (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Modern Libraries (was Re: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
(...) Floydian slip… ;) Scott A (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Modern Libraries (was Re: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
(...) The first time I was in the building we work with (the main document repository on the edge of town) we got the grand tour. In the restoration room a guy was restoring the very things you are talking about - the lead on the seals attacks the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Modern Libraries (was Re: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
(...) P.S. Scott, I hope that you meant to say "incidentally!" Not taking indecent liberties with the NAS staff, are we? I suppose that WOULD require working closely. (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Modern Libraries (was Re: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
(...) Register House in 1980-81 and again in 1987-88, trying not to put too much additional wear on documents from this period. Also lots of time nearby at the National Library of Scotland. Of course, troublemakers like me want to ensure that you (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Modern Libraries (was Re: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
(...) You are 100% correct (~ '88 is the best we get). For my field that is not all that much of an issue - but for others it will be important. Indecently, I work quite closely with the facility mangers at the National Archives of Scotland, they (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Modern Libraries
|
|
(...) Paul--you may wish to check JSTOR ((URL) if memory serves) for older articles. Your library needs to be a subscriber, and they should have a connection through their Library homepage. There are fewer journals than you'll find in ProQuest, but (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Modern Libraries (was Re: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
In lugnet.market.shopping, Scott Arthur writes: (snip of message which led to Scott Arthur's response) (...) My experience is that all of this is PARTLY true. On the good side, as Scott suggests, you can often get articles from journals which (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trademarks & Copyrights (Swimming pools & movie stars)
|
|
(...) I have no vested interest in GoB one way or the other, but here are a few references to consider: (URL) 30, number 5733) (URL) cottage, known in the twentieth century as "Bricksmith's Cottage" was, in the early nineteenth century, the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trademarks & Copyrights (Swimming pools & movie stars)
|
|
(...) Or is it an issue of community...where we, as communtiy members, should support each other when taking chances or making a difference or providing a service? I don't buy from Brickbay (just once), yet I'm willing to support Dan as much as (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trademarks & Copyrights (Swimming pools & movie stars)
|
|
Maggie: Most browsers have a "find" capability that allows the user to locate a specific term on a page. Try pulling down some of the menus in IE/Netscape/Opera and I am sure you shall find it. You thought I actually read what was on those pages?! (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trademarks & Copyrights (Swimming pools & movie stars)
|
|
(...) Well from what I know of GoB (as an outsider) the two are inextricably linked - people are invited to join the GoB based on what they've built. (...) No, it doesn't, however if one person (or group) has a lot to say about a particular subject (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trademarks & Copyrights (Swimming pools & movie stars)
|
|
(...) Sorry, I meant to say: I THINK there is a difference between what passes for stare decisis and what is ACTUALLY right... -- R (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trademarks & Copyrights (Swimming pools & movie stars)
|
|
(...) I there is a difference between what passes for stare decisis and what is ACTUALLY right... -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trademarks & Copyrights (Swimming pools & movie stars)
|
|
(...) Sorry Hoppy...some 10 instances found on the web (I went a bit further than Google) do not put the word into the vernacular. Citing the Windows example, now there is a word DEFINATELY in the vernacular before trademark was claimed upon (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Or worse, if either side can win and lose at the same time (destroying and being destroyed). (...) Good point. Just imagine the present day US president were in office in 1962, and his Soviet counterpart were Yeltsin. Brrr... :-/ (...) In a (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) It did have a real outcome. My point is that such an outcome would probably have happened anyway. The majority of the CW "hotspots", where the two ideologies reached the point of conflict, had pre-existing tensions; they would have resulted in (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Vendettas (was Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...)
|
|
(...) I'd argue that this is an admin issue if it belongs anywhere on LUGNET(tm) at all. (which I doubt, at this point, that it does) It's a stretch to see how this fits the lugnet.people charter: lugnet.people– All about LEGO® people (enthusiasts, (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...)
|
|
XFUT'ed to .off-topic.debate and .people at Rich Mazno's request. Only keeping it in market for this one post, for continuity so people using newsreaders know my reply is moving. :-) (...) Is my assessment of the above post correct or incorrect? It (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So the support we gave to tin-pot dictators around the world just because they were willing to fight local communists had no real outcome? (...) We shall have to disagree. "Cold" infers not battle took place - hundreds of thousands (millions) (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I think the "West" would have continued to exploit Africa even if the CW had not happened. However, I think the CW did have a significant effect there... and continues to do so. Where did our superfluous weapons go when the CW ended? (...) (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Libraries (was Re: Bad news for TRU)
|
|
Gosh. From the rant below, you must be almost as old as me. You didn't mention one other feature of the "cybrary" model -- that there are seldom enough computers or terminals to accomodate the same number of researchers as the old books. When the (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Alan Keyes is *Interesting*...
|
|
I happened to come across this guy Alan Keyes on cable tonight while waiting for "Blue Planet" to come on again at for it's second showing of the night (missed the first one) -- wow, Alan Keyes sure has a lot of interesting opinions. I couldn't (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So was I 8?) (...) That'd be kewl. (...) end (...) However, western media was always pointing out how far we were ahead of the russians, and I've no doubt they were saying exactly the opposite. Who has greater abilities (or fire-power) doesn't (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) And I'm not sure that the Cold War encouraged poverty and war in most of Africa, though it may have informed or triggered specific points of instability (a la Nasser). But I don't think the presence of that particular arrangement of world (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) What do you mean exactly with "encourage"? IMO, the conditions for the present overabundance of conflicts in Africa has more to do with the Berlin Conference than it has to do with the Cold War. This period only enhanced pre-existing rivalries (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: guantanemo bay
|
|
(...) Here's a little article from the on-line version of my local newspaper about this base: (URL) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed gathering...?!?
|
|
(...) Wargamers do not exist in the current version of the game, so I can pencil in whatever I want. :-) (...) At the time I originally read this, no. We get back from the Dominican Republic (arrrr, I gotta be finding the maritime museums thar) the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) A simple question then: Did the cold war encourage poverty and war in (say) Africa? (...) Cold war : A state of rivalry and tension between two factions, groups, or individuals that stops short of open, violent confrontation. (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So is "developing world." In fact, most people's conditions are becoming worse instead of better--and following a Western prescription for proper development is the crux of the problem. But I would argue that there is only a correlative (and (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Why would it be preferable, in this hypothetical example, to be ruled by machines than governed by humans? Dave! (Only half kidding... After all, we cannot allow a mine shaft gap.) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) If you mean no "bombs" were dropped, I agree. On every other level is was a disaster. Its legacy lives on throughout the developing world today. Calling it a "cold" war is a complete misnomer. Perhaps of OBL had a few nukes, 911 would never (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I guess I was being too simplistic. How about when everyone carried onboard defense-ware that would automagically compute threats and attacks and either alert you to them or respond with massive lethal destructive force? And what if that were (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Those who think they can draw faster? ROSCO (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) This was fine. Don't profane and don't attack people and I think everything else just falls into place. (...) I hold various opinions that I "know" are right and they are in opposition to my society (or at least the vast majority of it). (...) (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
First, I don't intend to troll, but it has been a long time since I participated here, and so I am finding it hard to recognize the limits of acceptable behaviour here. (...) It took me 27 years to realise that during the cold war the Russkies (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) :-) That can be interpreted in different ways... I'll go with the funny one. (...) They have to do with the law. The law is a sort of a commitment, it intends to define good and bad so that we can act accordingly. It sometimes fails, but heck, (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Sheep (was: An armed society...(what if?))
|
|
(...) Yeah, it was intended as more tongue in cheek than it came across--I was in part alluding to my recent calls for other additions to the Godwin list. "Petty and annoying" was a poor word choice... Dave! (23 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) I think that should be ammended to government can't be any smarter than the dumbest person (or sheep if you prefer) you let participate (vote) in it, but that doesn't sound very supportive of democracy, does it? However, it does explain a lot. (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) And they'd be right. (...) No. If we accept that the notion of a villain is self-defined, then we are both our nemises villains. It's not like in comic books where some people are bad and some are good. Most people think they are good (even if (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The Sheep (was: An armed society...(what if?))
|
|
(...) exploit (...) I'm not sure if this was tongue in cheek or not, but just in case... In this segment of my note, the sheep were not the conspiracy nuts, they were the masses of people who, not knowing how to take advantage of the system (and (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I'm quite glad you dropped in. A debate isn't a debate unless different viewpoints are expressed, right? :-) (...) Agreed, for the generality of cases. (...) Perhaps you are neglecting the importance of the markets open for each country: (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) OTOH, that person can think of you as a dangerous threat to his/her lifestyle. PLUS there is the chance you or that person are the villain, but cannot realize it due to strong conviction in your/his/her own ideals (i.e., "I'm right because I (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Sorry, occupational hazard (English major)... The killer is that, the word does have an unfortunate overlap into two related but distinct applications, so it's tough to keep them separate. (...) I'll buy that. (...) I thought they bumped the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Hmm... Alanis Morisette => Some Retail Saint Maybe she's part of the plot to rework the commerce system with all that crazy monopoly money. Of course, Alanis Morisette also => Smartie Toenails. Hmm... And, now that I think of it, "Dave Thomas (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ???
|
|
(...) I think I want some clarification here-- society forces its members to abide by its rules, written, spoken, inferred, whatever. It's the nature of a society. And as the society grows, it becomes harder to avoid. But isn't part of that reason (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Dave! Is this the semantic game AGAIN?! Man, you love to talk about words... Maybe we just need another word for what happens -- maybe the word "conspiracy" is insufficient to describe observed phenomena. I keep thinking about chaos theory, (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A small rant on an unrelated issue
|
|
(...) The midgets (Little People nowadays) were NOT being smuggled. However, what we had inserted into their alimentary canal may have brought objections from the Peruvian government (it certainly did from the midgets). (...) In this case, I can't (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Baaa!! (...) I like what CJ Creig said in WW once, and can't remember exact wording but here's paraphrased... "I take comfort in the fact that once 2 or more people know something, it's impossible to keep it a secret for an extended period of (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ???
|
|
(...) Actually, given the basis of the USA as constituted--its core principles--I'd argue that enslavement would, in fact, constitute the collapse of our society. (But I did read you in the "enslavement" sense, actually.) But it would require some (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Can we go with hoi polloi? (...) That *is* fascinating--on what is that belief based? And where the heck have you been? I haven't seen you on OT.Debate in like a year?! Dave! (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Maybe I am sticking my nose where it does not belong, but I find it unlikely that countries with insurmountable debt are the only countries that would be inclined to invade other countries. As I understand it, prior to WW2, most nations were (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Like any self-respecting and haughty high-born conspirator, I much prefer the term "great unwashed" to "the sheep." So let's go with that please. (...) Actually, I think existence of such is mandatory, but you say unlikely, how fascinating. (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Ummm, how do you know that? Have you asked everyone? Regardless, I also live in a middle class area with low crime, and would postulate the ownership of guns is also fairly low (seeing it's pretty hard to convince our PM of the need to own (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
