 | | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) Which chapter of the Bible talks about the dinosaurs? (...) Some people find that little omission to be contradictory to reality. :) Just curious, A.B. (23 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) Well, there are two major types of contradiction to consider: those between two or more passages of the bible (such as the number of kinds of animals on the ark--2 or 7 of each?); and those between the bible and reality (such as the fact that (...) (23 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) Dude, you really need to go back and check out the references. I mean, he skips and chooses. Even on the quick "Jesus and the Poor" he leaves out Jesus' explanation of why the woman poured oil on Him. In other words, he eliminated "the basic (...) (23 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just when I thought Pennsylvania couldn't get dumber...
|
|
(...) most level-headed, progressive community in the land, a number of local politicians have determined that the absence of prayer from schools is one a key reason for the decay of society. To this end: (URL) course, Pennsylvania's neighbor to the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) That was going to be my point as well. I would argue that every translation including the first one (ie, from the "mind of God" to the "hand of man") automatically (though not necessarily intentionally) reflects some of the biases of the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) Ah. Okay. Well, I found it funny for a related reason--mostly that James had the translation slanted in a way to extol monarchy and, some suggest, Catholicism (James having been a closet Catholic as he was). That's ironic for a lot of the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) Well, if it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me;-) -John (23 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) An interpretation they share with many detractors of the Bible. (...) I've not read it, so I don't know anything about it's stance (pro-Bible or anti-Bible), but you might want to check out a book called _The Harlot by the Side of the Road: (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) There are those Christians who think that the KJV is the only valid translation, and that all more recent translations (NIV, NASB, RSV, etc) are suspect. Some of them elevate the KJV so much that it seems they even find the original Hebrew, (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) You're right on this point. My apologies. (...) Yes, it is this sort of interpretation... Bob says, "I would like to explain why I don't think you should kill Johny Walker." Newspaper Story: Bob says, "I would like to... kill Johny Walker." (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) I never questioned whether it was right or wrong, but rather its appropriateness (if that's a word). As Ian Malcolm once stated: "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should..." Is the _ONLY_ way to express (...) That's an (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: America at Work, or When in Doubt -- Shred It!
|
|
(...) I caught part of yesterday’s shenanigans with GWB's mate Ken. The thing that amazed me most was that over half (17) of the senators taking part in the hearing had taken $$$ from Enron. Does nobody see this as a conflict of interest... or are (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the heck is going on ?! - Heteronyms!
|
|
(...) perfect (...) successful. (...) Also remember that the Lego brand is a household word in that people go to stores looking to buy Lego products that are made by a company of the same name. Most other toy manufactures do not have this type of (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the heck is going on ?! - Heteronyms!
|
|
(...) Indeed. In fact, one of the reasons I feel compelled to stand up for LEGO in this sort of discussion is the opinions I held, as a child. First the minifig came along and played havoc with scale, and then, space came along -I thought it was an (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) As my dad likes to say "and Jesus wrote with a red pen." Ben Roller (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) Depends. I get the joke, but I'm not sure it's the joke you were intending. :) (I presume you're making fun of the highly suspect circumstances of the KJV's translation?) (...) And the strength of Christianity and Christians should be in the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) BPS is taking on one of the great "sacred cows" of American society, the Bible. While his earlier chapters were much subtler, with his latest group of stories he has eased into full blown mockery mode. Of course the most recent chapters are (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the heck is going on ?! - Heteronyms!
|
|
(...) As a privately owned company, the full details of TLC's fiscal results are not likely to be published, if I understand things correctly. -H. (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) Obviously the only valid Bible is in the original KJV. :) Okay, I know, only Christians got that joke. Anyway, on to the main topic of the debate here. Three things. 1. The tone is definitely mocking, self-admittedly so.* 2. I'm a pretty (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) It looked like a simplified children's Bible to me, and not one meant to be taken as complete. Perhaps reading through the "Young Person's Bible" I gave to my son prepared me to accept this kind of thing. I read through the Last Supper, with (...) (23 years ago, 12-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) Well, you can probably always find someone to find something offensive. (...) I haven't looked at these in too much detail, but what I see is someone combining two life passions. Is it wrong for people to look for ways to express things which (...) (23 years ago, 12-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) Herein perhaps lies part of the problem IMO. BPS has taken a subject that is for many a serious one, and while folks with a good sense of humor can brush it off, some might find it offensive. For instance, I personally find those holocaust (...) (23 years ago, 12-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) Considering that the majority of Biblical citations made by religious zealouts engage in just as selective censorship, I think that The Reverend's approach merely provides some much needed balance. --Bill. XFUT: off-topic.debate (23 years ago, 12-Feb-02, to lugnet.build.ancient, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
|
(...) Ok, this was my first problem with your post. Let's keep this kind of talk in off-topic where it belongs. :) Now on to my main points. (...) He presented an artistic interpretation that skipped around the text that it was based on. I think we (...) (23 years ago, 12-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) I don't know. You seem (though maybe not) to be implying that it would be less. I'm not so sure. But what if he'd been asking $50 but had an unadvertised way to send less. Would I have been the only one to use it? Today, I can just email money (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) Again, my question is, if he allowed the users to decide how much to pay (which is effectively what you are asking for), would he have got more or less money total? (...) I agree that online banking will help the situation. There does still (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) I happen to enjoy a VERY wide variety of music genres. I doubt that I shall easily find a set of reviewers whose views I respect or understand well enough to rely upon them. Perhaps, others with more boxed-in tastes can be served that way -- I (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) He lost $20. That seems dumb to me. (...) I wonder what percentage of LUGNET members paid more than the minimum (I don't even remember what it is) for membership. I wonder if it matters. If the system we have is set up so that an average piece (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) What if your idea became the property of The People and The People compensated you for the time it took you to perfect the idea? Since your time is as valuable as anyone else's, if you are developing ideas for the good of The People, you could (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) Why do people list LEGO sets for (and get) exorbitant prices on eBay (and elsewhere)? If it's something they're interested in, and they can't be bothered searching for a better price, they'll pay what's asked. ROSCO (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
I see at the bottom you acknowledge that how IP works is a tough cookie, so please take the following questions not as criticism, but as ways to probe the workings of IP... (...) Is it really that dumb? In our current culture, I think that if the (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) Something to consider is that a low volume item will have a higher cost. Some cost factors for a CD: - how long does it sit on the stores shelf (anyone know what fraction of a penny it costs for a CD to sit on the shelf of a music store for a (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) Well, Lugnet is a gatekeeper. I expect the big music publishers to start to fade away. I see a future with middlemen with a smaller audience and focus. On the other hand, I also expect some large middlemen to emerge. I bet bars would much (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) I didn't so much mean between you and I as between the music industry and the rest of us. (...) Actually, I think you are still able to make the copy for the friend under the Fair Use doctrine, but I'd have to research it further. Cursory (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) Maybe he's broke. Maybe he likes it enough to check it out, but not enough to procure a copy. Maybe it would be useful, but not useful enough to pay the asking price. Incidentally, I once searched for a way to pay a shareware producer ~$20 (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) Ding! I got it! In my broad-sighted way I was thinking only of the problems of the original copy, rather than the fair-use backups. (...) No, but I sometimes spin a CD on my finger and shine a laser pointer on it for the economical way to (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) I agree it's limiting their own sales more than anything else, but much as I dislike the idea, I think they have the right to distribute DVDs as they see fit. Of course with so many non-region DVD players still available, it's a pretty (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) Note also that such CDs won't play in many "ordinary" CD players either. ROSCO (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) Like DVD region issues? Yikes! Talk about shooting themselves in the foot... I go with the book license as suggested by Frank -- I own a copy of a thing, how I use it is up to me. If I own the song on vinyl -- I can dupe it to CD or MP3. (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) While I agree with you on the value of convergent media, I don't know that one's "right to listen to something on the hardware of [his] choosing" is really the crux of it. That is, you're welcome to listen to your Maurice Chevalier 78's on (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
More quibbling over the details... (...) I disagree with this view -- you are basically asserting that gatekeepers are not only here to stay but will somehow increase in their cultural value. The reality is that it takes a lot of work to discover to (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
Rather than try and respond to specific points, I'm going to try an lay out my thoughts. Richard and Christopher have raised some interesting issues. Clearly the ideal is that the creator of a work get fairly compensated. This suggests that the more (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Now I think I've seen one of the ads in question. It had different teenage-looking kids switching in and out, each one saying a line, then switching: -"I helped kill a father" -"It was just a bit of fun" -"I let a terrorist get a passport" -"I (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) Well, first off, if it's the same version of Pompeii that I have, then you have my sympathy for some really poor sound quality. If it's not, then you have my envy for a really cool disc. As I understand it (and of course I'm a board-certified (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) What if it's just a loan (like the library does)? What if I want him to check out this really cool live recording of Pink Floyd at Pompeii -- so I dupe it and give him the copy? My point being that his interest is minimal, but he'll give it a (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) If he wouldn't have purchased it a million years, then why would he want you to give a copy to him? If you're giving a copy to him because he wants it but wouldn't in a million years deign to purchase it, then it's theft. Same with books and (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) In truth, it was my somewhat outrageous opposite reaction to what I still think is an outrageous claim made by those commercials. Someone in the whitehouse ought to either: a) get their head out of their ass (donky, that is), or b) be ashamed (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) How? If I give you a CD that I duped, that you would never in a million years have purchased, I don't see how it effects the profits of the music company that made the CD that I bought. It just doesn't! Same with books and software and (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) I think you must mean: "A computer programmer who can afford to buy LEGO toys in spite of the fact that people give away software to all their friends because corporations have to pay for their copies." "What is" is that information is free. (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Evolution again..
|
|
Just came upon this (URL) which discusses evidence of a possible mechanism for macroevolution. Interestingly, I recently read Greg Bear's novel "Darwin's Radio" which also talks about this, and there's some interesting stuff on his site (URL) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) It is true that copyrights are dominated by corporations, but the idea that the author should have control over his work is still valid. Limited sharing with friends should be encouraged since this will entice some of them to buy the work for (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) have (...) 30-year (...) Anyway, back to the original topic, this is like saying the carpenter that built the bar supports the attack & rape of women by intoxicated men (and all other gender combinations). I'm still considering whether or not (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
The whole problem here in the U.S. is that corporations don't want to miss out on a single penny. The recent Copyright laws (DMCA) basicly state that if you didn't pay for it, then you're a criminal... if you want to see what something is, pay for (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) With the exception of the Artist's pool, the situation is similar in Portugal. You can copy whatever you wish, as long as you have bought the original and don't make any money selling the copies (giveaways are OK). Pedro (23 years ago, 7-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism! (the stigma)
|
|
I agree with both Kirby and Chris wholeheartedly. Legalizing drugs would most definately solve more problems than it would create. Those who sit and believe that if legalized drugs would still be sold by your local corner pusher need a strong dose (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) That's a good point, too. It's my understanding that a sizable number of OD's result from unpredictable substance purity, rather than from some inherent evil in the substance. Dave! (23 years ago, 7-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Maybe I got it wrong. I know about the red wine thing, but I also remember the frequency of intake being greater, so maybe I'm just mixed up. I thought it was a glass per day or something. But I thought there was some greater effect attributed (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) I mean, I think we have sufficient wealth that with out too weighty a burden, we could leverage some of that wealth to turn impoverished nations into active customer nations that would eventually blossom into competitors. Not only, _could_ we, (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
Hello, (...) I don't know about the US, but here in Germany, we pay part of the price for each tape deck, CD burner, etc. into a pool that is meant to compensate the artists and copyright holders for the private copies made with those devices. (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism! (check this out)
|
|
I was browsing through Fark.com and came across this: (URL) is a rather long article, but informative. Exactly who do these people think they are to tell The People what they can or cannot suggest? (23 years ago, 7-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should recreational drugs be illegal?
|
|
(...) was (...) Thats AU$. At $7 a pack, that's about 2 packs a day each, though he was smoking more than she was. Not hard for chain smokers. Tobacco is addictive. If you become addicted it's hard to stop even when you have no (other) need for it. (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Disagree that the US "doesn't" produce raw goods? Or disagree that there isn't enough for the planet to share the US/Canada/Aus/Euro/etc standard of living? (...) Maggie's point being (I think) that the US doesn't produce enough to sustain (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism! (the stigma)
|
|
What exactly *is* the harm in legalizing narcotics? Some people will certainly abuse them, regardless of the law. Some people will also die from them. But people die from all manner of things daily, so why should narcotics be considered some (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) I disagree. Every nation produces raw goods at some level. I'm more worried about large corporations, such as Mansanto in Canada, monopolizing those raw materials/goods just because they've created and patented the means to produce artificial (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Heh-- I brought that up in the other corner of the thread :) Threatening to the US? Potentially. Good(TM)? I dunno. Depends on who for, as usual :) (...) Sad but true. I'm not against them producing raw goods, but it seems that: 1. "3rd world" (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) But is it in the best interest of the world as a whole for them to graduate from being a third world country? Someone has to produce raw goods. And we don't have the global resources for everyone on the planet to sustain the standard of living (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Are you sure about that bit? I've heard, for instance, that two glasses of red wine per week can be heart-beneficial, but that isn't the same as a correlation between alcohol consumption and benefit; there are plenty of other components in red (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Ah, the good old days! No doubt toothpaste and bubblegum and baby food would soon follow suit. 8^) Dave! (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Wow! How much do cigarettes cost? Isn't that like what it would cost to have three lit simultaneously, 24 hours per day? I suspect that they had deeper problems of which smoking and arguing were merely symptoms. It is a shame to see any family (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Indirectly, yes. Just like the whole vegetarian debate. I don't directly support animals being treated brutally, but I won't stop eating meat, either. (...) I guess it would depend on your reasoning for supporting the legalization, but I don't (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Legalization was not mentioned. The commercials were simply meant as a guilt-trip. Bruce (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Coca-Cola would return to it's original state. :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) If our federal government does things that encourage terrorism (and I think it does) aren't we also supporting terrorism? I think that one of the things that we do to cause terrorism to flourish is implement policy that rewards violence. One (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) OK, so if it's a CDRW, you can just write over it. But if it's a CDR you have to eat the material cost. If you intend to repurchase the CD, can you just hang on to the copy, not accessing the data -- just storing it, and then use it again once (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Maybe you're right, Chris. I just can't get past seeing a friend's family breaking up because they were always arguing about money, when they had a combined tobacco habit of about $200/w. Sure, criminalising tobacco wouldn't have helped. It's (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Not really-- essentially you want a good mix of various products, not all of them physical. In order to graduate from being a 3rd world country, I expect they'd need other profitable areas... not just a single product like cocoa or cigars or (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) You mean like coffee and cocoa? Well they're certainly getting my support, as I start each morning with a pot of 100% Columbian-- and I sometimes have chocolate at breakfast. (...) It seems to me any distinction made between the goods we find (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) I'd say the truth is that legalization isn't associable. It might be more correct to say that if you support illegal drug use, you support terrorism, albeit inderectly. Whether or not its legalization would change the terrorist state isn't (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) You are no longer complying with fair use if you have sold the original. You should destroy it or pass it along with the original to the new owner. Bruce (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) Probably from an absolute standpoint, you would be required to destroy it. I can't see that anyone would be upset if you gave it with the original. (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
