 | | Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
|
| The big irony here is that drug production in Afghanistan has increased | since the Taliban were removed. No doubt that will reduce the price on the | street a little (but not by 16999/17000) - which appears to be an LP goal? | ;) Lastly - it (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
No way. I spent all my adult life avoiding debt (other than my mortgage - and the rate I pay on that is *less* than I get on my savings). I don't see why I should pay for others getting bank loans to play the stock market. (...) I'm sure I read (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...)
|
|
(...) Why keep reducing this to personalities? This is about issues - not personalities. Stick to the issues. Forget your relationship with Larry for now. I shall ask again: This is what I don't get. Larry offends people. Larry acts childishly. (...) (23 years ago, 1-Feb-02, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: how to lie with statistics
|
|
RRRRrrrrrr.... (...) Big Whoop, and, gee thanks for Dragging my name into this for no good reason. I warn you, please do not use my name at all for any reason in this forum for purposes that advance your own pleasures. I build for the sake of (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) Eh? These are usually public projects, how is it that there is not enough money collected from taxes to accomplish these things? Don't even get me started on how Californians have already paid for their power plants. Anyway, it's the interest (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) I believe he's referring to railroads and such. Roads are funded a bit differently, but may use loans. Phone lines, gas pipes, electric plants and transport lines... they are all usually funded with loans - it is unfrequent one or ones have (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) Gee, Frank -- don't you think its weird that I, a pagan, have generally come out in support of a custom enumerated in the bible; whereas you, a Xtian, have come out against it? Curiouser, and curiouser... (...) Didn't you mean: Wealth in and (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) Dave! are you coming over to the "Fight Club" side of debate? This is exactly what happens at the end of the movie...my fav part. This is all part of an ancient custom, in the bible it is known as The Feast of Jubilee -- its celebration (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) I think it would cause economic collapse. One question you would have to ask is what really do you mean by debt? If I buy stock in a company which is trying to raise capital, is that a debt or not? One serious problem is that you would (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon Leader ordered Massacre?
|
|
(...) Ok, so I am a real ignorant about American History. But what is the impact of this, anyway? It was a long, long time ago; what harm can it do now to reveal these facts? It is not as if someone were ot be arrested or anything... (...) (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Mormon Leader ordered Massacre?
|
|
Interesting news here: (URL) free registration. You can enter false ID if you want to be anonymous) ~GAMH (23 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
What would happen if all debts public and private were just plain cancelled as of, say, 1/1/2002? I choose an already-passed date so that there couldn't be a mad dash to accrue huge debt in hope that it would be eliminated. In all seroiusness, what (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
|
| Their site doesn't say how they're gonna pay for the extra resources needed to | treat drug abuse as a medical problem. That is because the LP is about ideas, not solutions. The LP should be able, as a fringe party, to raise the level of debate. (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
|
(...) My guess is the "War on Drugs" probably supports some politicians & businessmen, too. For that matter, there's probably politicians & businessmen that support terrorism. The average Joe probably (unknowingly) supports terrorism indirectly in (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Wackiness, Thy Name is Two-Headed Moose Foetus
|
|
(...) I'm afraid I explained myself poorly: what I mean is that, besides the obvious scientific study of mutations, and the sociological study you mention (this one I did not recall, to be honest), there is no point in making such a display of (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
|
(...) Yeah, probably. I liked the ad. It reminded me of the better Robbie Conal or Barbara Krueger stuff, some of Conal's posters can be seen at: (URL) esp.: (URL) Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
|
Strange, I would have thought that a greater priority for the LP would have been protecting the rights of those held by your government in Guantanemo Bay or even those held without formal charge in jails in the USA? But I expect there are few votes (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
|
To counter the propaganda run a few weeks ago the LP supposedly placed an ad in today's USA Today. Here is the info on it: (URL) here is the ad: (URL) pdf, may be a bit slow to d/l) Did anyone see it? I don't normally get that paper except when (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | scientology conspiracy in Hollywood (was Re: Urantia?)
|
|
(...) I’m afraid I don’t know enough about French culture/legislation to really answer your point. But you appear to be inferring that this could never happen in the USA? Could the scientologists not just be labelled “un-American” and then a witch (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Urantia?
|
|
(...) Yeah, I've wondered about this issue as well. For me, much can be made of the fact that the "religion" in question [allegedly] goes to great lengths to restrict its member's freedoms, such as freedom to choose a different religion, so there (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Urantia?
|
|
(...) "The trial, the first to be heard under tough new anti-cult legislation, was brought by three former Scientology members who accuse the organisation of harassing them after they had left." It seems to me that having "anti-cult" legislation (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pay per mile in UK?
|
|
(...) I meant "Long Term". It is actually a "ET" (Edinburgh Transport) system. David Begg is (was?) an Edinburgh councillor (as well as being a transportation expert). (...) A satellite dish on the roof will do no damage to the dash! (...) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pay per mile in UK?
|
|
(...) I thought he meant Long Term. Chris (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pay per mile in UK?
|
|
(...) By that do you mean London Transport? 'cos it isn't actually one of ours. I can explain the differences between Transport for London and London Transport and Road User Charging and Congestion Charging if you'd like. I expect that *if* it goes (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pay per mile in UK?
|
|
(...) you simply mean to be pointing out how trivial the accounting would be by using this kind of technology. (...) Cost to whom? In the US you have to have annual or semiannual vehicle inspections for safety and emissions standards. If the UK (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Urantia?
|
|
(...) I thought what is happening in France would add to your comments: Scientologists face Paris ban (URL) "an essentially commercial enterprise," which offered members "the illusory promise of revival" in their lives. "The methods of Scientology, (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pay per mile in UK?
|
|
(...) It is a LT proposal (10 years). I expect that *if* it goes ahead, the technology (based on GPS) will be fitted to new cars. In 10 years, I expect GPS will be almost standard and cheap anyhow(?). Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Pay per mile in UK?
|
|
Seem to recall some debate a while ago about privatising roads - here's a link at The Observer: (URL) wanna know how much it's gonna cost to make sure all vehicles have a "black box", and how often they're gonna sample. There's an awful lot of (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Urantia?
|
|
(...) I figured that you would at least have seen the main site, of course, but it seemed a good place to start! (...) A little? Nah! 8^) (...) Unfortunately, a quick run around the 'net doesn't return much other than decidedly pro- and decidedly (...) (23 years ago, 22-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Urantia?
|
|
Thanks, Dave! I did, of course, find the first link of my own before posing the request. Some dead links detracted from the experience there -- at least their central texts links were down when I visited last night. The second link you provided is a (...) (23 years ago, 22-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Urantia?
|
|
(...) I've only ever heard of it in passing. The official site is www.urantia.org and features an overview of the doctrines and history of that belief system, as well as an extensive discussion of "The Urantia Book," an anthology of teachings (...) (23 years ago, 22-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: VP of lego direct Q&A Transcript
|
|
(...) I honestly don't know. You'd have to ask someone who works for LEGO. I *think* they are, but I have no proof, no data, no substance to back up that thought.... it's just a feeling I have. Do you think this is what they're doing? (...) I (...) (23 years ago, 22-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: VP of lego direct Q&A Transcript
|
|
(...) So do you think that is what they're doing? (...) I think there are seperate issues here: 1. That eBay sales can be useful for determining what sets and pieces to rerelease. 2. That eBay sales are insignificant in terms of total LEGO sales And (...) (23 years ago, 22-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: VP of lego direct Q&A Transcript
|
|
(...) If this is what they're doing, then I believe they're doing a good thing. The original thread of this discussion however had nothing to do with whether or not they are actually doing this. It was about them releasing products to try and (...) (23 years ago, 22-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Urantia?
|
|
Does anyone have essentially unbiased, yet informed, knowledge about a branch of Christianity called Urantia? I'd appreciate anything anyone cares to share on the subject. I am genuinely curious and I promise not to bite the hand that feeds me this (...) (23 years ago, 22-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ? ... (Shooting the messenger)
|
|
(...) Semi-publicly. It's hard to find his personal email on the site, as was noted. He reminded me offline that webmaster@brickshelf.com works (as it does for MANY MANY websites) but I would reply that this convention is not necessarily known all (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ?
|
|
Sorry for the double post but I would like to soften the tone of this entire thread by saying I'm glad Larry & Scott agree on something. (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ? ... Pot calling the kettle black.
|
|
Put up or shut up. Everyone that reposted the link and jumped down his throat needs to apologize to Richard for doing the same thing he did. Now there is some common sense. (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ?
|
|
(...) Excellent! May I suggest that if he's willing, a group to discuss Brickshelf(tm) might be a good idea too. Not sure where to slot it in the hierarchy though. Discussion about Brickshelf seems to happen in various places now (.publish, (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Q Re: ?
|
|
"Benjamin Medinets" <bmedinets@excite.com> wrote in message news:GruEy2.EHG@lugnet.com... (...) Yeah. The whole thing is a tricky situation, lets let that part of it die and work to come to an agreement on how to effectively deal with situations (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
