 | | Re: On Hiatus
|
|
<snip> (...) Jude, this seems to me like an attempt to get something started. So don't do that, it's the last thing we need. While I agree with the message that Tim's original post carried, (in fact, I agree *very* strongly with him, but that's for (...) (23 years ago, 10-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On Hiatus
|
|
(...) I guess that means the conversation is over, the admin thinks it's noise. Jude FUT o-t.debate (23 years ago, 10-Mar-02, to lugnet.people, lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting look at the SSSCA
|
|
So like...some politicians were bought out by Big Money... ...SHOCKING!! Seriously, that was an interesting read. Thanks for the link. (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Interesting look at the SSSCA
|
|
(URL) (23 years ago, 7-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question... (long)
|
|
(...) Then lenders will be reluctant to loan. But that doesn't mean that they won't do it ever again under any circumstances. They'll just make the loan's terms more favorable to account for the risk. (...) I understand that this is what the FDIC (...) (23 years ago, 7-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question... (long)
|
|
(...) loans. If the individual defaulting has trouble with credit, what happens when the entire system (everybody) defaults. Think of the people that were reluctant to put money in the bank after the Great Depression and all the bank defaults. The (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question... (long)
|
|
(...) Unless he shared ownership with 99 other folks each of whom could come up with $1K. Joint ownership instead of borrowing, right? (...) Actually, that's just getting a loan. Finding partners who want their share value to increase seems more (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
|
(...) I had to check this one in my copy of the OED (Oxford Emoticon Dictionary) You're right, that's not right. It's supposed to be = ;^) It drives me crazy when folks don't emote properly with previously unused characters on the keyboard. I (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
|
Well, as long as we are being anal, we might as well point out that the use of ";-)" is of no value to proper written English. In other words, it is not grammatically correct. The rest of us probably knew what the implied meaning of "beg the (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
|
(...) Sure there's such a thing. You mean you've never competed in it? If you're interested in tickets let me know, I'll give you my Paypal ID so that you can send money. I also accept Canadian Tire money at par. Of course, if you're not of legal (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Curious, if true
|
|
(...) And by choosing that, are you not "taking care of yourself"? ;-) (...) By "taking care" I do not mean legislate or coerce. Sometimes a simple "WAKE UP!" scream is what's missing so that someone realizes there may be something wrong. Just the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question... (long)
|
|
(...) I think that there is a misconception about the role debt plays in the economy and what interest actually is. Here is some basic financial theory (A good way to get this is to have you company pay for you to get an MBA (U of Michigan) :-)) (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
|
(...) Never let it be said you can't learn something from LUGNET. I always thought one of the meanings of 'inferred' meant 'related to', like the inherent properties thereof. such as 'I thought that this particular thing inferred that'--read as--'I (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
|
(...) By the way, an "inference" is traditionally made by the person who's doing the reading/listening/interpreting. You're thinking of "implied," which is done by the person/thing making the statement. Person A: Are you implying that I'm stingy? (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) leave (...) That's true to some extent. But isn't it changing the rules mid-game every time new laws are passed? Obviously we're discussing a much larger change than just adjusting our property tax rate up .25% to pay for school renovation or (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
|
(...) Few are more anal than I when it comes to the proliferation of such apparent pseudo-words as this, but the burden of precedence is against us. According to www.yourdictionary.com the word "attendee" first saw use in 1937, so if we're (note (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
|
(...) Not that I'm an expert on grammar, but my entire life 'begs the question' meant to expound on the previous thought with a question... let me see if I can make a Daveish scenario... Person 1 "I think that your interest in LEGO is too extreme." (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
|
(...) ...there's an apostrophe in "we're" when used as an abbreviation of "we are". I always wondered about the title of that New Zealand film "Once Were Warriors", but apparently it is intended to be the past participle of 'are', as the line is (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) If they are, then yes, but if the losing side suddenly decides it doesn't like the rules and wants to change in mid-game, you can bet it won't sit well with the side that's ahead. And no one will take the new rules seriously if they are (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) As long as Tim Courtney apparently wrote the mail on behalf of LDraw.org, I don't think it is a personal mail. I think it is perfectly acceptable to bring it's content up in a public newsgroup. I would have tended to agree with you, had the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard W. Schamus writes: <mostly staying out> (...) I agree, and it's too bad. Names and who gets to use them and what assertions are made about them (trademarked or not, which org or group, etc.) are always a source of (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Netspeak terms? (was: Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe)
|
|
(...) Hmmm, (too many "m"s?;-) I always took "hehe" to be a sort of netspeak for a low, chuckle under the breath. "Hee hee" looks *way* too undignified and I'd never do it, much less spell it that way. "Heh heh" looks to me like a pervert ogling, (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Next time you're thinking about flaming someone on-line
|
|
(...) That is what you would think... but I had heard that some of these legal beagles track down who the poster actually is by forcing the site to give info when registered (so much for anonymity, but the site ToS typically say they will bend over (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
|
(...) There is such a thing? Sounds twisted, do you have a link to share??? (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
There is no doubt for me, that at this point it has turned into a mess. I can't say that I know Tim's methodology or motivations for doing anything. Nor do I believe that he is apt to "Bully" anyone. I do know that having contact with Tim over the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) rate. (...) Unless there's a reason that I'm missing, that's kind of my default thought. (...) Got that, but in a global economy it's a phantom concept. I could always trade across the border. Maybe it made more sense way back when before (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Curious, if true
|
|
(...) Who can't? What about those who can (~99.99% of the population) but choose not to? Should they not have that right? If not, I find the world that you want to live in creepy. I even accept on some philosophic level that I have a responsibility (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) If the rules are currently patently unfair, is it not patently unfair to leave them as is? (...) That's silly. People will do whatever kind of work is needed as determined by the market. If housing is needed the market will provide it. I would (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
|
(...) Actually, I think it was John's comments that begged the question. :) (...) O.K. No disagreement on the actual meaning. I was relying on the implied and commonly understood meaning. As wrong as it may be, it's used in everyday coversation for (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) If you mean to say that Lego has no legal foothold agaisnt Lugnet and Ldraw, with all due respects, you are wrong. My intention is not to ridicule you or debate for the sake of debating, but here are a few actions Lego could take inmediately (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Next time you're thinking about flaming someone on-line
|
|
(...) real email address and your actual name (presuming one actually provides it, as I have)? I can't see how anybody can get the info. on people posting over at f*ckedcompany.com for example (not without more information than is readily available (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) You raise an interesting point -- I gather you think the true value is best determined through daily market forces. I am pretty sure the point of a ratio rather than certificates traded for daily value has to do with making the value static. (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
|
(...) Which doesn't say they don't also sell them drugs, even while in prison. I don't know about the US, but here in Germany, it is said to be easier to get drugs in prisons than outside. Didn't try it yet, though ;-) Greetings Horst (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) And I'd HAVE to go back to work. :-( (...) I pretty much agree, although there is a danger of stereotyping-- many people who are not rich but have been playing by the rules for several years would be hurt. And if you suddenly change the rules (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) And (...) No, I'm not (IMO). (...) No, they are names, one letter of which stands for LEGO. They do not contain the word LEGO. Why else do you think LEGO leaves them alone, while asking the developers to rename legOS? ROSCO FUT: .o-t.debate (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Curious, if true
|
|
(...) I meant both. And it is our business as well, to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. (...) Depends on your level of tolerance; I lived in a smoke free environment and was shocked the first time I entered my college's bar (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Curious, if true
|
|
(...) Hey, no fair--you're not allowed to dig up archived diatribes; that's my trick. Dave! (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) Heh. I'd be pleased as pie if Zeus could come off his mountain and zap my student loans with a thunderbolt. Since I'm not yet a homeowner, that hefty monkey on my back makes up very nearly the entirety of my debt. Not that I'm shirking my (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Curious, if true
|
|
(...) Well maybe you shouldn't have children then. ;-> Chris (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) I'd quit my job. (...) Many wealthy people would lose their perpetual income streams. Many lower middle class people would lose their perpetual debt streams. I'd like to change your scenario a little. What would happen if the place where (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
