 | | Difference between Admin and Member requests(was: The role of ethics)
|
|
(...) Suz, What would have been the consequence (if any) had he or others chosen to ignore your request? Basically, what is the difference between a request from Suzanne Rich, LUGNET Admin and Suz, LUGNET Member #2? Jude XFUT .admin.general (23 years ago, 27-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: The role of ethics (was: The Free Super Chiefs)
|
|
(...) It's just like it looks: The LUGNET Admin (Suzanne Rich) posted a polite request. (...) Topic ignored, if your post had not continued direct questioning of Jeremy, it wouldn't have gotten my attention and resulted in my post, no. But your (...) (23 years ago, 27-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Kinda long eBook thing...
|
|
"richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:GtLswC.Lx1@lugnet.com... (...) encryption (...) it (...) Cool, a subject I know something about :) I went on a training course at Microsoft in Seattle last year specifically on eBook (...) (23 years ago, 27-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Kinda long eBook thing...
|
|
Hey Y'all: I had no idea where else to discuss this issue -- and this group seems gadget and technology interested enough to suit my purposes. Anyway, here it is... Of late I have become interested in eBooks or eTexts and have been looking at the (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
<BIG snip> As an avid reader and attendee of literary (and other) conventions I really want to weigh in on this subject. I believe that reading is an indespensible tool for learning and growing in the present. There are two things I get from books (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) up? (...) No. I'm saying that I can see how one would come, through a non-rigorous examination, to believe that stance. But even when a correlation is shown (which we haven't pointed to) it says nothing of causality. (...) Well, they tell you (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that we can generalize like that. Most of what _I_ read is non-fiction designed to teach a person how to do something (use the perl split() function, plant bamboo, teach the philosophy of appropriate technology, etc.) A close (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
I'm going to make an assumption here, knowing that I could very well be wrong. I don't think that Chris was trying to say that reading is obsolete or inferior to other media, I think he was just trying to pose different sides of the argument... I've (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
To Allan, Chris, and all others interested: My humorous input: I must say that I simply could not live without reading LEGO Idea Books.... <grin> Okay, now my less humorous input: I think I will have to side with Allan (based on his previous post) (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) I still don't see that it diminishes the importance of reading. :) (...) So you're saying you agree, because you've seen this as a person..... but you disagree because there is no academic proof? :) If you studied education at a university (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
Hi all, First, thanks Suz for the great thread idea and sorry for pointing it away from the main point. Second, I'm replying to myself because I thought it would be the lowest-impact way to respond to a bunch of comments. Third, I'm leaving .general (...) (23 years ago, 25-Mar-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The role of ethics (was: The Free Super Chiefs)
|
|
(...) Suzanne, I don't understand the implications of your note. As the administrator here your words have a special gravity that seems to color what might otherwise be a simple statement. Do you mean "(I'm the admind and) you are hereby notified (...) (23 years ago, 25-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs (I Called LSAH)
|
|
(...) The same happened to me a year or so ago. The second package is basically unsolicited mail. When I called Lego, I was told that they did not expect me to waste my time taking it back to the post office just to clear up their error. Scott A =+= (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The role of ethics (was: The Free Super Chiefs)
|
|
(...) [snip] Please respect Jeremy's wish to end his part in this debate... -Suz (23 years ago, 24-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The role of ethics (was: The Free Super Chiefs)
|
|
This whole topic comes down, in my opinion, to meaningless without agreeing on the role of some kind of ethics. (...) :-) (...) My first thought was that you were probably lying. After all, what adult would say that? You claim to be fifteen and that (...) (23 years ago, 24-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mega Bloks IPO
|
|
I remember reading that roughly 80% of IPOs drop to less than half their IPO price within a year. Generally, not a great investment, unless it was Microsoft. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mega Bloks IPO
|
|
(...) You mean they borrow vast sums of other people's money to buy pink bricks, then sweet-talk their way out of bankruptcy? (: It's a poetic idea, that taking care of our beloved bricks endow certain rights upon us... but alas, we shall be called (...) (23 years ago, 23-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free (blank items)
|
|
<snip> I've been very out of pocket and I missed the very fact that this thread is going on. I'd like to sincerely ask that any further discussion on this topic, if it relates to the question of items being free or not, or being under limited (...) (23 years ago, 23-Mar-02, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My closing thoughts on the Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) Maybe you should take your own advice. jt (23 years ago, 23-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My closing thoughts on the Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) Jeremy, You and your father are not thieves nor have you done anything immoral. Bottom line is S@H screwed up, you offered to return the items at their expense (more than many people woule have done), and they rejected your offer. Are we (...) (23 years ago, 23-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My closing thoughts on the Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) You say you want it to die but you have to try to get in the last word? Jude (23 years ago, 23-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | My closing thoughts on the Free Super Chiefs
|
|
Thank you all for your thoughts. When originally posting, I thought that all replies would be positive. A few people would say "fun story", another few tell of a similar incident, etc. However, I didn't assume that we would go into the ethical and (...) (23 years ago, 23-Mar-02, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) The last two people I knew who had lost their wallets had them returned by complete strangers with nothing missing. It's not that uncommon! Anyway, on this whole ownership/possession of goods issue please remember that WE don't possess Lego (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mega Bloks IPO
|
|
It's a shame that owning bricks cannot be considered owning stock in the company. My shares would be small, but there are those in the LUGNET community that would be the equivalent of Donald Trumps in the brick business. Todd (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs (I Called LSAH)
|
|
(...) GET IT IN WRITING!!!!!!! Todd (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
To point out a few flaws in the logic... (...) Not really the same thing as buying two and walking out the door with 2 you didn't pay for. If you buy two and then go to another line and buy two more, or perhaps drive across town to buy two more, (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) fair. (...) I've just gotta say, what's the big deal about the limited editions? I'm guessing there'll be no order limit on the non-numbered version, I'm also guessing the answer to the question is often "profit on the secondary market". If (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs (I Called LSAH)
|
|
To make all of us happy: I called LSAH and the lady told me all was okay, this happens often. If I wanted to pay for them I could but I said i'd rather keep them for free or have them sent back at the cost of Lego. She said, "keep it then." (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
Note: It is against my rules to post here but because of the recent activity, which was caused by me, I decided to break that rule to address this issue and not ignore it. However, I am not here to stay... (...) James, Thanks for the apology. My (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) I think it's still debatable. Of course I mentioned that depending on the circumstances, I would take the effort to help the sender correct their mistake. While I don't call my self a Christian, it is certainly in my values to try and be fair. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) I would also hope the receiving party would at least say something about it! There was a situation in my past when a family member found 2500 dollars (CDN so like 50 bucks for you Americans ;) ) in a parkinglot somewhere. He did not put an ad (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
Ok these are all good points, and I would like to apologize to Jeremy for my earlier "you're a thief and so is your daddy!" post. I agree that my tone was a bit harsh, now that it’s past lunch and I’m settled in for a calmer afternoon I will (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) Now this is a discussion :) 'Tis true, if *I* have something that I did not pay for, which should have been paid for, it is stealing. If I knowingly went to a store and stuck something in my pocket and walked out, that is stealing. If the (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) Darn. Good points. After I posted, it occurred to me that my analogy was flawed, but it was too late. (...) Legally, sure. But the issue was "is it stealing based on Xian values?" and I think it fairly clearly was. Dave! (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) In the first example, if the item was addressed to you, it would be the same. See below for analysis. If it was not addressed to you, then keeping it is stealing. This is different in a material way. Helping yourself to three off the delivery (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) I think it is fair that LD kindly put the limit in place when they realized it would help even distribution. Don't get ticked off because you did not order 20+ when you had the chance, after all we all had the same window, which I think is (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) First, it's not a "right" but a privilege of opportunity dependent upon TLC's policies. Second, TLC can produce as many or as few as they wish, and they can impose whatever purchasing limits they care to impose, whenever they care to impose (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) Okay then, not fair is that tons of people ordered 20 + right off the bat before the limit was in place and now I am denied the right to get three more? Come on. (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) As a hypothetical example, if you had ordered $1000 worth of LEGO and it was delivered to me in error, would you accuse me of stealing if I kept it and didn't pay for it? Or how about if I saw three Super Chiefs sitting on a delivery cart and (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) I had originally indended to post this following the first reply, but my e-mail server was down and by the time it was back up, two others had replied, so i deleted my authentication. But I see that this is going to continue ;), so i'll jump (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
|
(...) No I would not, I would assume the limit was set in place for a reason, even if I didn't like it. It's their store and they can set any limits they want, I don't have to shop there. (...) Fair?! Nice way to rationalize. Maybe they realize that (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
This thread got me thinking. As you may or may not know, my site is called 'LEGO on my Mind'. (URL) visual motto of this site has always been a picture of a man with bricks for brains. After it had been around a couple of years, another site (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Time to write Lego Consumer Affairs a (nasty) letter..
|
|
(...) You know what I mean. =) Though I have to admit that the 2000-2002 products lines have been superior to the things they were producing before.. 10.9 cent apiece? What sets are you buying? Surely not Jack Stone! (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Important Questions
|
|
(...) Hejsan! (...) Yes. (...) Only if they make it out of anti-matter and keep it away from 1 x 16 beams. (...) 3,4% of my Technic figs are left handed while 97% of my minifigs did not hear the question due to ear-lack. Of the 3% that gave me an (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Important Questions
|
|
(...) Only if "YOU ARE INSIDE A BUILDING, A WELL HOUSE FOR A LARGE SPRING", or "YOU ARE IN A LARGE ROOM, WITH A PASSAGE TO THE SOUTH, A PASSAGE TO THE WEST, AND A WALL OF BROKEN ROCK TO THE EAST" and "THERE IS A LARGE "\'Y2' ON A ROCK IN THE ROOM'S (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Important Questions
|
|
Greetings all, It seems to me that LUGNET could use a good lighthearted release from all the friction that's gone on here recently. To that end, I've developed a list of questions that I think we ought to consider... If you're exploring a mammoth (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santa Fe War Bonnet sticker alternative
|
|
(...) Hellow! First, I'm directing this to offtopic. (Jared is my best friend) Jared, I would reccomend you to look around- and figure out when to move to another newsgroup! As for the spiffcraft... I need your digital camera! I've rendered it, but (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On Hiatus
|
|
(...) I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you. A lot of people had expressed their opinions on this subject, you included. When Scott Arthur did so, this suddenly became wrong, and had to be pointed out? I can't see any logic in this, sorry. It's not (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Not the most constructive title Ben!
|
|
Judge not lest ye be judge Benjamin! . .. ... .... ..... ...... ....... ........ Spydèr ........ ...... ..... .... ... .. . Fading back into the night… (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On Hiatus
|
|
(...) Incidentally, that is why I set FUT .debate. Scott A (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Spyder is definitely bad for lugnet
|
|
(...) (URL) his 11 posted "newsgroup articles", and his (surge of 4 most recently), I would largely suggest that his input is for the most part negative. I wouldn't stoop personal name calling against him directly. This really doesn't do anything to (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On Hiatus
|
|
(...) Indeed, and why? Scott A =+= Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet? (URL) reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On Hiatus
|
|
(...) If you mean Larry P'k, he has already done that at least once. Scott A =+= Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet? (URL) reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On Hiatus
|
|
(...) Scott will do. (...) Good. (...) To you. Perhaps, even to me. (...) Perhaps we can talk about that once you demonstrate how you give others a hard time when they post a message in a dead thread? Or perhaps you were stirring the pot? What am I (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On Hiatus
|
|
(...) Actually, he did. It didn't make front page news (I mean, evidently you didn't notice it). Which bolsters Scott's point, doesn't it? Maggie C. (who knows she should just shut up and stay out of this whole thing) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On Hiatus
|
|
I’m afraid I did not misspeak. Personally, I thought Tim’s post was self-indulgent{1}. I chose the term “melodramatics”, as I thought it was relatively innocuous. I suppose I’ll have to be even more careful in the future! Scott A {1} That's just my (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On Hiatus
|
|
(...) Let me put it this way so you'll understand. For someone knowledgeable in general, (Dr.) Scott Arthur stated the "shared" view on the highlights of the newsposting to lugnet.general... if he found it so offensive, then why did he highlight it (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On Hiatus
|
|
(...) For the record, just in case I was being a little obtuse, I concur with Scott, et al. that they are entitled to their opinion that mayhaps Tims Hiatus shouldn't have been listed in the Top Stories. Tho, when you look at it, if Suz took a (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On Hiatus
|
|
(...) (not cutting out anything so as to not be accused of trying to manipulate the argument) (Dr. Scott) Arhur, I don't think anybody here is trying to prevent you from stating your view. My point was that your view was already expressed at least (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On Hiatus
|
|
(...) There have been issues in LUGNET, and there have been long, drawn out threads to help resolve these issues, and there has even been some 'flame wars' 'n such, but what I continue to notice, time and time again, is that much comes from the (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
