To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *16426 (-5)
  The Eternal Nuke Debate? (was: Re: First entry in "predict the responses!")
 
(...) This is the accepted wisdom, and no doubt that was a big part of the justification. But I don't think it was the only reason. (...) An interesting sidebar: Another point that's often been brought up is the less morally but far more (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Poor Target....
 
(...) Y'know, I almost think it might depend on the manager-- After all, they'll let you return items without receipts (for store credit only, of course), which implies that they already know FULL WELL that customers can return things from other (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
 
(...) No, there was a rational reason for dropping those-- to end the war, and prevent even *more* widespread killing. And it worked. That is not to say that that call was a no-brainer. It was an agonizing decision to make, and truthfully, the (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
 
(...) You mean like dropping bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? No argument. -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Returning stuff to Comp USA
 
(...) Y'know, this is the kind of post that really ticks me off! It's well-reasoned, supported by anecdotal evidence and interesting marketing theory, and stated in a focused and concise manner. What is this statement doing in debate!!! -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR