 | | Re: Brittain, friend of foe?
|
|
hmm, is your real name George Michael? See: George Michael: Is his single offensive? (URL) A (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Fine. I agree. But who are you to say that I *may not* have it? Even if you're my parent. (...) Not really. In one case, superstitious zealots are killing innocents. In the other, superstitious zealots are killing innocents. I don't see a (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brittain, friend of foe?
|
|
(...) I understand that agents of the queen discretely trans-ship heroine on the chunnel trains. The profits from this operation must be how they're funding the occupation force. Good luck in your repulsion! Hopefully we won't be too busy with the (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) <snip> K, this has been alluded to, and I personally have no personal stake in it for I have no problem getting my appendix ripped out if it has to be... But we know-better-than-you...your-kids' who say you 'religious-fanatics' should do as we (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brittain, friend of foe?
|
|
Yes, Brittain has become a powerfull foe. Terrorists have infiltrated the U.K. and make Tony Blair suck up to George Bush to mask their intentions. Later they are going to use the Channel tunnel to launch an army against the European continent. (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Brittain, friend of foe?
|
|
Hi all, According to CNN at (URL) it seems that the UK is acting strangely. Does anyone here know more about this? Is this a regular tactic of the UK? Or is it a baseless accusation? Chris (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Darn your rules! America is the Greatest Nation in the Country! I shouldn't have to be constrained by the conventions of polite discourse! Dave! (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) It does HERE, Dave! We do things differently around here, and you'd be well served to keep that in mind, Dave! :-) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Andrea Yates. Those fun fellows who murder physicians who perform abortions. Any number of Xtian Scientists or similar denominations forbidding medical care for children. Anyone, frankly, instructed by George W Bush to kill during the current (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Cite please (let's see if you can keep it to within 100 years of today) (...) butchers of all-time... Ah, we're *all* guilty of butchering innocent women and children, so how could we condemn any one else who does? Welcome to Moral Relativism (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Xtians? Jews? Muslims? Etc.? Funny the things that get justified for THE MOST HOLY reasons... -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 7-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
<snip> (...) If you mean rich guys don't have the "freedom" (aka power) to buy a seat in power - I agree. Protecting democracy is far more important. (...) lol. Was Thatcher a liberal? <snip> (...) have (...) billions (...) Think bigger John. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pathemata Mathemata
|
|
(...) Your choice of having your children taught french is very wise, IMHO. As a starter for romace languages it is very good *because it is hard*, and it comes quite handy at times. From french, italian, catalonian and (to a lesser degree) spanish (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are some of you guys making it too easy on the rest of us?
|
|
(...) The very idea of a senate was to provide a stabler body of legislators-- hence the longer 6 year term. If you merely get re-elected, you have already logged 12 years. Compare that to a rep, which would represent 6 terms. I was thinking of it (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pathemata Mathemata
|
|
(...) I got (...) lol First, I don't know much French (though my kids speak it fluently)-- I was guessing at the spelling. The translation is Rooney's himself-- that it refers to gambling just adds to its humor:-) Thanks for the info, Pedro! -John (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are some of you guys making it too easy on the rest of us?
|
|
(...) I'm not defending my post as a refutation of your claim, but I'm curious about this. How is long term limit a flaw? I was thinking of it as an asset because it supplies a venue in which long periods of public service are reasonably possible. (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are some of you guys making it too easy on the rest of us?
|
|
(...) I know what you mean. I didn't figure anyone would actually do the Senate thingy, I was just fooling around at work. :-) (...) I actually don't think that I refuted it...just provided some data. But I agree that his 5:1 is likely too high. On (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are some of you guys making it too easy on the rest of us?
|
|
And how is the below any different than completing a third term? In either case, the INTENT was to work a third term, whether it was completed or not. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Sun ONE Internet Technical Support, Sun Microsystems | iPlanet Support - (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are some of you guys making it too easy on the rest of us?
|
|
(...) My assertion was among career politicians (all politicians), the ones over 20 years of service would be 5:1 Democrat. I just pulled that ratio out of the air. His sample really had nothing to do with my hypothesis. -John (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pathemata Mathemata
|
|
(...) I believe there was a typo in the original sentence: "les jeux son faits" should translate to "the game is set" or "the bets are made". Frequent in Casinos, IIRC, when the roulette is spinned. Pedro (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pathemata Mathemata
|
|
(...) Not that it matters-- I was just tweaking you:-) The point was the humor of Rooney quoting French as he's about to (as far as he knows) bust Ferris. BTW, he himself translates for us: "The game is up". -John (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are some of you guys making it too easy on the rest of us?
|
|
I think he refuted your 5:1 quite well within the short time constraints he had. He certainly did a good job as far as *I* was concerned in showing there was nowhere near a 5:1 ratio. I'm sure he could do the same for HoR, but if you think he did (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are some of you guys making it too easy on the rest of us?
|
|
(...) Refuted it? Hardly. First off, choosing the senate as a basis for investigation is flawed from the start because their terms are so long. Second, he calls a senator who has merely won his third term (but not served 1 day of the third term) a (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pathemata Mathemata
|
|
I ran it through Babelfish, but it didn't make much sense - "plays its fact". A basic search did not bring up a good translation within 30sec or so, so yes, I got lazy (see my other thread about people making it too easy on the rest of us). It was (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Are some of you guys making it too easy on the rest of us?
|
|
More often than not, I find myself not replying to many points in a discussion, because I just KNOW that by the time I start doing any decent research, one of you will have completed their research and posted the results by then (e.g., Chris' (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pathemata Mathemata
|
|
(...) Personally, I tired after looking up "mote";-) Did you search my French line, or were *you* too lazy? :-) -John (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Pathemata Mathemata
|
|
BTW, for those that were too stubborn/ignorant/lazy to look it up, typing "pathemata mathemata" into the Location bar of Communicator gave the following match in less than 1 second: (URL) of: pathemata mathemata (Greek) pathemata mathemata (Greek): (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) That's it! I voiced the same opinion as both Scott and John in under 2 days!!! Now I just have to say something that goes with what Dave! says and I will cease to exist!! Dave (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Precisely. And all said, we will never know. The theories of Evolution and "Creationism" (I'd call it a belief, not a theory, but whatever) are 2 sides of the same coin. *Neither* are proveable, and the debate is similar to the "existence of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) You are wrong, and I will correct you. According to scientists (including non-Creationist), the definitions are these: Microevolution: The theory that natural selection, over time, take an organism and transform it into a more specialized (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Evolution makes many claims that can be tested. One deals with the order in which fossil records are deposited in strata, and in this respect is has proven correct again and again. Another is in the types of transitional fossils that will (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: <snip> Most of the time in these debates, I feel like the 5 year old trying to understand his older brother and his buddies talking about the stuff they learned in grade 8--sometimes is (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: <snip> (...) Pure Creationists believes that the Earth really was created in exactly 6 days, and ignore any scientific eveidence to the contrary. S.C.s (at least me, tell me if i'm wrong (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) The same could be said about evolution. You can't prove macroeveolution in a lab, it makes no claims that can be tested, it uses no evidence that cannot be used for the S.C. theory (the type I believe in anyway). (...) This is totally (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Oh, I agree. But were I a Christian, I would still see the overwhelming evidence, believe in evolution as the most likely explanation of the origin of species, and search for a way to justify my religious belief with my scientific observation. (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) "Oxymoron" may have been a cruel overstatement, but I stand by my assertion that there is nothing scientific about Creationism. However, in another post, I recognized the error of my absolutist stance and acknowledge that it's fair to call (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I agree, and hope that Dave(!) will reconsider. Since it is a name of a belief/theory, and the name is reasonably illustrative of what the theorists are thinking about, I think the name is fit. (...) That's completely wrong. Plenty of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) What's the difference between "pure Creationism" and "Scientific Creationism?" Both are based on anti-logic, and both are necessarily rooted in theistic dogma. If you want to produce a totally non- sectarian vision of spontaneous generation ex (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Please don't misunderstand me--I reject "Scientific Creationism" as a term because there is nothing at all scientific about it. It makes no claims that can be tested, it calls for no experiments that can be repeated, it uses no evidence that (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) This claim got me interested. I decided that a thorough analysis of the past fifty years of US politics was beyond my level of interest. So I narrowed my exploration to the current US Senate. I sifted and sorted some stats and came up with: 50 (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
