 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I don't see what relevance this has to anything I said. (...) Why? --Bill. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) There is nothing in the Constitution about supporting a hobby or game. There is something about supporting a religion. And that's how it should be - religion is a much more controversial topic than chess or cameras. --Bill. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) But if I want to say the *official* pledge, then by definition I have no choice but to speak the phrase. That's the problem, and, in addition, one's choice not to say the *official* pledge is easily construed as a lack of patriotism, which is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) but wouldn't that fact that the state "asked" that you say the words bad enough? I will have to say the pledge of allegance when I become a naturalized citizen. Do you think I won't say "under god", when the INS officer asks me to? Of course I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
John: You are looking at past history and past rhetoric with blinders on. Part of The Enlightenment project was to break with the "divine right of kings." That's why there is language of that type floating around. I am not saying that there weren't (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) First, there is no "requirement". The state will not force you to speak those words (in fact it *allows* you to *not* speak them). A perfect analogy would be if Congress passed that same law but then included, "But if he feels uncomfortable (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No, Richard, it hasn't. I am not arguing that TJ was a Christian or any such thing. What I am saying is that he acknowledged a Creator-- Prime Mover, God, Nature's God-- whatever you want to call it. And it is from this entity that our (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
It has to be said, and both of you have done it with grace, compassion, tolerance and humanity. Hopefully the citizens of the world can do the same. A Canadian sending honours and sympathy, -Gil (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
Any tribute to the heroic efforts displayed that day deserves recognition. A very nice display showing the infamous bucket brigade that helped uncover the debris in an effort to find fallen brothers and sisters in humanity. They did this with (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
|
|
(...) I am curious as to how far along that bill is. I would find it very hard to believe that Congress would pass that. Even if they did, I would find it extremely hard to believe that the Supreme Court would NOT rule it unconstitutional. Blatant (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) So stipulated. But the hypothetical loony[1] who lives down the street from me received no such training, but he nonetheless owns a shack full of guns. (...) Oh sure--*now* you clarify... Seriously though, I've never been to clear on why the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) fundamental (...) Let (...) The unabriged 2nd amendment is as follows: A well regulated militia being nessesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The whole well regulated (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) PS I don't think able bodied or male are still legitimate requirements, although they may have made sense back then. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
|
|
(URL) particularly heartening. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) John! For pity's sake, read what you're writing! The acknowledgement of the existence of God (or even "a" God) is an explicit endorsement of religion! I don't care if you want to pretend that "it could be *any* God," because you're wrong, (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) How do you feel about having a very limited understanding of TJ's beliefs? This has been asked and answered before, John. It's pretty tiresome of you to bring it up again. TJ could have said "prime mover" -- it's just a whole lot less zippy (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I am. I'm able bodied, male, a citizen and have had training on how to use my gun. That's what well regulated militia meant when those words were chosen. (...) Asked and answered, long long ago. Read the federalist papers instead of getting (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Who said this earlier in another debate--and it's something I still smile when I think about it... 'If masturbation be allowed, then it be allowed in the marketplace..." I was being very sarcastic about thw whole separation of church and (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Socialism is thought by some to be a religion (1), are you OK if we ban the teaching of socialism in public schools? Let's stick to things we know are true, after all... I'll support not funding religious schools or religious activities in (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Aren't we a little more mature than this? 'He who carries the biggest stick rules the sandbox...'? I obey the law *because* it's the law, not because the cops have guns. It's the mature, 'evolved', inherently *right* way of doing things, such (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) How do you feel about TJ speaking about a Creator in the DoI? -John (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) That's almost as silly as saying strip clubs can't be within 1000 feet of each other or of other stores or businesses of any kind... oh wait, that's a fairly common law in the US. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
[snip] (...) I absolutely agree with this. [snip] (...) Well you may call it yapping about the 2nd amendment but that is a fundamental right. Without said right all other fundamental rights are unenforceable. Let me put it this way (again); A (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
Check out our special tribute to the heroes and their families of September 11, 2001. (URL) bless America! ACPin & Sons (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.announce.moc, lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) "Reverse Discrimination": A politically correct term for the right wing meant to really say, "We done stole it fair and square, so no trying to redress the crime." ;-) Actually, I don't see how "reverse discrimination" applies here whatever (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I never suggested otherwise. They acknowledged the existence of God without necessarily endorsing a particular brand of religion's understanding of Him. -John (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) And some would call that 'reverse discrimination' Just because a group of students has a student run group and they want to discuss their belief in God, and they can't get school support on par with students who want to have a Camera club, (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The Founding Fathers were deists, not theists. They believed in a Creator, not the xian god. --Bill. (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I have no problem with people believing in whatever religion they want. However, when the State, through the public school system, offers *financial* support for an institution of religion, then that crosses the line. The Bible Club should be (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Hooray--we agree! That's been my intended point all along, in both this exchange and in the previous debate a month or so ago! I absolutely, totally, completely, and unequivocally support your right to religious freedom and freedom of speech! (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) My point is that it is okay to protect *all* matters of freedom of religious expression up and until people fly planes into buildings... k, that was a little far--my personal philosophy has *always* been that anyone can believe what they want (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) As long as you understand that "Young Hedonists for Satan" has the same rights of access and same protection under the law... Brucifer Devil's Advocate for the Day :-) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) When you adequately explain from where our government claims our rights originate, then we can talk about the constitutionality of "God language". -John (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) If "apples" = "why does the State in one case have the right to endorse or restrict religion" and "oranges" = "why does the State not have the right to endorse or restrict religion," then I am indeed comparing apples and oranges. What's your (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Apples and Oranges... In this one, a bonafide extra-curricular school group deserves the same status as any other extracurricular school group. It'd be like saying--'Hey you in the Chess club--we think you're geeky so you don't get any (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(URL) this the same 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that recently ruled unconstitutional the phrase "under God" in the Congressionally-endorsed Pledge of Allegiance? Are Senators Byrd and Lott and Daschle and all the rest going to bitch about how (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....
|
|
(...) [Big-Snip] (...) The modern educational system has a hundred years of programming to produce people who, like machine parts, are relatively interchangeable. One of the worst things that a school-based authority can have to deal with is a puple (...) (22 years ago, 8-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....
|
|
(...) (Even (...) news: (...) So a logical and 'common sense' statement is grounds for the liberal brain washers to harass you. It really bothers me to hear you say that you do not wish to present a well thought out opinion because of them. That is (...) (22 years ago, 8-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Healthy Alcohol (was: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!)
|
|
(...) I meant to get back to this before now, but here goes: (URL) that for men, up to two "drinks" per day without regard to source of alcohol is a health benefit. They say that the red wine this was once believed, but is no more, and that it's (...) (22 years ago, 6-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cyber Kids 2002
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's one of the central points for me. I'm trying to find an analogy, like the removal of an ugly but non-harmful wart, or perhaps the erasure of an unsightly (and potentially stigmatizing) birthmark, but neither of these is quite (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Guns! (was: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....))
|
|
(...) I would think that if the parents were doing their job, it would be quite the opposite. By doing their job, I mean being responsible. If you have a gun in your home, it is your responsibility as a parent to educate your children in its proper (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....)
|
|
(...) "Want it to be" or "Make it be", I think this may be semantics. Either way, my point is that this is an established (yet evolving) community that currently accepts among its members both people who may dislike certain content and those who may (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Guns! (was: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....))
|
|
(...) who (...) Interesting - and scary. (...) It was my contention that the reported shooting sprees (that I recall) were by teenagers who had access to guns at home (and some experience with them). Not sure of the causal connection, if any, (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Guns! (was: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....))
|
|
(...) Well, I never went on a shooting spree, but as a teen I did behave irresponsibly with guns (by the standards that most people express). And they weren't the .22 rifle that my dad had in his closet. They were used and probably stolen guns that (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cyber Kids 2002
|
|
(...) There are two issues that I see, that can be phrased as two questions: Under what circumstances does a parent/guardian have the right to subject their children to surgery (even if minor outpatient)? Is it a good idea to participate in a (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....)
|
|
In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes: [snip] (...) I disagree strongly here. It is what it is. The is no collective decision making about how we 'want to be' - it will be what individuals make it. (...) The community may be a seperate entity, (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cyber Kids 2002
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's bad. But how about an angry frog rifling through your puter looking for clone DATs? I bet that's worse. Probably deletes files as he goes. =) -- Hop-Frog (I am not now, nor have I ever been, a gremlin.) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mass Extinctions
|
|
(...) Actually, the umbrella effect in terms of the ESA is when you protect an endangered species that covers a large bit of habitat in its home range and you end up sheltering the smaller species as well. Sorry for the mistake. Similar concepts (...) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Cyber Kids 2002
|
|
(URL) what do you think? I see the utility of such a move, though on some level I'm a little uncomfortable with it (but I don't know if I'm being rational or simply reactive). On a related note, famed level-head and open-minded orator Mike Gallagher (...) (22 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) As far as I'm aware, businesses in the US are charged for local calls, and in any case many telemarketing firms operate nationwide. But you've hit on the solution to my problem--I just have to move to Holland. Dave! (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mass Extinctions
|
|
Curt wrote: > That's frightening. > I have a question to any biologists out there. Is it possible to store the > DNA of males and females of each species, so that if the species goes > extinct, it can be revived? Of course, there is the question of (...) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:H1GEL7.CMw@lugnet.com... (...) Just change 'the electrically-civilized world' bit to 'America' please. I've lived in Ireland for a few years, and in Holland the rest of my life (30+ years) and (...) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> (...) Agreed on all points, but I'll take whatever I can get to begin with. I can only hope that political and non-profit phone solicitations will be brought under the same restrictions at a (...) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
|
(...) Loss of that person's company; the loss of the relationship with that person. (...) Well, I'm not sure that a child does either -- certainly not all of it. But there could be other claimants, like a spouse. I think earlier in the thread we (...) (22 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
|
(...) Setting aside the loss of income issue (because I'm still not sure and don't have anything insightful to say), what does "loss of society" mean? (...) Let's imagine that a kid is part of a rich family until he's ten (way old enough to have (...) (22 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
|
(...) Well, that's a fault of the kind of torts we currently allow. At the same time the destruction of what exists at the time of the loss is what is being protected. It's not that big a leap to assert that someone that has been earning "X" dollars (...) (22 years ago, 2-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
|
(...) lens... I've been thinking about this for quite a while and I think that either I misunderstand your meaning, or you're wrong. The notion of equality under law, I think, is somewhat slippery. Further, it seems some times (this included) that (...) (22 years ago, 2-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Peace" can be dangerous (was: Re: Peruvian Indians [Re: ..)
|
|
(...) lol. I thought you'd say that. I think it is relevant. (...) I thought you'd say that too. But the truth is Mr Edelman probably knows more ablout the subject than either you or I. This is what I read about him a few days ago in the Guardian: (...) (22 years ago, 2-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Supertramp (was supertramp... careful... whatever...)
|
|
(...) OMGoodnesss!!!...!!! Started off with 'School'... Ended off (in the encore) with 'Crime of the Century'.... Rick Davies played 'Downstream' with just him and a piano for the entire song... 7 member band right now, including Siebenburg's son (I (...) (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) We get between zero and four per night. Most commonly, one. And we often get one or more during the day. Chris (22 years ago, 28-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) Long distance carriers almost never phone anymore; I suspect it's because of my "stock answer" for them, which is "I challenge you to get me a better long distance rate than I do right now." This gets them all fired up into their spiel, and I (...) (22 years ago, 28-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) I believe our governor (Illinois) recently vetoed such a bill because it 'wasn't strong enough' and allowed too many exemptions. I think these state-run do not call lists (with penalties) are a good thing (and are long overdue). BUT, I hope (...) (22 years ago, 28-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) Thinking hard - unless you count bubbles in the light sabre as defective, all the parts have been there, they were always the right color, and they always worked. Bruce (yes, I know, it's not off-topic...) Time for a poll? :-) (22 years ago, 28-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) Nope, that's about what we get (and yep, it's our two kids that keep mealtime quite lively). I use a twist on what I learned from watching my mom deal with Jehovah's Witnesses who came to the door when I was a kid. She'd just matter of factly (...) (22 years ago, 28-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) Grrrrr! Why do people insist on talking about LEGO in off-topic groups????? 8?P ROSCO (22 years ago, 28-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) Ok, maybe it's just another instance of how I live some wierd sort of ideal world(1), but I don't suffer from this plague. My wife does get a few during the day; she estimates once or twice a week, but I don't get the "nightly torrent". If we (...) (22 years ago, 27-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) My state (Colorado) just passed a "no call list" (URL) where your telephone number is entered into a database. Telemarketers are required to buy updates (I think quarterly) of the database and are fined for each number that is called on the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) I don't wish to contradict you, but we've been saying that exact phrase in response to the four or five nightly telemarketers for about the last three years, and there's been no dropoff. While I was in college I had a number of friends who (...) (22 years ago, 27-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Greg Palast has some interesting things to say...
|
|
(URL) don't really have anything to add here, I just found some of his stuff compelling. I am guessing, probably correctly, that right wingers will not probably enjoy his material. I found what he said about information and capital interesting. I (...) (22 years ago, 27-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
We don't get very many telemarketing calls at all. Why? We know the magic words: "Put us on your do not call list." If you say this to every telemarket who calls you, you will find that the frequency of telemarketing drops off precipitously, to the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
A Metro would likely explode, and HE vehicles are already HE, there's not a whole lot more you can squeeze out of them. I'll stick with my overpowered monster that has better than stock efficiency, thankyouverymuch ;-) (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) (...) (22 years ago, 27-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
You need to find out if your state has a law with penalties for telemarketers who call you again after you ask to be put on their "do not call" list. Then, diligently keep a log of all telemarketers. Tell each one to put you on that list. You play a (...) (22 years ago, 26-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mass Extinctions
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Bah!! There's more important things to worry about, such as: is my neighbor a terrorist? will the price of gas increase tomorrow? will Lego raise the price per set this year or reduce the piece count again? (22 years ago, 26-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
OK, so can catch up or even exceed many high efficiency cars by enhancing your sports car. But what if you made the same modifications to a Geo Metro or other high efficiency vehicle? --Bill. (...) (22 years ago, 26-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) By charging *only* $100,000 a minute? Good luck;-) -John (22 years ago, 26-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
I prefer the Marquis de Sade technique. Require all telemarketeers be hooked up to an electro-shock machine. Push the star * button on your phone when they call you (always at dinner time). The number of times the telemarketeer has called you (...) (22 years ago, 26-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) Sweet! But then shouldn't you remove yourself from no-calls-please thing? Actually, it would be kind of cool to hear the legal reasons why this won't really work. Chris (22 years ago, 26-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) If this works--sign me up. The next telemarketer is going to get a close rendition of this from me. But is it legal? I mean tow away zones are there 'by law', me saying that the telemarketer's co. is subject to whatever $/min is just me saying (...) (22 years ago, 26-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
Like everyone else in the electrically-civilized world, I am plagued by a nightly torrent of telemarketers plying their various wares. We've signed up at a state-run no-calls-please website set up here in Pennsylvania to block calls through some (...) (22 years ago, 26-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | SUVs (was: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...)
|
|
(...) What's the story with SUVs and all this angst? I bought a Toyota RAV4 (I know, a baby SUV) the second year they were out and I drove it around town, on 20,000 miles of highway road trips and up 40 degree dirt and rock inclines. It was a great (...) (22 years ago, 24-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Mass Extinctions
|
|
Scientists Agree World is Facing Mass Extinction (URL) from article: "There is virtual unanimity among scientists that we have entered a period of mass extinction not seen since the age of the dinosaurs, an emerging global crisis that could have (...) (22 years ago, 24-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Construction toys non-returnable?!
|
|
(...) I think the image in my mind went something like this, "Marchetti, Hop-Frog, Black Undies..." That is a picture no one is likely to forget. Ribbit! So I suppose your case is the truest of the "it's not easy being green" cases. Hmm? (...) I (...) (22 years ago, 24-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
Thats's a special case ;-) Though you should have a Turbo Diesel Ram or other monster truck as your tow vehicle. Then again, if you have a Dodge Ram, that's not an SUV anyways. Not by the "real" definition ("Yuppiemobile that never has dirt on it (...) (22 years ago, 24-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
Psh. You don't know the sports car owners *I* do. I use my car several levels higher than it was intended ;-) While putting out over 1.5 times the stock horspower, I actually get BETTER gas mileage than stock (making more power generally requires (...) (22 years ago, 24-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
(...) ergh? As a Dodge Neon racer, I have to have a big Dodge to pull the trailer with the Neon in it. Neon not enough of a sports car? Sure has enough dings and dents to qualify as having been seriously "sported". And if it doesn't qualify, then I (...) (22 years ago, 24-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
(...) Road & Track, Car & Driver, Motor Trend, etc. all refer to the Miata as a sports car, so forgive me if I value their opinion over yours. :-) But then, I consider my 1953 MGTD that I used to own a sports car... Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Peace" can be dangerous (was: Re: Peruvian Indians [Re: ..)
|
|
(...) Irrelevant. I reject your comparison of Nazi Germany's occupation and Israel's, and am rather offended by it. -John (22 years ago, 24-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
(...) Miatas are roadsters, not sports cars. Roadsters are fine. It's sports cars I'm talking about. Especially ones like Tom Stangl has ;-) --Bill. P.S.: Speaking of roadsters, anyone want to buy my father's 1965 MGB? He passed away last fall and (...) (22 years ago, 23-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Construction toys non-returnable?!
|
|
(...) Easier solution, Richard - fly to England and buy underwear at Debenham's - they have 3-packs of just black & dark grey for the Gen-X/Gen-Y crowd. if you want, I'll get you some packs next time I'm over there on vacation. Paul Sinasohn (22 years ago, 23-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
(...) Me too. Seems I'm less geeky than I thought. If anyone calls me a geek again I'll point them to that quiz and tell them I only got 21%, which is just over 1/5th geek (damn, I think my geek rating just doubled!). Dan (22 years ago, 23-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
(...) I dunno either. My Miata gets over 30mpg. As far as space utilization efficiency goes unlike most 5-7 passenger SUVs, my car is always guaranteed to be at least half full. ;-) Of course it could be debated that a Miata isn't a real sports (...) (22 years ago, 23-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
(...) I was more disappointed that they didn't have an "i have a segway, not a car" option 8?) ROSCO (22 years ago, 23-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
(...) I dunno ... they're both woefully inefficient and useless, wasting lots of gasoline and polluting the environment, and are almost never used for their supposedly intended purposes, but rather are used just for commuting or getting around town (...) (22 years ago, 23-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
(...) You are a geek. Good for you! Considering the endless complexity of the universe, as well as whatever discipline you happen to be most interested in, you'll never be bored as long as you have a good book store, a net connection, and thousands (...) (22 years ago, 22-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: "Peace" can be dangerous (was: Re: Peruvian Indians [Re: ..)
|
|
(...) One man's terrorist is an other man's partisan. Marek Edelman was one of the leaders of the Warsaw ghetto uprising of the Jews against the Nazis in 1943. Is he a terrorist or a freedom fighter? Should his living relatives be punished for his (...) (22 years ago, 22-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
I scored: ---...--- You are 21% geek OK, so maybe you ain't a geek. You do, at least, show a bit of interest in the world around you. Either that, or you have enough of a sense of humor to pick some of the sillier answers on the test. Regardless, (...) (22 years ago, 22-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
(...) ~~~...~~~ Final Score: You are 28% geek You are a geek liaison, which means you go both ways. You can hang out with normal people or you can hang out with geeks which means you often have geeks as friends and/or have a job where you have to (...) (22 years ago, 22-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
(...) Yes, it's a very sick feline creature living in the space between buildings. Wow, that was a bad one -- what could I have been thinking? Normally I would blame this on my increasingly annoying keyboard, but those letters aren't even close to (...) (22 years ago, 22-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Do you qualify? Was Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, other geeky stuff...
|
|
(...) Well here's a test you can take to see if your opinion is worthy: (URL) (at least when you consider the topic and who must have created it) I couldn't take it using Netscape but had to use IE. BTW Richard, "illicate"? Is this some word whose (...) (22 years ago, 22-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Globalization, H1-B Visas, Unemployment, ITAA Job Growth Estimates, Etc.
|
|
(...) I could argue for and against going into .debate. My gut reaction would have been to cross-post initially with follow-ups set to .debate. As to the initial question: (...) Globalization of the tech industry has been going on for longer than (...) (22 years ago, 21-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
