 | | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) Inasmuch as your pro-justice axe only seems to be aimed at the U.S., I beg to differ. (...) How's this for a fact: you haven't addressed "They present only so much of the story as is convenient for their cause." Claiming that you stick to (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) But that's the whole problem--the so-called "personality types" are as subjective as astrological assessments or phrenological readings. And so are the criteria that make up each "type." (...) Trouble is, you can usually discern when you're (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Well sure, for you. But what about the rest of us? 8^) Dave! (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | New newsgroup
|
|
Isn't it time for Lugnet.politics? Duq (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Me, I like to read someone else's horoscope and pretend that it was intended for me and me alone! I mean, it was -- right?! =) -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
David: I am trying hard to respect your words, but I get the funny idea that this is just one long troll for you. Either that or you have some kind of blinders on over this particular subject. Those quotes were just the tip of the iceberg -- there (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation
|
|
(...) Pat Shepard (posted here a few years ago a few times) worked for me at MU and had dropped out of the PhD program in philosophy to learn Flash and stuff. He seemed to pretty seriously believe in this. But then he was a seminary student for a (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
I guess I misunderstood. But unfortunately, I still do. Chris (...) clear. (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation
|
|
Quoting Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com>: (...) hate to tell you, but you wouldn't know if you're running on an RCX - since to simulate each second you experience the RCX would have an infinite amount of time to compute it, it's power is (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) I think we have to understand when subjective measurements are being used, but I don't think we need to reject them. Food preferences are totally subjective, but should someone ignore them because they don't have the objective data on why they (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) I was being a little brash, my point was that perhaps it should be updated to reflect the nature of life today. I doubt TJ foresaw the nature of modern weaponry. (...) lol Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: neighbors
|
|
Quoting Christopher Weeks <clweeks@eclipse.net>: (...) don't forget the white gowns and pointy hats! (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Absolutely true. Someone in this thread said a while back that *any* change to the foundational principles of US law would have to follow the *process* that is currently in place to get such a change made. He said that it is the *process* that (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) That's not what I said. (...) Blair's OK, he's just a little power mad. If you look close enough, you can see it in his eyes... Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Are we all processes in a simulation
|
|
At the risk of starting too many interesting threads at once, I present a link I found by reading Kung Fool, a rather amusing webcomic. (URL) only STARTED reading this, I haven't read to the end yet but it's fascinating so far! I can say this, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Done and done! I remember a time in my youth when my mom was so into 'dream interpretation'. She and a few of her close friends would get together and discuss their dreams, look up symbols in books about that stuff that were available at the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Scott, that would be truly insane... ...trust the people that put Bush in the White House and have supported him through all the other BS?! Would you trust Blair to rework how your civil liberties work? Not on your life, man. -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Ah, but then you've fallen into the trap already! The whole point of these Myers-Briggs (or Voigt-Kampf, if you prefer) tests is that they're designed to yield apparently "correct" personality assessments, no matter how the answers come out. (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You weren't paying attention to earlier messages. The law *as written*. If you want to move onto later claims, that's another story. (...) Is this addressed to me or the board in general? If me, you are barking up the wrong tree. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) You just described for yourself exactly what the MBTI means by Introverted. MBTI Introverted doesn't mean "doesn't like being with people" it means something more like "isn't energized by being with people". Your SO is a classic MBTI (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
