 | | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) Again, I thought John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" was a totally new debate topic on The West Wing and how the West Wing was not an accurate represenation of the workings of politics and the White House. (...) Probably about once or twice (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) The difference, Larry, and it is a huge one, is that I did not name call. Read what you have quoted - The first two words - "Your statement..." I responded that your statement "is blatant snobbery, self-serving, judgemental without proof, and (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Ed's opinion of Larry and other trivia (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) That's not exactly fair, Ed. Misconstrue isn't a name at all, it's Larry's assertion that you misunderstood his point (in this case possibly willfully). And if you consider how your note looked, I don't think "drive by" was really (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) Which debate, though? The one about West Wing, the one about quotations and their merit, or the one about the second amendment? I expect you could steer the threadlette in the direction you wanted it to go. But you would have to deal with the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) And later on in a different post... (...) You are absolutely correct. Start by looking in the mirror, Ed. I'll stick with my original assessment. Your first post to this thread was a driveby. (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Hmm, "misconstrued" and a "drive by". How quickly the name calling starts. If you had read my response down a few threads, you would have seen that I thought this was a fresh debate topic, not a follow-up post with a new heading to a previous (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) makes (...) Meaning I thought it was a fresh debate, rather than a carryover of another debate (which it seems to be). (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snip> (...) I love purple--is my favourite colour--coincidental that my high school colours happened to be purple and white! :) If you want to get really confused, I am technically (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) I am one of the people that I think Dave is talking about. And I don't know how to correct it. My perception is that in threads on fairly disparate topics in which both he and I have been involved, he has advanced arguments that look like: (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) I totally agree with the above two paragraphs, whether they're applied to you, or to someone else, anyone doing these things is doing off-topic.debate a significant disservice in my view, and really ought not to do that. What I would question (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> No argument with any of that (you'll never see ME arguing the case that a show "ought to be banned" rather than "just turn the channel on it" so the off button is the completely appropriate (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Star Wars 2003
|
|
(...) Probably so, but it's not really a debate. There's historical fact and then there's popular misconception. It's a weakness I have as a history major. (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Star Wars 2003
|
|
(...) So...why did this come to o-t.debate? There's nothing with which to argue. Chris (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) context (...) bartender. (...) Hunh? Chris (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Star Wars 2003
|
|
(...) He did because he had magic powers. He also had weapons. He hides them in his beard. Much like Marge hides the x-mas money jar in her hair. Also his hat responds to his commands and produces items that are useful for fighting injustices. Much (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) to (...) Well, it seems that I did exactly what I was trying to avoid doing, which was coming in in the middle of another thread given a new header. (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Y'know, let's get away from Jefferson. If we are going to discuss legislative intent in the Constitution we can refer to the Federalist Papers and the many debates that were had state by state. Some of the quotes I provided last time were from (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Heehee. I should have picked a more hypothetical example! See, my biggest problem is that I agree with you, but something's not sitting right with me about it. Not with the right itself, which I honestly think is pretty straightforward, but (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) That's fine. I have nothing against Moe's poignancy. And while Moe may have very valid opinions about the role of firearms in modern society, I value the writings of the people who wrote the constitution, more than I trust Moe's opinion -- (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Jeez, Dave!... I agree that we can revisit a given question. I agree that the historical meaning of the 2nd and 9th Amendments only get at the legislative intent and do not go to stare decisis or what we may do now or in the future (through (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
