 | | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) OMGoodness!! Oh I want to be blue!! Say I'm an Andorian with my antennae lopped off! If there is anyone who knows something about medicine and hte human body--if someone drank this silver solution to the point where their skin turned blue, (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
Not to boil it down to the lowest possible common denominator... (URL) denies having weapons of mass destruction, and its U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, suggested Sunday his country could allow inspectors access even to the presidential sites (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) Wouldn't that be a great way to seperate the real medicine from the Dr. Schlob's Instant Cure? Fake cure-all's do some sort of permanent change, like turning your skin blue, or stamping "sucker" on your forehead. If *I* was in charge of the (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Star Wars 2003
|
|
John & All, (...) That's all well and fine, John, but regardless of you being a history major, etc. it is not on topic for Star Wars, and I for one do not want to see this kind of thing where it doesn't belong, because of the possiblity of having (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Star Wars 2003
|
|
Chris & All, (...) Because it did not belong in Star Wars. If this thread continues, I hope it would be in it's appropriate group, because of the political / historical aspect to it. If people want tot alk about this, feel free to do so here, but (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) These two paragraphs are the crux of the issue, for me. We might add a third permutation and ask: if the author creates a work intended to stir social change, but it doesn't, is it still propaganda? That seems like a suitable opposite of your (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Not the Green party...
|
|
What the?! (URL) like a candidate who knows a nostrum when he sees it! If Browne can't do it, maybe blue can! Dave! (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) I remember in January '86 when the shuttle blew up--the news preempted all the soaps for the afternoon to cover the terrible accident. Then the tv stations received many nasty letters and phone calls from irate viewers who were angry that they (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) Certainly advertising is by nature propagandist. There seems like a critical difference between a piece of fiction that is written solely to entertain and one that is written with underlying political/religious/...l/whatever messages that are (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) I think the bigger question is: What isn't propagandized? Isn't all advertising propaganda? Isn't every book propaganda? Every medium's main purpose is to promote its ideas. Isn't the very promotion of ideas propaganda? (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) TV (...) silly. (...) I agree. But also believing that what you see on a soap is litterally true...so much so that you write in to the fictional characters is pretty extreme. I'm sure that lots of (all?) people are successfully propagandized (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) Arguing the validity of the words of a (...) BTW, you didn't ask, but the main reason that I dont't post more to debate is that most of these debates end up spending most of their life argueing over the validity or quotes, sources, statements, (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) Exactly. (...) So what medium isn't spewing propaganda? (...) It would be interesting to see the ratio of those letters received to viewers. IS it 1%, 10%. I don;t think it would be very high at all. (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) "flyby." (...) Well, that's sort of technically true, but at the same time, the thread wouldn't have started without the context that leads to it. In that way, it is a continuation of more than one other thread in which TWW was cited. So I (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) Actually, if I may clarify--this was a new debate about TWW and the validity of using cites from the show--Larry pointed out that in his opinion, any cite from TWW will carry no water with him. That was this particular debate drew in issues (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
