 | | Shocked, just Shocked to learn that .... The Beeb is not always right.
|
|
Given the inaccuracy of this counterfactual assertion: "Mr Mondale had taken over the seat previously held by incumbent Senator Paul Wellstone, who died in a recent plane crash." (1) (from: (URL) is not particularly difficult to disagree with this (...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Vote against/for...
|
|
(...) Warning--Spoonerisms: (URL) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Amnesty International: Israel involved in "grave breaches" of international law
|
|
(...) It is a little jarring - letting Sharon [a war criminal] enforce "justice" is crazy. I don't think the *current* Israeli government can be trusted to act on human rights abuses. I’m not alone: Amnesty calls for arrest of Israelis for war (...) (22 years ago, 5-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Vote against/for...
|
|
Vote against... ...war. ...continued international power-grabs. ...corporate welfare. ...bad corporate accounting practices. Vote for... ...peace. ...concern over the national economy. ...a rational fiscal policy. ...corporate accountability. Today (...) (22 years ago, 5-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Human Rights Watch: Suicide bombers 'war criminals'
|
|
(URL) think my favorite quote was this one: "The report also included recommendations for the Israeli government, including the suggestion that its military not target Palestinian Security Services in reprisal for suicide attacks -- instead arguing (...) (22 years ago, 2-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Encouraging news from the War on Terrorism
|
|
(...) Aw, shucks! Well, I'll harp on that string until it breaks. The Portland story was news to me, but I was struck by its resonance with the Pittsburgh episode. I wonder how many other such incidents are out there. (...) I prefer my clowns to be (...) (22 years ago, 1-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Encouraging news from the War on Terrorism
|
|
Dave! Dave! Dave! Is it getting so lonely in here that you have to rehash all of this old news? tsk, tsk... Dude, we still love you! And as to that Bush thing... Everybody loves a ******* clown! -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 1-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Encouraging news from the War on Terrorism
|
|
(URL) nice. By that same logic I imagine that, since Bush isn't really the President, he couldn't ever really be impeached, right? In the spirit of wrongful detention, I'd like to cite an incident clearly illustrating the right to free speech as it (...) (22 years ago, 1-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Death of Paul Wellstone
|
|
(...) Actually, Minnesota state law allows them to do this up to 4 days before the election. Problem is the absentee voters who are voting for a *Democratic* senate seat are going to be disenfranchised because votes for Wellstone will not legally go (...) (22 years ago, 25-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Death of Paul Wellstone
|
|
(...) The Toricelli decision will embolden the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party to put in whoever they think is most electable, no doubt. I'm saddened too. Especially since it happened in a light plane. (22 years ago, 25-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Death of Paul Wellstone
|
|
(...) I curious as to the ramifications of his death. Will the Democrats try and elect another dead man? Since Wellstone's wife died in the crash as well, you can't have her serve as happened in the extremely bizarre election of the dead senator Mel (...) (22 years ago, 25-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Death of Paul Wellstone
|
|
(...) Or enforced. I don't want to make light of this event, but I am curious what the conspiracy theorists will dream up for this one. -Kyle (22 years ago, 25-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The Death of Paul Wellstone
|
|
Although I disagreed with virtually everything this man stood for, I am saddened and shocked upon learning of his untimely and tragic death. My thoughts and prayers go out to his surviving daughters and family. It seems his promise that he wouldn't (...) (22 years ago, 25-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Good [Sniper] Quote
|
|
(...) Maybe the Washington Sniper should be refered to as the "Washington shooter at unexpecting people from a hiding place" to protect the good name of 'sniper'? ;-) Cheers Richie (22 years ago, 24-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is the Intifada working?
|
|
(...) The terrorists win every day. Every time Hammas sets of a bomb, and Bush/Sharon respond by saying they won't talk to Arafat - Hammas wins. Every day Israel steals more and more land - Israeli extremists win. The very last thing Sharon or (...) (22 years ago, 24-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is the Intifada working?
|
|
(...) Wow, this may be the first time I have ever heard that terrorism might actually be successful in bringing down a gov't. People aren't shopping for fear of getting killed, tourism drasically down, recession, 10 percent unemployment, and the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Good [Sniper] Quote
|
|
"Snipers are ordinary people, who have taken on an extraordinary job. The title 'sniper' is one we wear with pride. Real snipers save lives, every time they go to work." From: (URL) A (22 years ago, 24-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is the Intifada working?
|
|
It looks like it is: Israel asks US for $10bn to halt recession - Intifada takes its toll on a once-buoyant economy (URL) is interesting about the text is how Sharon is reported to be using Iraq as a lever to get more US tax dollars from Bush Jr. (...) (22 years ago, 22-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Oral Argument: Eldred v. Ashcroft
|
|
For more check out: (URL) I of the U.S. Constitution states the following: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" (...) (22 years ago, 21-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Counterscript
|
|
I ran across this linked from Penny Arcade... (URL) appears serious (but how can you tell these days). :-) or at least formatted prettily. Contrast with: (URL) (and other variants, which have been around a long time). I posted to both .fun and (...) (22 years ago, 17-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debate fodder from an unusual source...
|
|
(...) I would imagine that both are related to the level the economy is operating at. (...) I'm not sure "Railroads" have been nationalised in the UK(?) - I exepct Tony has went the "3rd Way". (...) However you look at that mess, it is not an (...) (22 years ago, 15-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debate fodder from an unusual source...
|
|
(...) What are the other criteria used to determine/justify these "natural monopolies?" (...) My coworker has a power line running to his house that he occasionally uses during peak use times on the weekend, but primarily generates his own power. If (...) (22 years ago, 15-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debate fodder from an unusual source...
|
|
(...) *some* economists do. Others reject the notion of a natural monopoly. The classic example is the (...) Just as a side note, I've said in the past that I didn't buy the natural monopoly argument, and have argued in detail against specific (...) (22 years ago, 15-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: how to make points?
|
|
(...) Since that would mean that my wife has standing to comment (at about 1/8 Native American) but I (at pretty much all European) don't... I would tend to hold it as not reasonable. Else she'll hold it against ME! (22 years ago, 15-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debate fodder from an unusual source...
|
|
(...) I assume here you are taking about power supply rather than generation? Likewise for water supply and sewage collection - rather than water and sewerage treatment? (...) For some cities the airports may well be. But I think that as long as (...) (22 years ago, 15-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debate fodder from an unusual source...
|
|
Economist have a concept called "natural monopoly" which refers to a industry where the capital investment is so large that it is not in society's best interest for there to be one than one supplier. The classic example is the local power industry (...) (22 years ago, 15-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debate fodder from an unusual source...
|
|
(...) The changes are outlined here: (URL) the UK we "invest" in roads and "subsidise" the railways. Scott A (22 years ago, 15-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debate fodder from an unusual source...
|
|
(...) There was actually a pretty good opinion piece, I think in the NYT (but possibly in Newsweek), that discussed the disconnect between air travel and train service. It laid out the numbers and pointed out that since 1936, the airline industry (...) (22 years ago, 15-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: how to make points?
|
|
(...) I believe the author is the late Paula Giese, and she certainly doesn't make any points with me for her patronizing attitude toward schoolteachers as well as for her panning of Lynn Reid Banks' Indian in the Cupboard: (URL) of the issues (...) (22 years ago, 15-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | how to make points?
|
|
Consider this page: (URL) author certainly makes a bunch of valid points (although I dunno about the "arrogant and ignorant Brits" being valid or not... :-) )... but consider whether he's likely to make many converts by berating his readership. I (...) (22 years ago, 15-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | debate fodder from an unusual source...
|
|
This article makes the case against airline bailouts and airlines in general... (URL) found the Warren Buffett quote particularly hilarious (his frustration with airlines and their service was part of why he was instrumentel in founding the pioneer (...) (22 years ago, 13-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: DMs (was: Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant)
|
|
(...) That's great! The CDs and book are probably not that bad, and I kinda like non-black DMs. I used to have a pair of cherry red three-hole shoes. Nice ones. Fredrik (22 years ago, 13-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: DMs (was: Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant)
|
|
(...) In addition to my other garage sale FOTW (URL) found some new Doc Martens (1460 boots) in my size for $5! The only thing is they are a forest green color, and I was forced to take two CD's (Erasure and Duran Duran) and a Terry Brooks novel (...) (22 years ago, 12-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) Or are they one of the puppet-masters? (...) You'll know when there are no other options available. Seriously tough, if you look at the Declaration of Independence, ( (URL) ) you can see some startling similarities between the state that they (...) (22 years ago, 12-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) Well as my original post was *meant* to convey, (of which the line was snipped,) was that what I assume is that most people who support gun control, actually believe it is for the overall good. I doubt most gun control advocates even think of (...) (22 years ago, 11-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) That may be *one* of the reasons, but it's no more insidious than the NRA's big-business pro-gun lobby, which has much less to do with personal freedoms than it has to do with lining the pockets of the gun industry. That's not to say that the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Warriors or Fools? (was Re: Former Iraqi General)
|
|
(...) As if he weren't already a canonized thief, W has in a single stroke demonstrated that Clinton (anyone remember our most recently elected President?) was far from our least moral commander-in-chief. (...) Four of the six reps in my area voted (...) (22 years ago, 11-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Warriors or Fools? (was Re: Former Iraqi General)
|
|
Well, it's all just so many words now. From what I understand of it, our reps did well by us in the Bay Area, CA. What's everyone else's excuse? It is not generally thought that any war right now will be good for the economy. With low sales numbers (...) (22 years ago, 11-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) Isn't that the real reason behind the "gun control is good" lobby? "Support gun control and give up your fundamental rights today." The Tyrants that actually believe what they do is for our own good, are the most dangerous of all. (I know, I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) This is a real interesting question. It's crystal clear to me that the parties should have a lot of say over how their name gets used. On the other hand, perhaps the parties should not "own" positions on the ballot. So, let's say a Republican (...) (22 years ago, 11-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) Good. Because if you go down that road it opens up a whole topic about crackpots... in every party... which I think we can skip, ne? However I think there IS an interesting topic in there, which is this, where should a smaller party draw the (...) (22 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) Well, maybe it's time for me to be a little foolish maybe. I think as long as they know we could revolt, there is likely to never be the actual need to do so -- rather like the concept of mutually assured destruction. I don't think they'll (...) (22 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) Don't be too hard on yourself -- it's REALLY hard to know what is going on without accessing more international sources. And it doesn't matter the source -- almost ALL media is controlled, and usually by people with hefty wallets. You have to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cost Of Living (was Re: Ed's opinion of Larry and other trivia)
|
|
(...) There are certainly places where teachers should be making more money. Schools though, waste huge sums of money in an attempt to educate. There are (private) schools that do a better job for less money without depriving the teachers. Maybe the (...) (22 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) Armed rebellion...at least for a little while yet. Chris (22 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) So, I'll be able to walk the dog, the cat, the bird, AND the ferret?!? Oh no..... Bruce (22 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) You're right, Dave! We should stick to pertinent topics propounded by the Libertarians. I mean, what Californian could forget candidate for Lt. Gov. Pat Wright's pet issue? (URL) C. (22 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) Well after reading that enlightening (for lack of a more suitable description) article, I now see that my previous opinion of; "liberating the Iraqi people would be a good idea," was nothing more than delusional idealism. Idealism truly is a (...) (22 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) Now, now! I'm far from a Libertarian apologist, but even I recognize the folly of judging a group by the silliness of one (or a few) of its members (though it may be a lot of fun!). It's much more rhetorically sound to address the tenets of a (...) (22 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) I'm sorely tempted to make a wisecrack about what this says about the intelligence of libertarians, but I will refrain. Colloidal silver, indeed. --Bill. (22 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Cost Of Living (was Re: Ed's opinion of Larry and other trivia)
|
|
While the schools themselves may not need money (that's debatable for many areas - if a school is falling apart from lack of money for basic maintenance along with much-needed upgrades, it needs money), the teachers do. If a teacher cannot afford to (...) (22 years ago, 9-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) It's going to take a while to digest all this info, may take more than one reading to get the full scope, but ditto to what Dave! just said. Welcome to the American Empire, where the liberties and freedoms of individuals anywhere in the world (...) (22 years ago, 9-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) This is, sadly, the exact kind of helplessness and futility that Scott and I were discussing in the other thread. I can read all of this, and it certainly seems consistent with what we know of Bush (eg: stolen elections and questionable (...) (22 years ago, 9-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) (URL) Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 9-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) ... and it appears Bush's geography is little better. The other night he said: ==+== We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or (...) (22 years ago, 9-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) "Care enough" is hard to quantify, but I really don't know what the average citizen can do. Even organizing a rally or a letter-writing campaign seems unworkable in the timeframe available, and we've already seen that Bush is happy to detain (...) (22 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) There were moments in Dubya's speech where he was downright eloquent, but for the most bit, I found he just grated on my nerves. There was once or twice when he almost said word for word stuff from Bartlett's speech from this years season (...) (22 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) apathetic (adjective): lacking interest or energy; unwilling to take action esp. over a matter of importance Perhaps (the collective) you just does not care enough? 32% of my countrymen support an attack on Iraq. I’d bet half of them could not (...) (22 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) Not at all! I'm quite upset about it, but I still recognize the futility. I suspect that many of My Fellow Americans feel the same. "Apathy" suggests that we don't care, when in fact we do (some, very strongly). I know you're semi-kidding (...) (22 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) If true, I would view that as a rather apathetic outlook. ;) (...) Indeed, the need to conform is strong. ;) (...) I prefer to let the UN vote on it. After all, your servicemen are old enough to decide what is right or wrong. (...) People who (...) (22 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) Actually, I would say that it stems from an awareness that someone has already made up Bush's mind to attack Iraq, as well as an awareness of the futility of trying to prevent it. Anyone who even suggests that we should wait before rushing in (...) (22 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) A combination of a need to conform and political apathy. Scott A (22 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: (Deleting a whole lot of things I agree with.) The contradiction with the dictionary (...) Please note that I am only using the names Beavis and Butthead in the next paragraph to differentiate (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) I've mentioned before, and I'm happy to reiterate here, that you've done vastly more reading on the subject than I, and I am therefore given to accept much of what you interpret the 2nd amendment to say. But if the issue as cut-and-dried as (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) I think that it _is_ becoming common knowledge. That's why he's grasping at straws. Chris (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) If you see this, and you're slowly convincing me that your interpretation of what's going on is true, so now I see it, how come this isn't common knowledge to the rest of the masses? What's going on? How can the first ammendment be "taking a (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) Participation in a conspiracy is dangerous stuff. There are always loose ends that you can't tie up. That's why big awful conspiracies that require lots of secrecy and participation are silly. Acting President Bush is, I believe, worried that (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) THere was a report on my local NPR (NW Ohio) this morning that some company is marketing a similar cure for West Nile Virus as well. Maybe mosquitos can't see you in that spectrum? -c (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason Spears writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Thanks for the heads up! Much appreciated. And your p.s.--first rate! Dave K. (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) Well here is what WebMD has to say about argyria: (URL) appears that the silver posioned him, causing a condition where his pigment is different, not just an alteration to a couple layers of skin. (...) -Jason PS - I am not a Doctor, nor do I (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
