 | | Re: New Poll
|
|
<joke> Where's the poll selection?: o Who really gives a sh**. Either you read it or you don't. Too many people on Lugnet take things personal or take them the wrong way anyway. Rob XFUT offtopic.debate.flamewar </joke> "Harvey Henkelman" (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) This poll is flawed: - doesn't include the universe of possible answers - doesn't even include a "none of the above" - displays the poll taker's bias in the way the answers are worded. So why would it be interesting to watch, exactly? Or put (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | New Poll
|
|
This should be interesting to watch... (URL) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Model UN's/rants/ideas--was Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
I gotta run, only have time for one throwaway comment. (...) Pretty well I think. We were told to study the real positions and try to play true to form and policy rather than how we personally felt. One example: There was a resolution that came up (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Model UN's/rants/ideas--was Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) How did that model UN work with you as Pakistan's ambassador? The resolution was not necessarily set up to be humourous, nor was it to be perfectly serious--it was to raise a concern of mine in which, if the majority concurs, we could quash a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Lots of 'em do. But certain people are just gonna get angry at others regardless of the debate topic. And I don't think waiting a month would help much... (...) I don't really think the point of a debate thread is necessarily to reach a mutual (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) I agree with your disagreement. Ignoring certain individuals often achieves a great deal, and done properly, does not result in animosity from anyone else except the miscreant, who merely need reform (or go away). (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Two comments 1. what's the "scope of the Israel/Palestine issue"... if some party(1) says that something(2) is related, is it? If someone says something isn't, is it? (3) 2. what is the enforcement mechanism? Sent to bed without dessert? (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Spectacular sentence construction there! That's what you get for writing half a sentence and then coming back to it a half hour later to 'wrap it up'. I think folks can read (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) I was hopefully going for a stop on the debate instead of a censure of the person. One *should* cause debates on other topics to continue unfettered, the other could be, imho, perceived as an attack on the person. Whereas I agree with the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Ceetain parties don't want it to end (e.g. said certain party answered his own message to get it back up at the top of the queu). Just ignore said person and there won't be a debate. -->Bruce<-- And for a demonstration of such, said certain (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) I propose an OT-D Resolution 001-- In which all party(s) concerned, concurrently and without delay withdraw from specifically discussing the Israel/Palestine issue for a term of at least, but not limited to, one (1) month. This resolution is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter yesterday: "At Camp David in 1978 and in Oslo in 1993, Israelis, Egyptians, and Palestinians have endorsed the only reasonable prescription for peace: United Nations Resolution 242... It condemns the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) These points aren't entirely correct and without going into a full bible study I will write what I have found to be true The points 1-3. God is not like unto a plant, you ought to look at Him more like this- God the invisible spirit who is the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | the irish times [not the Guardian] & goldwater's "racism".
|
|
(...) Wonder ye not! If you check again carefully, you will see it is quoted from the "Irish Times" - ie **NOT** The Guardian. What was that about playing loose and fast? ;) However, I think the racist tag refers to his alleged support for "states' (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What does a Republican have to do to cause outrage? [was Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian...]
|
|
(...) I have no love for Lott and certainly not for Thurmond. I just have one question, where does the "blatantly racist" charge come from with respect to Goldwater's campaign? I'm wondering if that reveals a tendency for the Guardian to play loose (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What does a Republican have to do to cause outrage? [was Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian...]
|
|
(...) While I can only speak from my perspective as a denizen of that burning hotbed of bleeding heart liberalism, Northern California, that isn't true at all from what I can tell. Lott's comment has been the primary topic of every talk radio host (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What does a Republican have to do to cause outrage? [was Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian...]
|
|
(...) Everything I read about this issue tells me that Strom 'renounced' his segregationalist views, that he became more moderate thru the years. Times changed and so did Strom. Lott, on the other hand, still hasn't clarified what he meant by "All (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What does a Republican have to do to cause outrage? [was Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian...]
|
|
(...) I fear the strong pro-liberal media in the USA has struck again. I read this yesterday: It's a dirty business (URL) then it is extraordinary what you do and don't hear in the US at present. Last Thursday, as predicted in this column a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
Massive SNIP (Read my first reply for these sections). (...) This is the key to any debate on God's love. As it was his greatest act of love. I will deal with your 3 points in order: 1) The mechanics: Think of a 3 leaf clover, the leaf's being God, (...) (22 years ago, 10-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
