To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *18606 (-20)
  Compassion in Action
 
So here I am, reading CNN at work, and it hits me--the pic of Dubya 'blasting' Lott, has a 'Compassion in Action' marquee behind him (the marquee may say more but that's what I read) Dubya is not even close to compassionate and his system of (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
 
(...) Well, here we are, sitting at 171 posts in this thread. I'll be the first to note that not all 171 posts directly relate to the P/I issue, but 171 posts... How would you sum up the current state of the P/I debate here in OT-D, where the sides (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
 
(...) I don't agree with that overview. (...) David, I have no problem with people ignoring me, or even users urging others to ignore me. However, I suggest you think wider than the Israel thing. Take a closer look at what is causing the "fuss" (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
 
(...) If the sides of an issue get so polarized (there, I got to use it!) that all there is left is "I'm right, you're wrong!" "No, I'm right and you're wrong!", there is nothing left but to end the thread. I think it's a far better solution to end (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
 
(...) Why is that a bad thing given the amount of disinformation that surrounds this issue? Scott A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
 
(...) No doubt you would propose yourself as a role model? Scott A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
 
(...) Aldous Huxley: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." I do not need people to reply to my posts to make a point. Rather than urging people to ignore me, perhaps it would be easier for you to counter my argument [as Larry (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Poll
 
(...) I could not agree more. Scott A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
 
(...) Actions often speak louder than words. Have you read this [posted by you]: (URL) A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Poll
 
Let's resolve to trim lugnet.general once and for all from this, OK? (...) I dunno about "winning" but I have to give you style points anyway... that's an awesomely tail-swallowing argument. Kerry said it best, we've probably been trolled. If so, I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Poll
 
Stirred up a bloody hornet's nest now, eh? As someone who takes things as far from serious as possible, I'm going to point out the obvious. This post was to create a debate, a debate that should take place in off-topic debate. Since it pertains to a (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
 
  Re: New Poll
 
(...) Ouch! I can see the .off-topic patrons scrambling to their keyboards to type a rather fast response right now. Although I agree that the poll was a bit flawed (like some of my terrible polls in the past. Yeah, y'all remember those, don't you? (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
 
  Re: New Poll
 
(...) How about a poll like this: Are LUGNET polls generally flawed, scientifically unsound, more likely to annoy others than come up with serious answers, and usually have at least one obvious omission? [ ] No Cheers Richie (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
 
First off please see my email to you on the subject. Secondly let me say I agree with you and think you have put many things in a better way then myself. (...) A nice concise statement... Couldn't have put it better myself. SNIP (...) Yes, this is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Poll
 
Should LUGnet rules be changed to with regard to troll polls? * Yes, LUGNET should prohibit troll polls. * Yes, because I hate to be a nay-sayer. * No, troll polls should continue to be banned on LUGNET. * No, because I like to disagree with other (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
 
  Re: New Poll
 
(...) IMHO, pretty good. It may not be a *perfect* partition of the universe of possibilities into equivalence classes, as you can argue that "yes, but..." always fits within an unqualified "yes" and thus is a subset answer (the counter argument is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Poll
 
(...) -H. (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
 
  Re: New Poll
 
(...) (URL) I do, Lar?) DaveE (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
 
  Re: New Poll
 
(...) Just like I'm tempted to start a poll asking whether there should be a disclaimer on all polls similar to slashdot: * Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks. * This (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: New Poll
 
(...) for all possible answers. I almost checked off the last answer, as I believe that the group should be left as is. However, I disagree with the accompanying phrases about how the group is "depressing" or "contributes nothing". As such, I cannot (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR