 | | Re: Now whereabouts on the axis of evil can we be?
|
|
(...) Canada is only such good country due to the large amounts of my countrymen who went out to help build it! ;) There was quite a good show on TV here last week about the Scots-Canadians who returned to fight for Great Britain in WW1. The main (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) I seem to remember that the last time we interacted here, your post was described as an “extreme overreaction”… and you were advised to ignore me. ;) (...) …and I am still grateful for that and your continued involvement on Lugnet (...) As I (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Clarification: I do not think what you claim. I accept that my statement could be interpreted in that way. However, it is not the only way it may be interpreted and it is not the way I meant it to be interpreted. (...) Now you are not being (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Now whereabouts on the axis of evil can we be?
|
|
(...) King Jean until the right finally realize that when they're split, the libs will remain in power until the end of time. The NDP, being the 5th party in a 5 party system, will not cut into the libs majority enuf to count. I don't agree with the (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Now whereabouts on the axis of evil can we be?
|
|
(...) One thing in the article that was wrong was the statement that the majority of the country was not right wing. Don't forget the right wing vote is divided between 3 parties Alliance, PC and BQ which have the majority of the popular vote (but (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Now whereabouts on the axis of evil can we be?
|
|
(...) I love being Canadian. Yep, article pretty much sums up the prevailing winds around here. Though, to be said, looks as if this writer took some of his research from an article in the Toronto Star--I posted a link to it earlier and right now (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Now whereabouts on the axis of evil can we be?
|
|
I read this over lunch: "Now whereabouts on the axis of evil can we be? The country's long-reigning leader thinks the president of the US is contemptible, a sentiment heartily reciprocated. The leader's official spokeswoman directly insulted Bush, (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) Indeed, some were troll-ish – the rest were plain trolls. ;) (...) I’m sure you’ll agree that showing and saying are two different things? ;) (...) That is certainly not my understanding. ;) (...) I did what I did in good faith and in plain (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | While I'm at it...
|
|
Top Ten Embarrassing Facts about Trent Lott 10. Personally owned over 100 slaves between 1853 and 1865 9. Founding member of the Ku Klux Klan 8. During the 1920’s toured briefly with Al Jolsen’s Traveling Minstrel Show 7. Had a torrid fling with (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) And Spandex, Dave! How could you forget Spandex!? Maggie (22 years ago, 15-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Sure, but that's circular reasoning at its finest. I've read numerous works of modern Christian apologetics in which atheists are ridiculed for their so-called arrogant refusal to believe in a god, coupled with the further straw-man argument (...) (22 years ago, 14-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Unless God really has revealed the one and only path to Heaven to an individual/s. Then declaring it is not arrogance at all - its simply declaring the truth. <snip> (...) Just because something is old does not mean it is false (I (...) (22 years ago, 14-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) D'oh! I forget sometimes that my e-mail program for my home account has to be started manually when I'm at work. So I didn't get Bruce's message until now. So there you are. Dave K (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) What is amusing is that I had just sent David a private message telling him the pattern of Scott's debating "style" and the exchange just preceeding your message was the proof of it. It's like pulling teeth. You have to go round and round in (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) Don't think I'd call it a troll, per se; though there were elements that were troll-ish. (...) But you could be bothered to say that you couldn't be bothered to say how ironic you find it? I can't be bothered saying how silly I think that is. (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) I'm an incredibly tolerant person. It takes quite a bit to get me to speak ill of someone. Scott Arthur has pushed me to that point. I register as one point of evidence the current debate between Dave K and Scott A. Dave was trying to be nice (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
There was once a "Home Improvement" episode, with special guest star Tom Wopat (from "Dukes of Hazzard" fame...). In this episode, right at the very end, Tom comes up to the door and talks to Tim. The scene went something like this: <Ding dong> goes (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
Larry, I'm really flattered by the effort you put into this troll. However, I just can't be bothered showing how ironic I find what you are saying. Scott A BTW: Do you remember when you spoofed my identity? (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Good. (...) Letting go is good. I don't see the need to compromise on every issue. (...) I think I have been. (...) [snip] (...) You'll have to show how you reached that conclusion. [snip] (...) OK. (...) I do not ignore Larry. I very much (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
I'm starting a new thread to address this topic partly because Dave's original post was hung on a thread and partly because that thread is so big. I think there are two different questions here Should discussion on a topic cease (for a while, (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Didn't say *you* did any of these things. *We* here in ot-d have a problem. We have to come up with a working solution to said problem. In my opinion, this solution should not entail 'Playground Politics'--'Lets just ignore him and he'll go (...) (22 years ago, 13-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...
|
|
(...) Point taken. It's hard to know when he wrote the text. The story [of the fuss] even made it to the BBC TV news last night [for 10 seconds max!]. I think the story actually says more about the Democrats than it does the media or the (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) My view is not extreme. I hold no animosity for anyone. I'm not ignoring anyone. (...) I expect you must have. Many arguments have a weakness. Readers may respond where "think they sense weakness". This may not be where the weakness actually (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) I've read (most of) the thread. And again, without actually debating what's going on in I/P, the point of this little tangent on the debate is to get to a point where we're not banning (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Many people have polarised views on this issue. They see it in rather simplistic “Bushian” terms; good versus evil or even jews versus muslims. The most commonly asserted views here are that Israel or [very much less commonly] the Palestinians (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
