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 / *18636 (-20)
  Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
 
(...) Hi Bruce, It's those darn Christian ethics of mine--I always have this prevailing hope that people can be redeemed. I'm not the one who do the redeeming, but they can, for themselves, show some sort of movement to bettering their situation and (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
 
(...) I'm sorry, Dave, but how can there be a clean slate when Scott is dirtying it faster than it can be cleaned? Your current discussion with Scott simply illustrates all of his usual tricks: decrying personal comments while getting in as many as (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
 
I think if we bring it right back to the beginning of this particular thread, Larry posted many good ideas and ways for us to agree to disagree and move on. Let us all, then, in the spirit of gentlemen, move on from this particular issue to other (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
 
I'm probably making a big mistake in responding, but... (...) Ok, I dug out the post I believe you are referring to. In that particular exchange, you were choosing to jump on a single point of mine (as you do to everyone) and tearing me down for it. (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) This is not clarification. You concede that my interpretation could be one way of reading what you said, i.e. "You think that others are ignoring you because you believe your point is (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  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)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

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