 | | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) And in a pure historical context, the ancient Incas and Aztecs had working calendars far before most other civilizations. I heard it said that Inca's had suspension bridges, 'paved' walkways, and glass, and just about everything, except they (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) Impossible! We're the greatest nation in the country! Actually, I think the real test of an invention's precedence comes in its fecundity. It's all well and good that the ancient Greeks developed the principle of the steam engine, but if it (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
Oh dear, we wouldn't want the americans to be beaten at something, now would we... For a few centuries everyone believed good 'ole Cristopher was the first european to find America. Now we know better: the vikings beat him by some four centuries, (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) According to the National Park Service, the Wright brothers had the "first successful sustained powered flights in a heavier-than-air machine" ((URL) I don't think the official history actually claims they were "the first to fly", as that (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) It was only in part a request to ignore you. It was not a total troll post. (...) It is better than not admitting that he behaves wrongly. (...) You could have explained how to fraudulently post instead of actually doing it. You could also (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Historical fudging...
|
|
(URL) another story from last week that said, iirc, someone in Italy was the first to fly, and not the Wright brothers. This is much akin to the little fiasco a few months back about denouncing G Bell as the original inventor of the telephone. Look (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Race Erase
|
|
(...) I could go on for hours and hours about him--don't get me started! (...) I was a sprinter in my suburban high school, and one track meet pitted my team against an inner city school with a larger black population. I happened to lose one of my (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | “Enduring freedom” for who?
|
|
It is becoming increasing apparent to me that when people talk about “freedom”, quite often they actually mean “self-interest”. The Bush/Blair led coalition helped justify the war in Afghanistan in part by assuring that it would release women [and (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) It wasn't what? A 1000+ word attack on me or a request that all ignore me? (...) Is that good or bad? (...) I'm not sure I accept your analogy, can you show why it is relevant? (...) Can I impersonate someone by using my own name? Take a look, (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Race Erase
|
|
(...) Yeah, I just finished reading that, after I read the article about Lott appearing on BET. Reading the article on Lott--there's political waffling and weaseling if I ever read it. But having no 'racial profiling' in the genes--that's pretty (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) No it wasn't. From: (URL) think there are two different questions here Should discussion on a topic cease (for a while, permanently) if certain things indicate it might be a good idea? Sometimes there are people who post here that some may (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Race Erase
|
|
Race not reflected in genes, study says (URL) course, if Strom had been president, we wouldn't have had all these problems in the first place. Dave! (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) Scott, You, of all people, should not point out the shortcoming of others with regard to "justifying or retracting the statement" when found in error. That's from one concerned patron to (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) It was a jest. But I do view that post as a troll. The post is 1000+ word attack on me, and a request that all ignore me. But check the last 2 lines: ==+== I admit a bit of cheating on ignoring him. if someone else responds, I have been known (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) How so? (...) Oh? What is your understanding? (...) No you didn't. The topic was already discussed and out it the open. People knew exactly what was being referenced, which is why you were banned. Your demonstration of a point that was already (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
