 | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) Well said. However, realizing WHEN to let it go and move on seems to be a problem (for many, if not most, in this specific group). Can you please just realize that it's time to let it go? Instead of adding to the posts in here (like I am by (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) You are a wise man, Nathan;-) JOHN (who is *still* composing his response to BPS) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
Hey Tom, It's hard to work against ones upbringing. My Papa always told me, "Son", he'd say, "No matter what you do, do your best. If it doesn't work out, well so what? At least you did your best." The idea is for *me* to do what *I* can. If the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
SNIP of unprecedented preportions. Since this debate has almost trailed off and I don't forsee either side convincing the other I'll just say one last thing. I think the greatest proof of God's existence, and love, are the millions of people that (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Now, can YOU and DK finally beat a clue into your heads, and realize that you are never going to get Scott to admit to his errors, and IGNORE HIM? I don't know how many times people have mentioned in here that (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) The article I was reading was mentioning that the amount of flex needed in a wing was FAR less than the movement of a flap, as the wing surface was much larger than the flaps, and slight flexing made quite a difference in the airflow over the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) What, no response? Example of lack of justification. (...) Yes I did. Admitting fault is better than not admitting fault. It is not as good as never having acted wrongly in the first place, though. (...) You both impersonated someone by (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) With respect, you have not answered my question: Is that good or bad? (...) I was able to apologise and acknowledge my errors. Further, I don't view it as the "same" - can you show how it is? Like I said, my action may have been silly, but it (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) I suspect aircraft are expensive either way. The real question I would have is what would the psychological impact be on passengers who look out and see the wing of the aircraft bending up and down a lot? They might get additionally unnerved (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) Hmmm... wouldn't composite wings prove too costly for large passenger planes? They sure look like they can improve performance, and that is an invaluable factor when we are talking about fighter-jets (for instance). But would the increased (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) Santos-Dumond was a rich brazilian living in France since the late 19th century; he was a passionate of air-gizmos, and developed numerous baloons and blimps before attempting to build an airplane (first version from 1901, IIRC - at the very (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) Thanks for the clarification. I read your above comment as a different issue than the comment posted below-- (...) Your first comment--in a general sense, arguements have strengths and (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) I said: ==+== Many arguments have a weakness. Readers may respond where "think they sense weakness". This may not be where the weakness actually lies.” ==+== Do you need an example? (...) off-topic. (...) I have no idea. But why go to the (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) It was not a total troll post. Feel free to show that it was. (...) Yes I did. It is better to admit than not. (...) The apology was acceptable. But your criticism of Larry for the same seems hypocritcal. (...) The victims were people who (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) Obviously, I'm look at this from a different perspective. (...) You've not answered my question. (...) Indeed. Did I not apologise? Was my apology not good enough for you? (...) Given that shoplifting is a crime with a victim, I'm not sure (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) That's a good question. It seems to me that he should get greater recognition, but would he have built the control system if the Wright brothers hadn't invented the motor-glider? If he would have, then there's no question that his name should (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) That's why you make composite wings ;-) Actually, current research is moving away from the "ugly" or "dirty" flaps to wings that flex. Less drag, more control. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) Actually, that is innacurate; what the pre-colombian civilizations had were *more complex* calendars, and perhaps slightly more accurate on the long run. The calendar used in Europe during late Roman times (Julian calendar) was pretty (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) So... by today's standards, the Wright Bros. invented the *Motor-glider*, and brazilian inventor Santos-Dumond invented the *Airplane*. I only say this cuz' the WB control system *was not used in subsequent Airplanes* - I mean, it is not (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) Well, actually, the article talks about the contender being in Texas, and although some Texans I have met love to rave about how they can leave the Union at will, they are still American enough, that if someone were only concerned about having (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
