 | | Re: Customer "Service"
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tony Alexander writes: <snip> (...) I like it, well written. I had a very similar incident with a subscription to a magazine "gone bad" in which I wrote a very polite yet "take yer subscription, you misrepresented bonus (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Customer "Service"
|
|
***long post warning*** Submitted for your amusement: I got a non-Lego ad in the mail, and responded to it, asking the company to "Bill Me Later". Today I got what I considered a snotty letter, my first contact after asking this company to "Bill Me (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pepsi, Coke or Mecca?
|
|
(...) It seems I have forgotten the Scottish beer nomenclature... (...) Tee-hee. (...) This rings a bell... I certainly remember the Deuchars IPA. That was one of our favourites, and the number one item to bring home. (Due to tax regulations, (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pepsi, Coke or Mecca?
|
|
(...) Fredrik, That's fighting talk! North of the border, we don't really drink the "bitter" the southern softies drink [although I did have a pint of Tetley’s last night]. The equivalents are things like 70/- [pronounced 70 Shilling and aka (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pepsi, Coke or Mecca?
|
|
(...) Hm, I can't recall seeing that one when I visited Edinburgh. But then again, I was more interested in the bitters and lagers during those visits! I did have a chance to taste some variants during a sort of "open day" in the Caledonian brewery. (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pepsi, Coke or Mecca?
|
|
(...) In the UK we have "Virgin Cola", but it is more of a money making venture than any sort of statement. Scotland is one of a few places where "Coke" is not the No. 1 selling soft drink. The Scottish No 1 is a bright orange drink called "Irn (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pepsi, Coke or Mecca?
|
|
(...) As alcohol is pretty much forbidden in Islam, I don't expect that product to be a hit... Fredrik (22 years ago, 11-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pepsi, Coke or Mecca?
|
|
(...) symbol combo, I think it strange that no similar product has been launched earlier. It interesting, although I don't expect to see it in my region. Fredrik (22 years ago, 11-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: MOC: German WWII halftrack and armoured car
|
|
(...) Because those AFOLs don't want to. In .space, people imagine militaristic futures and build warships; the violence of Star Wars (destruction of Alderaan, anyone?) and WWI (WWI is "a long way away from the horrors of modern warfare?" I never (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jan-03, to lugnet.build.military, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pepsi, Coke or Mecca?
|
|
(...) What about an Osama Bin Lager ? (22 years ago, 11-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) Ok. You said it was a matter of perspective, not definition, thereby making it your opinion. Hence, you rank the term "troll" as a qualitative value rather than a definitive one. And because of your repeated dislike of Larry, I think you held (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Pepsi, Coke or Mecca?
|
|
I though this story was very interesting: Mecca Cola challenges US rival (URL) is all about combating "America's imperialism and Zionism by providing a substitute for American goods and increasing the blockade of countries boycotting American goods" (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) You are entitled to that view. Do you care to justify it? (...) could (...) expect (...) me (...) the (...) at (...) .now you are being obtuse ;) (...) or (...) paper (...) not (...) Why are you trying so hard not to answer such a simple (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Happy birthday, Minifig!
|
|
Alrigh I know this is a really late response, and there may be little interest, but I wanted to reply anyway. First off sexist is a label that has been ascribed to me in the past, and I don't completely disagree, but I don't think that this post (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) I share that opinion... especially as I read it without knowing there was an acknowledgments section at the back of the book. His arguments would have been more convincing if he’d put his references in the text. (...) It only got limited (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) I'm a big fan of Moore! I note with great amusement that "Stupid White Men" was already a bestseller on your island before it was even release there--thanks, Amazon! It's a chilling read, but I'm afraid it suffers from Moore's habit of sparse (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) Perhaps the problem is that the news networks’ balance sheet has some protection from the "cyclical" economy due to the war on terror? ;) I've just completed reading MM's now dated "Studpid White Men". If half of what he has to say about (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) You are getting upset over a misnomer. Correctly speaking (which is to say, politically incorrectly) you should be using the term The Conservative Media. (...) The Conservative Media. Just repeat it like a mantra. (...) You realize that means (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Freedom from information
|
|
I haven't griped about Bush in this forum for close to several weeks. So here goes: (URL) sense Copresident Rove's hand in this somehow. Aside from the ever-astonishing willingness of the press to swallow whole any spin coming out of the uber-secret (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Black Pack is Back!!!
|
|
(...) Thank You Jesse... I didn't really know how to phrase a response to the previous message, so I bit my toungue; you words were spoken as if from mine own toungue. Thank You -John Rudy A Firm Believer that the Racist Door can swing both ways. (22 years ago, 6-Jan-03, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What a downer :-(
|
|
"Steve Burge" <steveburge@b_i_g_f_o_o_t.com> wrote in message news:H856EB.6DA@lugnet.com... <snip> Video games have an advantage over board games in that you can play them when no-one else is willing to play a game with you</snip> Isn't that down to (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jan-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | OMGoodness--an American tells it like it is (outside ot-d)
|
|
(URL) especially like the 10 reasons to switch--here's just one: " Number 4: America prides itself in being the "leader of the Western World, leader of the free nations." The cornerstone of this being Democracy, something the Vikings of Iceland (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Great resource for finding newspaper stories
|
|
(URL) (1) The "internet public library" purports to collect links to online versions of many many newspapers. I checked it out and found several, although I can't guarantee every link they said is there actually is. Thanks to "Seraphim" of Megatokyo (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the big deal about the Mini TIE?
|
|
(...) Hehe, I remember seeing that. I thought "Wow, what a lame set!" But still, business is business. Kind of sneaky, yet funny. ~Evan Butzlaff (22 years ago, 1-Jan-03, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) Alright then, I don't accept your perspective. I think it's a baseless emotional response to Larry. (...) That's another baseless accusation AND name calling. (...) There is no balance point. There is no line to cross between "good" and "bad". (...) (22 years ago, 30-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) I had already said it was a matter of perspective. (...) I get the feeling you are being obtuse... (...) After avoiding the question a number times, you now claim the question is invalid. I'll try again; Is that, on balance, good or bad? (...) (...) (22 years ago, 28-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting Ebay auction
|
|
(...) Sure, it sounds like a cool idea, but I'll bet that the shipping charges are murder. Dave! (22 years ago, 28-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Interesting Ebay auction
|
|
(URL) THE ENTIRE RUSTIC TOWN OF BRIDGEVILLE CA" Wow, wonder what people are going to auction off next. -JHK (22 years ago, 28-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The One Brick
|
|
(...) And thus shall often be told in later days great tales, amongst those the story of Nathan of the Ten Fingers and the Brick of Doom. Peace and Long Life, and a very Merry Christmas, Tony Alexander (22 years ago, 25-Dec-02, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the big deal about the Mini TIE?
|
|
(...) Umm, isn't this off-topic for off-topic.debate? o-t.d is for serious debates, not everything that comes along that might be controversial... For that matter, I'm not sure why it's x-posted to .general. Frank who is logging in from his mom's (...) (22 years ago, 24-Dec-02, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Ruling Brick (was: What's the big deal about the Mini TIE?)
|
|
(...) Three Plant Leaves (6 x 5) for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven BURPS for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone, Nine bricks for Timmy destined to die, ... :-) (22 years ago, 24-Dec-02, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the big deal about the Mini TIE?
|
|
(...) The big deal is people are dumb. They think it's worth 30 bucks and I bet people might actually buy it too. I saw on ebay once, a pair of storm trooper bodies with a Han and Luke heads on em. They were "exclusive" Han and Luke in stormtrooper (...) (22 years ago, 24-Dec-02, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers andnonconstructive participants
|
|
"Bent" can mean many different things, you have to place it in context. In the context I was using it (trying to straighten SA out), it simply meant that people aren't going to be able to straighten him out: (...) Didn't think that it could be that (...) (22 years ago, 24-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the big deal about the Mini TIE?
|
|
Dunno, but I wouldn't mind building a few. Has anyone scanned the instructions yet? The pic I've seen of it doesn't quite give enough detail to build it. BTW, the Tie Bomber from the retail Mini SW sets rocks, and I can't wait for the next batch of (...) (22 years ago, 24-Dec-02, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Ruling Brick (was: What's the big deal about the Mini TIE?)
|
|
(...) In the land of Lugnet, where the Shadows lie. (22 years ago, 24-Dec-02, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the big deal about the Mini TIE?
|
|
(...) Why were Chicken Elmo, Ticket Me Elmo, Patch Pack Kids, Care Bares and a whole slew of other toys so sought after. IMO two simple reasons. 1) Low Quantity 2) America is CRAZY and in the case of the mini Tie on more 3) NOT FOR RETAIL SALE As (...) (22 years ago, 24-Dec-02, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What's the big deal about the Mini TIE?
|
|
Just wondering, I received my Mini TIE today, and for such a small scale it looks fairly good. But what's so great about it????? Why would anyone pay thirty bucks for this??? I'm not a large Star Wars fan (I mean, I don't drool over a poster of (...) (22 years ago, 24-Dec-02, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) No, probably on CNN. BTW whenever I saw "colorised" in the listings I just turned the saturation all the way down on my receiver to turn it black and white again. Made for some interesting commercials. But I digress. (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <Snip> (...) On TNT (Turner Network Television) (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Ted Turner colorized Picasso's paintings?? Sacre Bleu! (if you'll forgive the expression...) Film at ll. (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) I thought it was because Ted Turner colorized them. Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) I'd be happy so see where. (...) I would acknowledge your perspecive if it had a basis I could see. I could claim that George Bush is smarter than Stephan Hawking, but I don't expect you to acknowledge my perspective without me explaining (...) (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) What does it mean in the UK? In Norway, the Norwegian equivalent of "bent" would mean drunk or gay. Fredrik (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Obviously, those artists were just imagining how things might have looked if there had been color. Creative license and all... 8^) -H. (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) I thought I had responded already? (...) From my perspective, Larry's post was a troll. I read it as just another of similar posts he has made. I stopped myself going through it line-by-line just after it was posted – as I thought it would be (...) (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) Perhaps you can explain why? BTW, I prefer John, 8:7. (...) But how do we deem when that line in the sand has been crossed? Can it not be abused if a poster is simply posting an unpopular [but valid] view? In this group [without any (...) (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) Does "bent" mean in the US what is does in the UK? Scott A (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Carrying a cross inside the palm
|
|
[I'm sorry about the odd choice of newsgroup, but I didn't know of any other suited for off-topic questions like this.] I've observed a person who always carry an ornamented cross inside the palm. It has a chain, which is entangled in the fingers. (...) (22 years ago, 22-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Don't you even think about "America the Great!"
|
|
In the very same paper that carried an article that has to do with our favourite pastt-time (which shall not be mentioned here in ot-d), I came across two very different types of articles: (URL) you say? Well, somehow I find the reporter easier to (...) (22 years ago, 22-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Boy Scouts Shooting Straight
|
|
(URL) courts, not liking the decision to ban homosexuals from being leaders in the Boy Scout organization, are now telling their judges that they cannot belong to an organization that discriminates on the basis of lifestyle choices. Wow. And I (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Some VERY good science fiction has been done using that notion (that reality is mutable, based on beliefs of the observers) or similar ones (in particular I always enjoy a re-read of _The Practice Effect_ by David Brin)... (...) what about (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) I think the assumption is that given the choice of any number of eating establishments in close proximity, choose the one with the full parking lot. But your point is well taken: Sometimes your choices are Mac & Dons, Taco Smell, Spendy's, or (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Except that sometimes the parking lot is full only because they are the best eats within the next few hundred miles. Doesn't mean they're GOOD, just that they're the best of a bad lot. -- | Tom Stangl, Sun ONE Internet Technical Support, Sun (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Certainly Judaism. I honestly don't know that much about Buddhism to comment, but can billions of Chinese be wrong? And if they were, would you point it out, knowing full well that you could anger them into all deciding to jump off of a step (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) But Buddhism is going strong for quite a bit longer, and Judaism is no johnny-come-lately, either. Are both of those belief systems as strongly validated as Christianity by virtue of their respective ages? (...) I like that analogy! (...) But (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Perhaps Nathan meant it in the reverse-- if it truly were a bogus religion, it probably would have faded into the past by now (a sort of twist on Occam's razor?). Since Christianity is still going strong after 2,000 years, *something* is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) existance, than one must acknowledge the probability that the "Christian God" will be facing extinction in the near future. The nations that are Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist (not in the article above presumably because it is more a philosophy (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) It would still be the same God. Jesus would be demoted fom avatar of God to prophet of God, however. What happened to Buddhists on this scale? God help us if L. Ron Hubbard preached breeding as swiftly as possible to Scientologists. :-) (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Hmm... If popular opinion is all that's required to establish "proof" of a metaphysical entity's existence, then I'd say that the Christian God had better watch over His Shoulder. According to one set of statistics, Christianity can lay claim (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) Very true, but the Wright brothers didn't say "Let's try the same methods that failed for all those other guys." They also didn't say "Let's try to make our airplane work by flying repeatedly into an impenetrable barrier." Your attempt to (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
