 | | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) That made me smile. Reminded me of so many 'Hawkeye' moments from MASH. Thanks Dave K (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Nah, that would be redundant. Dave! (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Indeed. Now just enforce it. Enforce the laws against robbery, burglary, rape, assault, murder etc, and perhaps there will be less of a problem. But no, the police are apparently way too busy enforcing other laws like when shops can be open (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) You can say that again. JOHN (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Oh if wishing made it so. I would love to see the day when we would enact laws banning the improper usage of guns. Well, we do already and it's known as 'the law'. Now here's a situation--can we regulate red light cameras and non-interference (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) That would be redundant. Dave! (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snips for comedic effect> (...) That would be redundant. JOHN (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Thanks for clearing that up. Your assertion in this case is that the cameras themselves are not causative? Rather they are merely tools and it's the people (governments in this case) that use them improperly which cause the problem? So why ban (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Refutation--the camera itself didn't cause the accident--the camera didn't change the timing of the lights. Saying something like there's causality between the camera and the accidents is like saying thre's causality between people waking up (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Hey, thanks for the links. Unfortunately, the problem still remains that we cannot conclude that crime has risen *because* guns were banned, especially since the guns in the Dunblane incident were legally owned. Unless you propose arming (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) gun (...) Written August 11, 1998 (URL) January 6, 2003 (URL) course the actual statistics no longer appear to be available. Go figure. -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) you think that if more restrictions were put on ownership perhaps >less would be stolen? (...) I think you are agreeing with me? (...) It's a gun's ability to kill that makes ownership so attractive to many. Scott A (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) <snip> Is there stats on this? Without any veil of agenda, I'd like to know how many guns in the black market today come from off shore. Curious. Dave K (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) You're not very good at staying on thread, are you? Nor are you very good at paying attention. Go dig up the red light threads and reread them before you blather further. But assuming you won't, or won't be able to analyse what was said, for (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Please give up on the notion that gun supply can somehow be controlled. There will *always* be guns, whether they are stolen from my house or produced in a third world nation. Anyway, the whole issue will become moot when technology gives us (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) I just recalled that some gun hobbyists make their own ammo. Doesn't detract from the point--criminals are probably doing criminal activities and are not making their own (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Care to show cause and effect? I expect not! (...) Given that 500,000 are stolen from lawful owners each year in the USA. Do you think that if more restrictions were put on ownership perhaps less would be stolen? (...) Even in the UK, some (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Do criminals make their guns? Do they have gunsmithing shops in the back of their barns where they can make their .22's and ammo? Well, no. So where do the criminals get their guns? Well, I can think off the top of my head a variety of (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Can you give an independent citation for that statistic? And some kind of causitive confirmation that the crime rate increased *because* gun control was initiated? Otherwise, the argument must be abandoned as a post hoc interpretation. That (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) But I think the point that was made to you in response to that assertion is that it is a canard-- it will never happen, and so you really could never prove it anyway. But people have thought along those lines and tried to ban guns anyway. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) That is because the crime rate in Canada and the UK and anywhere else you choose to examine has gone up (NOT down) after Gun Control policies were enacted. It is impossible to reduce the number of guns that criminals will get so long as guns (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Ahh, the American Cup-- All you need is 40 million dollars and a dream... ;) Dave K (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) HOG PILE!!! :-) (...) Ah, I have the perfect answer-- I started to watch but became so disgusted that I turned it off (and coincidently, that's what really happened) (...) lol My dad watches that too! "It's really fascinating, blah, blah, (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | no D-Day in '44? [was Re: Not in my name!]
|
|
(...) Churchill did say that the USSR "tore the guts out of the Nazi war machine". The USSR lost ~25-30,000,000 in WW2 [the USA lost ~140k in Europe]. Without the USSR, D-Day would never have happened in '44 as Germany would have had its best (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's the dreamer part of me... but it's completely true. (...) I like how you do away with the rest of the logically constructed arguement, that if you *reduce* the number of guns, you will reduce the number of gun related cases of (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) I missed Rather's interview--I think it was on during 'Enterprise' or 'The West Wing', not that I really bothered to check when it was on--I lumped it, mistakenly or not, in the 'Let's get ratings at any cost' group, and I don't seem to (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Okay, everyone agrees that Dan Rather is an idiot. Except me. Not that I have the answer: I wasn't idiotic enough to watch him in the first place. Perhaps I do have the answer. :-) -->Bruce<-- Okay, 'fess up: who was idiotic enough to declare (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Yeah I think we can all agree on that. -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Tell you what. I'll concede that... if you can *completely* eliminate guns from the surface of the earth, no one will be killed with guns any more, or at least not until the aliens come. But I'll ***only*** concede that in return for a (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Hit fudge hasn't killed anybody, that I recall-I could be wrong. Ask a father what he wants done to the criminal who had just raped and killed his daughter. Weak willed? I don't think so--I'm just glad that laws are supposedly made by rational (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) gun (...) gun (...) always (...) Except that right now it would be easier for me to purchase an AK-47 through illegal channels than it would be for me to purchase a 6-shooter through legal channels. (...) I will definately agree that if your (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) So you want the state to protect you from yourself and your weak will then? Is that it? I'm going to campaign to outlaw hot fudge, after all, some people can't resist it. (...) It might be what you're advocating, it just doesn't happen to be (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) And I agree that there will always be those that want to break the law, or use a weapon in a moment of passion--I admitted that I'm torn when it comes to me, a gun, and Paul Bernardo (my ethics would prevent me from doing harm to him in the (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) The violent crime rate doubled* in Canada and tripled* in the UK after the gun control laws went into effect. Yes they are still lower than in the US but that is beside the point. I do understand your point now, but unless every gun on the (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) I'll try to make this as simple as possible, without getting into a totally complex discussion-- If people don't have guns, people can't get shot by guns. That's as simple as it gets. Knives, hatchets, pipes, hands, and the rest all have (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Oh I'd love to have a black/white, right/wrong stance as clear and simplistic as the one you're proposing, Larry. But the world's a complex place, which needs complex problem solving--there is nothing cut 'n dry in life. So when I say that I (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Red/Green-- When tested, on a scale of CV (colour vision) 1-5, 1 being not colour blind and 5 being total colourblind, I'm a CV 3, which means I could have been a chef or such in the armed forces--I could not be a scuba diver (which I wanted (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Debunking "Arming America"
|
|
I seem to recall that we may have had some discussion here on the book "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael Bellesiles although I could not find a relevant post. At any rate it puts forth the thesis that "guns were (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) alive. (...) Ok now I am really confused on why you support gun control. I mean you do know that the crime rate in Canada has almost doubled since the nation wide Gun Control laws went into effect right? Sure it is still a lot lower than the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: (selective snipping for comedic effect) (...) But if the way you see them *is* black and white, wouldn't that measn....? ;-) -->Bruce<-- (red/green? total? My right eye sees redder and my left (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
Snippety Snip... (...) followed by... (...) What was your stance on guns again??? I think I missed something. You're ready to go vigilante on a serial killer but not support ousting someone (1) who killed hundreds of thousands (or, if you go by the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) In answer to a few other points made... (URL) out the 'toon at the bottom of this page... It has been said that I'm morally 'wishy washy'. I think that, given a cut 'n dry scenario, I am (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Well, I didn't want to get into it deeply for I didn't see the actual interview, and am only going by what has been said here, as well as the links posted. But if true, I don't think I'd string Dan up on the nearest branch--rather I'd do (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) "Oh well"... "A shame"... ??? Is that the best you can do, Dave? One could argue that this interview(1) was "aiding and comforting the enemy", assuming Saddam's our enemy specifically(2). This interview(1) is a perfect example of what's wrong (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Depends on your POV-- to Saddam it was like hitting the jackpot. (Hence my post). JOHN (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) I'm sorry--I'm working up from the bottom of two Tylennol Cold capsules, so fingers well very working my aren't. Yes indeed, Rather should be ridiculed/blasted/condemned for this sweeps stunt. My poorly prefaced statement should have begin (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Yes, missing a golden opportunity like this is a shame. I don't care what the Iraqi editors would have done--let them cancel the interview even--ask the questions that need answering--"Saddam, you have killed your citizens--why and are you (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snipped the stuff I mostly agree with> (...) Why is it hard to fault Rather? I'm a bit lost on that part. I don't think it's hard at all! Is it hard because he's developmentally disadvantaged or (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) and (...) Granted, the NRO makes no overtures of impartiality, but I don't recall anyone "rallying around" Rather prior to or following the idiotic interview. Bill Maher decried it last night on Larry King Live, and I know of at least several (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Decide for yourself: (URL) was incredulous, embarrassed, and enraged. It was almost surreal. JOHN (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Osama and Tarik presumably are. (URL) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) I wanted to see it! Grr!!! Was it that bad? Dave K (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
Lenin would have been so proud. JOHN (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Not in my name!
|
|
(URL) that the LP has evinced some support for the antiwar movement, including some activists marching in some of the same demonstrations that this writer has profiled. (see also: (URL) sure I agree with the LP stance here. While I oppose the coming (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) Just in case you're flipping thru the channels and come across a Simpsons ep--here's the brief overview of this particular ep (iirc) Homer starts his own website but is getting no (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Prisoner Series--was Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) It helps a lot! Thanks. Reading thru the first couple episode synopsis hearkened me back to the day when I could debate Star Trek eps. with the best of 'em--wow that's alotta info! Camera positions and all! These types of things always bring (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Prisoner Series--was Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) The order of the episodes is apparently the subject of much debate, they apparently were shown in the order they were completed (as the series was much behind schedule, over budget etc) rather than an order that makes "sense". "Fallout", the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Prisoner Series--was Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) Not a big fan, but here's a link that may be interesting: (URL) Dave! (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The Prisoner Series--was Re: Freedom from information
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) K, this is a question for those that actually are fans of "The Prisoner" A long time ago I woke up at like 2 a.m. and couldn't fall back to sleep so I turned on the telly and (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) makeshift tank, or bin (I only saw the ep. once and that was so long ago I can't remember). Before the website, as posted above, was around, the euphimism for any show that has gone south was known as "jumping the shark tank" Of course, there (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) Sorry I missed that one. Since the Prisoner is being brought up, why did 6 drive a 7? More importantly, could Larry fit into one? -->Bruce<-- I am not a number, I am a free man....oh, my Liberal Social Security number is 000-00-0006....as I (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I discovered he was a plagiarist [Re: Freedom from information]
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Well this puts a clear slant on the democratic process at large, doesn't it? I think it was mentioned a long time ago in o.t-d about how some people that vote really don't understand the issues they are voting for. Not to take an (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) Tank? What tank? There is no tank. (URL) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) One of my fav. Simpsons eps is when they parodied "The Prisoner" No. 6 built this boat out of toothpicks 'n such, and Homer jumps in and takes it, leaving No 6 crying, "Not again!!!"... Then the bubble's chasing Homer and he pulls out this (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Perhaps the Justice system is changing...
|
|
For the better? I dunno, but some very interesting cases recently... (URL) which a man had his mouth duct taped shut because he was interrupting his attorney as well as the judge. A few more that I don't have links to-- A guy was sentenced to spend (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) Typical Liberal! The State knows best and all that. :-) I'm a man, not a number! (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) Hey buddy, *I'll* tell you what you're saying. And if my spectra have more dimensions than yours, pooh-pooh for you. So there! 8^) **snip of some good elucidation*** Dave! (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) No. There's more to it than that. I am saying it's a field (of two or more dimensions), not a spectrum (which is one dimensional). We have in the past discussed possible axes... Using such axes it's possible to more correctly describe areas of (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) I think you also hold the record for most successful uses in a single post, though I can't find it right now. Dave! (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) You make a fine point, though I should confess that I don't really mind being grouped that way. It's kind of like being thrown into the generic category of "animal" versus "vegetable" or "mineral." You're also correct that the range of (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I haven't listened to him at all for several years, except for an occasional snippet while I'm driving. When I did listen, he played at least as fast-and-loose with facts as Moore does, and (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I discovered he was a plagiarist [Re: Freedom from information]
|
|
(...) lol What makes you think that the onslaught of voters who cast their ballot actually *read* the book, or for that matter, knew how to read? >;^D (...) How common of you! JOHN (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) Yes, labels are restrictive and simplistic and I wouldn't necessarily hold anyone to a category. My analysis was chiefly based upon my observation that I am almost always in philosophical disagreement with these 2 guys on many issues, and I am (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> er, forgot to include the footnote so here it is: 1 - Correct placement for Dave! My record on this is certainly among the top posters here... ++Lar (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) See, I think this paragraph very neatly spotlights the problem with the one dimensional labeling system in use (because it's simple?) left-right ... liberal-conservative To be fair you did not explicitly label Bruce and Dave! (1) But the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | I discovered he was a plagiarist [Re: Freedom from information]
|
|
(...) I don’t think one is supposed to look at the text as a bible; it is more of a starting point for further reading. I expect most of those who voted read it because it told them what they wanted to hear; not to understand more about themselves (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Yeah, it's not like TLC have printed "LEGO" on every stud or something... :) Best regards, /Tobbe (URL) SPAM when e-mailing) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) I try...:-) (...) Yes. Reminds me of the People's Choice Awards. I am suspicious of those as well-- I am a believer in relying on the marketplace to define the success of many things. After all, a platinum record sold 1,000,000 (or whatever (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) Hey, that was a pretty good answer. So your complaint is a comment on the award process itself, rather than on which book received the award? I can accept that. (...) Maybe, but it's also useful to Know Thine Enemy! (...) Let's leave Franken (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Truth to say, BPS pretty much matches the above description, imho. Dave K <snip> (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) That's a tricky accusation, and it's circular reasoning besides! There are many examples of "art" that I "understand," but I still find them to be garbage. (...) Although in the broad sense your statement can be true, but it is at least as (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Good luck in court;-) JOHN (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Perhaps, but then again, I *was* an Art Major in kollege... (...) Gotcha. Go ahead and try and list one, and you will instantly realize what I am talking about. (...) Right, and the same applies to the question "what is art?" The bottom line (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) Yes. The indenting/nesting of citations is quite clear on that point but since I left none of your words I should have trimmed your tag away too. Sorry. (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) Just a housekeeping note here-- the words above are not mine, but -->Bruce's<--. JOHN (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) Well, let's back up a moment. I am suspicious of anything such as a "book of the year" award, *especially* if it is open to a public vote. What the public likes is often quite silly and rarely serious. I would hope that a winner of such an (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) A good writer of fiction and propaganda, yes. And to be fair, that's all he claims to be. When pressed, he doesn't claim to tell truth. My issue with him is that he doesn't disclaim very well at all and the credulous are (perhaps deservedly (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) I think this book is great! It's a good thing that it won. It will give it a publicity that will make it even more popular. Terry (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Well, John, maybe you just don't understand art ? Don't forget that not so long ago, many great artists were considered doing filth and obcenity too... These artists are now the great ones that we study in art school. Artists, in my opinion, (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) I have not read the book, but a friend of mine use to get his daily (weekly? whatever) e-mail message. Moore was quite a good writer. Much more coherent than say, a Rush Limbaugh. I'll have to get the book, now. :-) -->Bruce<-- (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) That assumes a particular definition of MOC. One could argue that "Take hairpiece A, put it on top of head B, on torso C, with legs D" is as much a MOC (albeit a very simple one) as "Take brick A, stick it on plate B, etc". Bruce (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Maybe a few decades ago, but not anymore. At least, not unless the patent can legally be ignored by 10+ other brands! Dave! (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
I thought that the patented part of the basic brick was the tubes Lester (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) With due respect, John, what book would you call "worthy" of the award? Have you read either of Moore's books, or have you only read what other conservatives have said about them? I've previously noted Moore's really unfortunate tendencies to (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Wow, John--this is one of those rare moments when you and I are in complete agreement (at least with the NEA part). I can think of absolutely no reason whatsoever that the government should provide public funding for artists. Having said that, (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) There is a tricky situation here with respect to trademarks I think. If I say "I have built a pornographic mosaic using LEGO bricks." I am simply making a statement of fact. I should even be able to advertise this fact (since it is an accurate (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Most of BPS's scenes in the BT *aren't* MOCs, but rather pics of minifigs with talk bubbles, and some cases they are in rather offensive poses (to which, no doubt, drew the pedaphiles). The *minifig* is most definitely a trademark of TLC, and (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) When I had a run-in with the legal dep't many years ago, it was because I used the name LEGO, and their logo in my movie, as well as some other names that they had trademarked. They said that if I removed the names and logos from the movie, (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) It's funny how differently we see things. I see these artists not as "hiding behind the First Amendment," but insted standing on the shoulders of the giants who made the First Amendment so and proudly declaring their work in the Land Of The (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) If by "personal agenda", you mean to encompass the nation... " Moore's triumph was boosted by a strong telephone vote from the public, who were invited to participate in the awards for the first time this year. Until now only those in the (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
