 | | Re: Seriously...
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:HopF1M.7y8@lugnet.com... Snip (...) neat (...) just (...) it (...) the (...) Well.. I have no interests in either way of WHO is getting banned and WHY.. or not... but if something is (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush toppled
|
|
(...) How about the exaggerated counts of Iraqis as the statue fell? Enemies of Democracy? When Dubyas administration selectively 'bans' free speech in your own country, sets up 'free speech' zones far away from where Dubya will be, and works out (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Seriously...
|
|
(...) I saw it... I saw the whole thread. When I read Jon's post I thought... "hmm.. Jon's stated what many of us know to be true and put it into one neat package... that's not going to be received well by Richard but I expect just about everyone (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush toppled
|
|
(...) I'm sure the enemies of Democracy will be gratified by the excessive news coverage and exaggerated counts of protesters. Useful idiots, really. I was very entertained by some solicited letters from the Guardian addressed to Bush: (URL) One in (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Bush toppled
|
|
Last night in London 100,000 plus protestetsers toppled Bush Jr: (URL) It’s been a strange visit as he has stayed beyond shouting distance of the public; as he may not like what he hears! He even had to cancel a trip to Parliament when it became (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Seriously...
|
|
(...) Nothing to follow. Jon expressed an opinion, and a rather benign one at that. Is this grounds for banishment? And even if insulting is grounds for banishment, I personally have endured countless personal attacks at the hands of RM; far worse (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Seriously...
|
|
You must have skipped the post I saw... He may have been ADDRESSING someone else, but he was insulting Richard. Perhaps you need to follow the thread again. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why I support LEGO through thick and thin.
|
|
(...) I welcome innovations that add to a product. But nothing about this is innovative. It is just going to solidify the myth among American kids that LEGO is a baby toy. Perhaps this is just a ploy to spur us all into a buying frenzy to match our (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why I support LEGO through thick and thin.
|
|
(...) Okaaaay.. that is your twist on it. (Cup is half empty?) Here's my twist: because LEGO/TLG/TLC is focussed on earning money, it now IS earning money again. And this in turn is a positive thing for the future of the company. And if the company (...) (21 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why I support LEGO through thick and thin.
|
|
(...) There are a few problems with your theories. You yourself make the perfect case. You played with LEGO a generation ago and you came back to it because it was still the same. Lego has of course growen. Growth is good. Sometimes growth equals (...) (21 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
