To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *23146 (-10)
  Yeah, thats what trademarks are for
 
(URL) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We're here to go
 
(...) I don't have any problem with pursuing that end of the discussion, but I wasn't trying to kick of a debate with my original question. If it winds up there, though, I say groovy! I enjoyed that previous debate re: cost-value of space (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We're here to go
 
(...) I'm a big fan of space exploration. I'm an even bigger fan of universal state funded healthcare & education. Who in society will benifit most from a manned trip to Mars? Who in society benifits most from a lack of universal state funded (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We're here to go
 
(...) Well, there's expensive and there's *VERY expensive*, in terms of dollars per unit of work on task. Asserting that NASA falls into the latter camp (as I do) is debate fodder, so if you want to stay out of .debate, as you seem to, we won't get (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
 
(...) *SIGH* Did you even read the cite I gave in that post? My comment referred to that fact that a lot of legitimate criticism of the Israeli right is simply labelled as "anti-Semitism" by blind supporters of Sharon. Neither the term (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We're here to go
 
(...) If I read the original post correctly, the question was of fuel efficiency and the physical implications of a Moon-based versus an Earth-based launch toward Mars and beyond. Naturally this entails the cost of development, because fuel costs (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
 
dr_scott_arthur@yahoo.co.uk (Scott A) wrote in <Hrs768.1LwG@lugnet.com>: (...) In view of your response somewhere else in this topic, [quote] JO: I think the correct phrase should be "Anti-Israelism", and not JO: "Antisemitism". SA: I prefer the (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
 
(...) *Sigh* The item cited above is the result of an academic study which was published in a peer reviewed journal by a respected academic. Do you have something similar to support your argument, or are you just "shooting from the hip"? Scott A (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
 
(...) I prefer the term "pro-justice". (...) Indeed; not content with suppressing free speech in the occupied territories, Sharon is now using the call of “anti-Semitism” to curtail it (URL) elsewhere>. Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 
  You know, I'm not altogether convinced that this is a terrible idea.
 
(URL) could become a libertarian paradise! Well, it has these things going for it: * Unequal distribution of money -- those with larger families can pool their resources and thus have an advantage over their inferior (e.g. infertile or gay) (...) (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR