 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Who said anything about the majority? I just said "enough people". The problem with your argument is that it implies all laws are bad so long as one person disagrees. Well, if that one person likes to kill people, you've got a problem. Without (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) sufficient to (...) behavior is (...) I don't think Chris has ever said that. Now I may be shortcutting Chris's recent posts, but I know in the past that Chris has said that if a kid was about to run in front of a car, he would grab the kid. (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) What if I convince enough people that slavery is wonderful? Should we encat a law authorizing slavery? Or, a little less extreme than the above example, what if I convince enough people that men wearing skirts is wonderful? The point I'm (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Wow! A great day of debate!
|
|
What's really surprising is that o-t.d tops the # posts in last 24 hour list right now, even beating out .space. Those naysayers who sprout up every once in a while questioning the existence of o-t.d... this day shows a pretty valid reason ;) Dave K (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) We're catering to the sensibilities of the local culture and the laws they enact. If enough people in one society decide public sex acts should be illegal then they should be free to create laws to that effect. If you can convince enough (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) You leave my Canadian teets alone! <snip> (...) Dave K (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) Hey, don't get all reasonable on me now! I can cut through my verbosity and sum it up this way: 1. I dispute the assertion that verbal instruction is generally sufficient to steer a recalcitrant child away from ultimately self-damaging (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Wow! A great day of debate!
|
|
I just thought I'd mention that. An absolute plethora of good posts, replies and followups, with relatively no 'offense' ('xept by me, but that was yesterday ;) ) Chris is actually swaying me to his slant of child rearing, and the skin thing just (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
Dave, I'm thinking that you are nit-picking by way of purposely failing to read between the lines. If I'm wrong, then I must have communicated rather poorly. If you take a minute to evaluate my notes and your response, and then think that your (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) With respect, it is seldom the case that "simply asking" will result in getting one's way. Why don't you ask your boss to double your salary and increase your benefits? Will you get your way? I grant you, throwing a tantrum probably won't (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) The example you gave above regarding woman being cover is flawed. The woman in that society choose to cover up. We might not see it as choice since Islamic law dictates it, but think of it from their perspective. They were brought up in a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) One can produce a conditioned response if that is what you mean. I'm not sure the horse (or cat) has understood much else? (...) I, and many others, manage by doing neither. How do you explain that? My kids understand they will not benefit (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
I have read some real nutters along these lines. (...) Yeah, some people think that this sexualization of children bunk starts here. (...) Sadly, some do. It makes light of respectful modesty or somesuch. My wife got into a conversation once with (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) I'll go with RAH's answer "because it scares the horses"... Other than that, no problem. (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
> But it's not neccessary. The last time I advocated something like this here, (...) desire (...) not (...) behavior (we (...) our (...) I was there also. I was impressed with the visible results of your parenting. I had one eye opening experience (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) We tend (...) Hmm, always? Does that mean that breastfeeding is sex? Hmm, I guess there are some prudes in the world that would like to prevent kids from breastfeeding. Certainly there are those who think it's wrong to do so in public. Of (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
"John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:HsKsoz.1qu3@lugnet.com... snipped religion (...) citizens (...) frequent (...) the (...) for the (...) we just (...) Only (...) around (...) would (...) and (...) guess (...) what (...) be (...) to (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Oldest constitution still in opperation in the world used to justify same sex marriage
|
|
(...) Yaay. (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Why Dave? Didn't you agree before that if no one was being harmed, the laws should not interfere? How would it harm you to happen upon a couple (or more, gasp!) having leisure sex in a park near your house? Chris (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) Honestly considering tantrums is a somewhat humbling experience for parents. You can pretty explicitly track the cause of the tantrum to failure to act on the part of the parents. I've been there and done that. It's been my fault. It might be (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) So we pass laws to lower the hemline back to ankles? There should be a difference between sex and, well, not sex. And this issue of toplessness falls on the non-sex side, or at least it should, for there are societies today that have no (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Please. "Naked"??? He wore shoes and socks! Give me a real Naked Trekker, not this pitiful pretender! JOHN (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Okay, here goes. First, WRT to religion, I get my values and morals from my religion and they will be reflected in my answer, but they are mine. It is never my intention to force my religion on somebody else. But because I derive my values (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Ugh! Can we please keep the conversation to humans? Chris ;-) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Then why not my morality? What makes yours so much better? That's my point. (...) Exactly *which* freedom of yours was abused by Janet Jackson's bare breast? (...) I find ponytails sexy. Is hair a sexual part? Every body part is as sexual as (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Correct, the bar will be raised, as it was from ankles to breasts. Next will be the sexualization of our youth (which has already begun). What all of this amounts to is the decay of civility-- an amoral route to anarchy. JOHN (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote: <snip lots of weel thgouht out and implemented stuff> (...) Wow Chris, that's a whole different slant that I hadn't considered. Nicely done. To continue the discussion with maybe a specific (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
|
Ack...I'm being seized by old, bad habits. (...) There shouldn't need to be a law permitting it...such permission is granted by nature. Only the restriction of such default freedom requires laws. (...) Really? (...) Ayup! (...) It's funny that I (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) There are two basic thrusts that I'll take with this. First, and what I expect to me more convincing/interesting to the "pro-spank" or "parents' rights" crowd, is that it produces long-term deleterious motivational effects. It seems that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Oldest constitution still in opperation in the world used to justify same sex marriage
|
|
(...) Wow! Not only in Canada, eh? Pity (1) Dave K 1-going for humour here (2), not that i think it's a bad decision--I'm in full support. 2-those that don't get the joke, eh, it's not worth explaining but Red Rose tea commercials factor in (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) Insofar as at one time the female ankle was considered sexual 'cause that was the part that was 'always covered up'. Making laws based on this type of sexual arousing 'finnikyness' seems very (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) That piece by Morris has been widely questioned as relying too heavily post-hoc reasoning based on pre-determined gender roles, but I still enjoy a lot of his work. I don't doubt that breasts have been long-time symbols of fertility and (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Indeed! The last thing the "ruling class" wants is for the "masses" to be kept informed by a good independent public sector broadcaster. Far better that they get their "infotainment" from Fox! Scott A (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) You may enjoy this: Naked rambler completes his trek (URL) A (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote: <snip> someone can tell me exactly why public nudity is harmful, without (...) Hear! Hear!! (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) We're just touching on every topic now, aren't we? Publically funded television is a wonderful thing. Never *ever* get rid of it. My local PBS station (local even though it's in a differnt (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
|
(...) Well then that's a differnet kettle of fish, isn't it? Sex, in mono-or partner form, is different than, well, what we're talking about here. There are laws about being 'sexual' in public, which falls outside the purview of the laws we're (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Oldest constitution still in opperation in the world used to justify same sex marriage
|
|
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has just clarified it's ruling. Nothing short of full marriage rights for same sex couples is acceptable under the Massachusetts constitution, the oldest constitution in the world. (URL) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Hmmm. I'm thinking of clay Ashtarte fetishes that are 1,000s of years old which are basically a human form with gigantic breasts. Breasts have always been a symbol for sexuality and fertility that is cross-cultural, which leads me to conclude (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) I agree that most in the US are "modest" by your definition, but what about those who don't fit your definition? Don't they have just as much of a right to be "immodest"? Until someone can tell me exactly why public nudity is harmful, without (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
|
(...) Ahh, the loverly internet... (not that Page 3 is a bookmark in my browser... ;) ) That said, newspapers in Canada are not legally allowed to show topless models, even in adverts, if these newspapers are sold to the general populace. So there (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
|
(...) So you would be okay with a law that permitted, say, fornication or masterbation in public places? (...) I'm fine with the stuff people do in private-- we are talking about public behavior here. (...) Ah, so a brother and sister, or two (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) You can, however, teach a horse. (...) You can, however, teach a cat (...) A 5 year old, as Larry mentioned, throwing a tantrum, as far as my personal experience goes, is pretty much unreasonable, and will either stop the tantrum when a) (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Well, they're sexual parts because we've fetishized them to be sexual parts, much like tiny (bound) feet used to be in China. Beyond that, breasts are no more "sexual parts" than the rest of our bodies (and less so than certain other body (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Yes. When they are necessary. You haven't proven the case that this particular law (banning public nudity) is *necessary* yet, though. If a law isn't protecting the rights of citizens from being infringed, it is not necessary. (not every law (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) You can't reason with a horse. (...) You can't reason with a cat. (...) You can reason with a child. Parenthood can be very difficult. However, I can't see how resorting to violence will give a parent anything other than short-term gain and (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
|
(...) Indeed. (...) 8 Year old Canadians can even see it online: (URL) A (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Laws need to be based on something (...) Of what value is freedom if nobody respects it? We don't have "absolute freedom" in this country (which is anarchy). If people aren't willing to respect others freedoms, the concept is moot. (...) In (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) Careful there, Chris... he's been seen going around asserting that the sun rises in the east again. (...) er, oops. Nevermind. :-) Now, a bit more on track, we're not much on hitting our kids, and we didn't, much, especially now that both of (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
|
(...) What makes the court decision remarkable is that they actually made a decision that's rational, instead of politically expedient. You may have found the writing sub-par, but then you may not know the actual author of the article, Rachel Sa. (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote: <snip> (...) *cough* Page 3 *cough* (1) Dave K -not that it's a poster, but I bet it sells newspapers, so any 8 year old in a coffee shop paging thru a legally purchased at any age paper can catch a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
|
Hi all, it's been a while! The subject of this post seems curious to me. Canada is a great place...why? Dave, are you reacting to the court's decision or to this journalist's gushing? The way I see it, the writing in that piece was sub par in that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
|
(...) In the UK we are allowed "(URL) chastisement>", but it is not something I condone. I have 4 kids, and I've never even thought about it; although I have been bitten and nipped by them at times. (...) Not in my part of Europe! Like you, in the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again etc etc etc
|
|
Without quoting Dave, with whose sentiment I agree, even if my experience seems to be less in relation to public nudity in Europe, John's response made me chuckle. (...) Heinously over-rated. "conformity to standards of taste, propriety, or quality" (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Great idea. Teach your children well and all that. Not seeing the connection to drug laws or public nudity laws though. (...) Eh, what? ... (was dozing off for a sec, this all seems familiar to me somehow) Oh! Yes! Morality, inasmuch as it (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
|
(...) Well, before we get into what I personally consider decent, the Ontario courts ruled a while back that the exposure of breasts in certain public areas (basically any public area where, say, a man can legally go topless) is decent, and is now (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Morality issue, out of bounds for legislators - shouldn't it be so? Larry? (...) Would you be kind enough to ellaborate? I seem to recall you advocating some sort of "absolute freedom" concept earlier in o-t.d, but my memory may be failing. It (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
|
(...) I'm curious. What do you think about the concept of "decency"? Freedom without respect and responsibility is meaningless. (...) You obviously don't have kids and are trying to raise them to become decent people. (...) Of course you are an (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
|
(URL) within 'common sense' reasons, is legal, according to the Supreme Court of Canada. You can't use a shoe aor a belt, you can't hit the kid in the head, can't spank if they're under the age of 2... THey actually laid out pretty specific (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Magnificent!
|
|
(...) WEll, maybe not quite 'nuff said after all. (URL) Here's> a prescient article from very early in Dubya's monarchy. (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: And so it continues....
|
|
(...) World's best donut shop. (maybe) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: And so it continues....
|
|
(...) You still have hockey up there? I thought all the Canadian teams were getting bought up and moving south. Someday all your teams will be in Florida or Carolina with a brand new stadium and no fans, just like the one that used to play around (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: And so it continues....
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote: <snip> (...) We sort of legalized same sex marriages, we sort of legalized pot smoking, we sort of... well, we're Canadians, we 'sort of' start many good ideas and just kinda leave 'em hanging... But (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: And so it continues....
|
|
(...) Yeah, but which local guy got your soldiers into that place, and why? You see, I don't care why you care. I just want to learn a bit more about what goes on in the rest of the world. You live there, so you're in a reasonable position to tell (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: And so it continues....
|
|
(...) To start, I think the reason why we do care is that, for example, a Canadian soldier died this week supporting a US led 'intervention'. See, if it's just 'local politics' then I really cound't care--when it was Bubba and Lewinski-gate, who (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: And so it continues....
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: ...[snip]... (...) That's a good question. Why does everyone seem to care so much about the current US administration? This gets repetitious and boring. How about dishing some dirt on your local (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | And so it continues....
|
|
(URL) it's so obviously the CIA that was mistaken. Not the Cheney report filtering process, or the White House outing a CIA operative because her husband was talking nasty about the Whitehouse and WoMD. Nope, again it's the intelligence agency. (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A lttile tiny cheer...
|
|
(...) Here's something, I've noticed that on this NG that most 'intellectual debaters' are not for the Patriot Act due to the limits on freedom and stomping on the Bill o' Rights... Yet another NG (remain nameless), the Patriot Act is seen as some (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Magnificent!
|
|
(...) Thanks, super Dave! DaveK, not to worry, it sounds strangely familiar... you'll think it's 2000 all over again. (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Magnificent!
|
|
(...) Rats! I have to wait until I get home to read this! Stupid corporate firewall!! Grr!! Dave K (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Magnificent!
|
|
(URL) 'nuff said.> (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | The US is now in the hands of a group of extremists?
|
|
(URL) George Soros thinks so:> "I contend that the Bush administration has deliberately exploited September 11 to pursue policies that the American public would not have otherwise tolerated. The US can lose its dominance only as a result of its own (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A lttile tiny cheer...
|
|
(...) for expertly advising a terrorist organization to surrender, negotiate, or disband. I would _hope_ that wasn't the intent of the loose wording, but given the level of negative sentiment towards terrorism when the Patriot Act was passed, I (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A lttile tiny cheer...
|
|
for a little tiny victory. (URL) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the conspiracy theorists out there?
|
|
(...) Next they'll blame iraq... (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: space policy backgrounder
|
|
Why the moon/mars idea was presented wrong and why it's actually a good idea (URL) Bush proposal has less to do with a vision of man's destiny than with a totally dysfunctional government agency. NASA gave us the glory of Apollo, then spent the next (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Marine Lawyer: Guantamano Military Tribunals fundamentally "unfair"
|
|
(URL) doesn't have "the slightest concern" about this. My view (repeated): while we cannot expect our citizens to be treated by our standards, or even fairly, when they are elsewhere, and they don't have the right to expect us to intercede on their (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For the conspiracy theorists out there?
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:HrwFCF.Dzo@lugnet.com... (...) (URL) (...) I agree.. the green men did it because US invaded Mars. ( and are planning their first McDonalds there). (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | For the conspiracy theorists out there?
|
|
(URL) it's the Iranians that are responsible for 9/11? My money's on little green men as being ultimately responsible but hey. (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Heck, It's An Election Year
|
|
(...) I've not watched them all yet, but I loved the simplicity of "DESKTOP"! Scott A (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) I'm not sure you need to develop a new launch vehicle per se, remember the assumption that the person heading this had just won the X prize.... but certainly some of the 12B cost figure is for launching things... Now the X prize vehicle (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Heck, It's An Election Year
|
|
O-T.debate is a place I'll browse once in a while but this time I felt I had to pass this along. (URL) NOTE: If you disapprove of Bush, then you'll get a kick watching this stuff (I sure did!). Adr. (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) We don't yet have fusion reactors, much less ones that use He3, so He3 doesn't yet help us much. Yet. I'd rather stick to tech thats closer to proven (though I acknowledge bootstrappable manufacturing facilities aren't yet in commmon use I see (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) Speaking of which, (URL) here's> an interesting tidbit I've found. I don't know about the accuracy of the details, but it seemed sufficiently on-topic to bring it into the discussion. Dave! (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yeah, thats what trademarks are for
|
|
(...) I thought it wasn't legally possible to trademark generic terms. This would be like McDonalds tradmarking the term 'hamburger'. Allister (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
|
|
dr_scott_arthur@yahoo.co.uk (Scott A) wrote in <HrKu9v.2Jw@lugnet.com>: (...) The situation in continental Europe (where I live) is rather different. (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
|
|
"Harro de Jong" <hdejong@zonnet.nl> wrote in message news:HrHCB9.67E@lugnet.com... (...) I think the correct phrase should be "Anti-Israelism", and not "Antisemitism". And yes, it is getting bigger. Israel is hiding behind what the call (...) (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | space policy backgrounder
|
|
Found this interesting reading. (URL) has more info on what went into the new policy than one usually sees. There are some biases and conclusions there that not everyone will necessarily agree with but it's worth reading in my view. It says part 3 (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) "lugnet.off-topic.geek (group): Geeking and geek toys (computing, games, peripherals, hacking, science, etc.): discussions of a generally (but not necessarily always) positive and serious or helpful nature." You may not agree, but it seems (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) Why? I think this discussion is very appropriate to .geek, except for the parts where you are starting a debate. Any reason we can't talk about NASA here? (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
