|
|
 | | Pause!
|
| This is the sort of thing that I take some refuge when the world around me seems too complicated; it kinda provides a much needed (URL) PAUSE>. I know, I know... panem et circenses. It isn't exactly a political debate, rather something of a more (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: What's a freedom fighter?
|
| (...) "GWB's puppets of tyranny" sounds about right. Most people here think of this as a military invasion and therefore, an illegal intrusion in another country. The fact that Saddam isn't in power anymore is good, but the price to pay was too (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Shrek 2
|
| (...) No it wasn't wrong. or inappropriate. They didn't refer to anything sexual. It's a feminin underwear. No mentions as to what it could mean, i.e. being a transvestite or being sexy. It was simply an underwaer. A Thong! What's wrong about that? (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: What's a freedom fighter?
|
| (...) See, now that's what I'm talking about. You debators probably all know what you meant by that sentence. I'm gonna have to look up "rhetorically" and find out what it means in that context. (...) Well, he's got me fooled then. I have enough (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: What's a freedom fighter?
|
| (...) No I don't. It's grammatically correct, yes but rhetorically, it's quite weak. He dodges questions, doesn't address refutations, writes as if he doesn't get the point of other people's arguments even when spelt out in detail, and doesn't make (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
