 | | Re: Bad day for individual rights
|
|
(...) I don't have an opinion on the second ruling -- it seems OK (without reading the laws in question), but I do disagree with the first. In 1906, in _Hale v. Henkel_, the court wrote: "The individual...owes no such duty [to submit his books and (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Bad day for individual rights
|
|
Hmm, a bunch of Supreme Court decisions today... (URL) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:Hznzvx.5DF@lugnet.com... (...) astronaut in (...) Hmm, I might dispute the first civilian astronaut bit. Dennis Tito would qualify for that in my book. Well, actually, before that (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) And nations! Like during the War of Northern Aggression? Chris ;-) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
"Mr L F Braun" <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:HzMHDG.1E6q@lugnet.com... (...) mean, wow, (...) caused a (...) Yea, anyone who is at least nominally a Christian who isn't Catholic has no business worrying about splitting churches. If (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
|
(...) Whoo-hoo! I just watched spaceshipone land and the first civilian astronaut in the history of mankind walk into the history books. What an exciting day! Chris (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) Look, I'm in the camp that thinks Tim was objectionable, but your text really _is_ hard to read. It takes your readers extra time to figure out what you're saying because of your wide disregard for grammar. I personally, think that you are (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) I completely and thoroughly reject the notion that I was being mean. (...) I agree, we should make an effort to foster a generally positive environment here. I also value intelligent posts with reasonable effort given to composition and (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) Was that a joke? I'm serious. I laughed out loud, but no one else has singled that line out, so now I'm curious. And can't you guys take it to .admin like Larry said? Chris (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
snippage... (...) a) Dan posted in Castle in the first place...its not like he posted in general. That's where he likes to hang out. So he doesn't take care in his postings... b) on one hand he's in grade 9, so he should be starting to know (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Fair enough. When the Government and your church leaders tell you that you must accept the marriage of gays within your church, you can protest all you like, and I'll be right there with you in expressing that feeling. Unfortunately, that's (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
Original message cancelled, reposting with XFUT --> admin.general. (...) Regardless of those other forums being lax, here on LUGNET, people judge you based on how you conduct yourself. Since this is the internet, one of the few ways to evaluate that (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
|
(...) Tomorrow's the scheduled launch day for the first suborbital flight (this apparently is not an X Prize qualifying flight, needs 3 people on board to be the first of the pair required, but predictions are that if this goes well, the prize will (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
just want to say sorry if you think i am not putting effort forth but, i have showed them many works and thier responses were That guys a looser ect... and as for my grammer well you guys who have been around a while know abouth that. Ben Leo Ant (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) This is, in my considered opinion, *off topic* for the off-topic.debate newsgroup as it has to do with the norms and standards of LUGNET itself. If you have an issue with the approach Tim, or anyone else, uses to try to improve things on (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) Please don't assume I did. (...) And do you have any stats on how many people decided not to get involved in the community because of the flame wars they saw while lurking on RTL? (...) And that's great, but you're only one example. (...) I (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) Please don't second guess my assumptions. I came into this community (well, RTL) eight years ago as a 14-year-old. I was very immature, and as a result got myself pretty beaten up by those who weren't simply direct, but downright malicious in (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) You're assuming everyone here is as mature as you. Which discounts the young LEGO fans who may be lurking in .castle, and be put off by such a post. Yes, maybe their parents should explain what such a post means, but if a young kid chooses not (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) I'm a big fan of diplomacy, in cases where it is appropriate. I'm learning to become more of a fan of being direct where it is appropriate. I don't think it's fair to automatically categorize being to the point as being unfriendly. To address (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) Well I doubt he'll respond to direct suggestion either, so why make the newsgroup seem less friendly by posting it? ROSCO FUT: .o-t.debate (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: i decided to
|
|
(...) I have to agree with Tim on this. The message looks like the kind of gibberish you'd get in a spam email...from a 6 year old. (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I agree with everything James wrote, but I think the truly beneficial course of action is for the government to get out of the business of certifying certain interpersonal contracts as having special value. The People should be free to (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Where's the harm? From one side of the issue, they get to be rid of those disgusting deviants once and for all. From the other, they get to be rid of the backward, protruding-forehead, neanderthals that have been stifling progress. It sounds (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Uh, no. You got it backwards. Bruce appears to be on the side with the rest of us. Chris (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) The issue that I see is that the government (at least, the US federal one) does not recognize any other association for the purposes of financial gain. You can't tell me that the institution of marrage is sacredly between 1 man/ 1 woman, for (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Practical and other utilitarian arguments aside, let's just say they go against my religious belief system. (...) Life is hard; it's no excuse. I'd say you may be correct and that that realization is irresponsible. (...) Unfortunately, that is (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I'm so provincial-- I hadn't even heard of the Devil's Dictionary:-/ (now I get your smiley:-) (...) How efficient:-) (...) I think even the Mormons would protest that one! (...) HI-O! (...) Everyone else is-- except Scott!!!! 8^O JOHN (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) that was the best they could do. And I'll point out that I don't question the validity of any of the journals that they're referencing. Their main points were: (...) I think this is sort of putting the cart before the horse since it makes all (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) These are my phrases and the terms I've used are subjective. I suppose I'm just reflecting the view that most married ppl accept without really questioning it. If you want to "upset the apple cart", why not show me that I should question it? A (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: From Reason: "It's all bad news - Chaos in occupied Iraq"
|
|
(...) (shrug) American Progress CEO John Podesta said, "I think when you get so distant from the facts as -- as guys like Limbaugh and Sean Hannity do, yeah, I think that tends to -- it kind of -- it tends to corrupt the dialogue." "So distant from (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: From Reason: "It's all bad news - Chaos in occupied Iraq"
|
|
(...) Resurrecting an old point, but I came upon (URL) this> and thought it was relevant to Hannity "knowing his stuff." Dave! (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Good point. Hmm.. I'm not sure. Certainly as I mentioned, marriage isn't the issue in that case-- I'm still fine with brothers & sisters and people with disease X marrying. Procreation? Hmm. I guess it seems sort of cruel to me to have a child (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Can you say Gattaca? Chris (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:HzIopJ.12np@lugnet.com... (...) participants (...) book, if (...) isn't (...) Hmm, but there are genetic conditions that are far more predictable in damaging children. Should we not allow (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:HzIL24.D99@lugnet.com... (...) they (...) apply to (...) about (...) There is a lot of baggage associated with marriage that should be available to any couple. The problem with (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) As I noted to Frank, if the system is set up to handle polygamy in a balanced way, then I'm all for it. My goal isn't to restrict marriage in any way, but more to prevent people from abusing it as a legal loophole. (...) Again, the only reason (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Huh-- I guess I'm not familiar enough with it not having any spouses or dependants of my own :) I guess basically the extreme case I'm trying to avoid by limiting the number of marriage participants is to keep someone from, say, getting 1600 (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I'm innocent! Ambrose Bierce is to blame! Or that little shoulder devil that whispered in his ear... (...) Ewww...wwwuuuuuuue! My brother never picks up his socks! But then, I know two brothers who married two sisters.... (...) I suppose if (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
