 | | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) I'm not particularly troubled. I hope to see the day when computers have fairly direct interfaces with meat. If/when that comes around, people won't read at all, really. Will that be a tragedy? I think this is just a sign of progress. On the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Not comparable. And I'm not talking about my support - but rather the legality of international law. (...) You're changing my scenario. But even then, you'd still be a murderer for killing him. The correct thing to do would be to call the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure this is maybe the most ignorant thing I've read in a month. I'm starting to think you're not able to have a friendly discussion about anything. No, I don't condone genocide. Did you really think I did? Regarding WW2 - the key (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) See, with that kind of non-sequitor answer you are just encouraging Lenny to dodge the question the same way. Nor was the question aimed at countries, it was aimed at him as a person. Let me direct it specifically at you: could any nation (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(URL) thing I came away with, and it doesn't offset the overall concern I feel, is that it may not be READING that is in steep decline, it may be reading BOOKS. One of the chief competitive sources listed was the internet. High bandwidth streaming (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Truth and consequences?
|
|
(...) I am waiting as well. It seems like everything else during the Dubya time in office--hide anything and everything that might have the whiff of wrongness about it. If this happened on Bubba's watch, he and his administration would have been (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) Actually, it's not Haliburton again. It's Haliburton, still. This is hardly an over-and-done-with matter, no matter how much Conservatives, Neo-Cons, and the administration might wish it were. (URL) This> is worth reading because it provides (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Truth and consequences?
|
|
It's been about nine months, and I've begun to wonder: Why isn't Bob Novak in jail? I don't criticize him for protecting his informant, but whether or not Novak reveals his source, Novak himself still violated national security by revealing Valerie (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sarcasm
|
|
(...) I think this might not be formatted quite right, I think you need to put the http:// part on the front or else LUGNET thinks it is a relative link (shifted to plaintext so you could see it, but go upthread and try clicking on it to see what (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sarcasm
|
|
(...) From the internet. <www.cogsci.princeto...-bin/webwn Sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn>. Hee, hee. Don't know how I could have missed the insults and scorn. But you're right, I'm wrong. I see you are a funny guy after (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: <snip> (...) There's a debatable issue for you--if Pearl Harbor never happened, would the Americans have 'officially' entered WW2 at all? I mean, the Allies didn't know Hitler was murdering the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you.
|
|
(...) No. That's what this place is for. Right? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Some soldiers will always refuse to fight. I read the other day about paratroopers who refused to jump on D-Day. During the Vietnam War, many servicemen refused to fight; indeed, a few ships did not leave port. If soldiers have enlisted, I (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you.
|
|
(...) Don, do you often go into bars looking for fights? Scott A (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) What is the alternative when it is often the people in these countries which can benefit most from what the UN can provide (e.g. direct aid and peace keeping)? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) This is an interesting point. But then, I'm begining to really question democracy as the most effective way of ruling a people. Sometimes coups occur because the masses make the wrong decision (ie, Musharraf taking over Pakistan to keep it (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I gave my reasons. (...) So, Germany could slaughter jews at whim in the 20th century because it was a sovereign nation and you fully support that? (...) Perhaps you mean "right" and not "power", because you are demonstrably wrong on that (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sarcasm
|
|
(...) Last I heard it's a humourous device. It was present in my last post, and (URL) this post>. Maybe you missed it? I guess maybe different people have different senses of humour. <SARCASM> I'd certainly never accuse you of not having a sense of (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you.
|
|
(...) Liar. You're not sorry. You did it on purpose because you're one dimensional and have no sense of humor. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you.
|
|
(...) Holy crap, I'm sorry I didn't conform *EXACTLY* to some strict unwritten forum rule of who should answer to who in what threads. Whatever. ROSCO (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
