 | | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Well, when you ask it, it seems well thought out and even-headed. I do believe, what Bruce actually asked me was if I supported Hitler killing the Jews - which is not well thought out, not even headed, and offensive. i tend to respond to guff (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) It doesn't count as reading while driving unless the book is propped open on the steering wheel. Dave! (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) I saw an 'Outer Limits' ep about this very thing People worldwide could 'plug into' the 'net and get any info they need instantly. The 'net was run by one giant 'puter. However, there were a very small number of people, whether due to birth (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) No. I'm saying why oppose Saddam whilst supporting other problem countries. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) I agree. While training for my esteemed current vocation, I had to attend a session re: business communication. The central tenet was that people simply don't correspond as much as they used to, and the lecturer cited some (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
Something else I should have asked in my other note... What counts as reading? If I get a CD with someone reading the Illiad to me, does that count? Obviously, I'm not engaged in the specific physical act of parsing written language, but I am (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) I expect that reading will always (well, for a good long while yet) be a needed skill, because at some level it will be necessary simply to read the label, directions, caption, or whatever on something that doesn't support the direct-meat (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I was just starting a tangent to the current discussion--hence, 'here's a debatable subject'... It's a "Hmmm.." (strokes chin thoughtfully). That said, if you want an answer to your specific question--'can sovereign nations slaughter the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) Err, do you forsee the computers of that day as more akin to the library, or the television? It could take the term couch potato to a whole new level. (...) Wild, but interesting speculation. It has all the makings of a really good SF book. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
Jeez, did everyone take angry pills today? I think Bruce's point is pretty clear. You asserted that our invasion of Iraq was bad (illegal, unjust, whatever) because it violated the sovereignty of Iraq. Bruce is asking you (and now DaveK) if there (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you.
|
|
(...) Well, perhaps you should've replied directly to Scott, because you completely ignored what I had to say. Do you often speak just to hear the sound of your own voice? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Typo! This should read "wasn't legitimate" rather than was. That is, the UN hardly ever says anything bad about a government's legitimacy, compared to the number of coups. So the UN seems to see coups as (at least defacto) an OK way to change (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
Snipped much away. (...) However, is there a distinction between recognising the reality of a strongman being in power through force, and recognising the legitimacy of his rule? I'm just asking. But I suspect that many countries, operating in the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you.
|
|
(...) Yes, I did. But I'm not sure what my browsing habits have to do with the topic at hand? ROSCO (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Umm.. I think his concept is that if we overthrew Saddam b/c he was abusive to his population, we should overthrow the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan as well. If nothing else, it shows a lack of consistency in the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you.
|
|
(...) You didn't even look at (URL) the proof>, did you? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I'm not suggesting, nor making any statement, that Saddam's actions are just. I'm questioning whether the USA's actions were just. Or rather, specifically, wondering why you think they were "not unjust." (...) I'm speaking hypthetically as (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I fear we aren't playing fair
|
|
(...) And besides, the US isn't into fair trials for terrorism suspects, why would they worry about a fair trial for SH? And if the US isn't worried, why should Iraq??? ROSCO (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I fear we aren't playing fair
|
|
(...) Fair? What for? He cheats at everything, and (URL) here's the proof>. Enjoy, (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Interesting comments by you and Frank. I have a reaction on a couple of different levels. One, as a soldier, I sure as heck wouldn't want those guys forced into guarding my back. Two, at some point, people as individuals must question their (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
