 | | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) The fact that past threads became debates doesn't mean that talking about NASA is OT for .geek. I'd recommend judging each thread by it's own contents, not by the history of the subject. (...) Regardless if anyone actually replies to the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Made me curious, but yeah, I think John's spot-on on this one. Looks like it's just yet another quickie parable: "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season? (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
This is a reply to both Kelly and Steve (close by in the tree) and the FUT is set to just admin.general (...) I don't know what's proper. We're experimenting. I hope people won't get too upset about it, till we get it right. I did an experiment (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Big 2 willing to help with ballot access?
|
|
(...) What do I expect, you ask? Same old same old, I guess. Not that the malignancy is confined to the GOP, mind you. But doesn't mean I can't complain/be peeved/be disappointed.. (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) ... But since it didn't actually become a debate, shouldn't it be left alone? I thought it was a very interesting thread, and was surprised to find it just disappeared - if it wasn't for Steve's post, I wouldn't have had any idea that it was (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) Had further thoughts about this - are there guidelines about recognizing at what point a thread should be rerouted into a different group? This particular thread, IMO, is pretty harmless (now), but I can see how (URL) threads can deteriorate>. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) Hmm, thought I was on topic for .geek, but you're right, it was starting to become a debate. I agree the followup on this should go to .debate. (...) I saw part of that thread, but hadn't read it in a while - I had a hard time with some of the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Big 2 willing to help with ballot access?
|
|
(...) I didn't pay too much attention to the 'Perot' years, but I wuold imagine, just thinking about it now, that possibly some Dems were more than willingto work at getting 'Little Yappy' on the ballot in many states, considering he filtered off (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) I think the topic of 'right level of notification/intervention' is worthy of public discussion. IMO, in this specific instance, the intervention was unnecessary. I hadn't read any 'debate' into the discussion, and any time 'NASA' and 'budget' (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Let's see--by this logic, 5 therefore people count as the majority in a pool of some 100+ million voters. Hmm... Dave! (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Big 2 willing to help with ballot access?
|
|
(...) The GOP has already pulled this trick - Washington, Oregon? And I think they got challenged on some technical grounds, but I don't know the specifics. Anyway, what do you expect from the party of Tricky Dick and a candidate from Texas? (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Kelly McKiernan wrote: (snip) I have forceFUTed your post (and am considering others in the tree as well) to .debate as it's veering in that direction (discussions of the merits of funding are probably not nearly as well (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Uh, I never said that. (...) Uh, I never said that. (...) A straw man if I ever saw one. If my attitudes sicken you, at least be sickened by the ones to which I actually adhere. JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) And in California and Massachusetts, but it's still illegal. (...) Change comes when the majority decide it should change, not a tiny minority. JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Big 2 willing to help with ballot access?
|
|
It was reported in the local press that Ralph Nader is getting some aid in his quest to get on the MI ballot from an (at first glance) unexpected quarter. (URL) GOP! yes, as long as the big two think a third party or independent candidate can, by (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: American Idolatry
|
|
(...) No, Chris, we are talking about discussions about the word, not using it as a pejorative to somebody. It is more civil of me to skirt typing the actual word than to type it. JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Liberarian presidential candidate stance on Marriage Amendment defeat
|
|
Reproduced without explicit permission, but hey, it's a press release, that's the idea. ===...=== NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 World Wide Web: (URL) release: July 15, 2004 ===...=== For (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: American Idolatry
|
|
(...) No. Your search does not demonstrate that it is necessarily OK or not OK, it merely unearthed incidents of use. The only conclusion to draw there is that the admins chose not to take action for whatever reason, not that using it is necessarily (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I agree with everything Larry stated. Oh if wished made it so... I think Larry should change his name to Dave and become part of the Davish 5 Though there is a Larry David in teh world--mayhaps Larry's middle name is Dave... Dave (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Write Frank, Tim, Todd or myself if you need a cancel. Else, what are you talking about? (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Do we have any of those here? (biblical scholars who know what they're talking about, I mean, I wasn't casting aspersions on everyone as far as knowing what they're talking about, mind you...) If we don't do we have to take your word for it on (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: American Idolatry
|
|
(...) I'm thinking it doesn't. At least not the first one. The second one maybe. But that's a topic for somewhere in the .admin hierarchy, and I just gave you my personal opinion not an official pronouncement... I'll look into it and get back to you (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You know what, in my crazier moments I'd be happy to leave the definition of "marriage" to whatever non governmental sanctioning bodies wanted to sanction it, and they can define it however they like. As part of that leaving I'd then go (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: American Idolatry
|
|
(...) (URL) wow> Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: American Idolatry
|
|
(...) OK, so here's how I see it. When I see A s s h o l e printed out, I think that world to myself. When I see A-hole printed out, I think the same exact word to myself and just a little side-adendum in my mind about why they used that (local (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: American Idolatry
|
|
(...) It looks like using the (URL) is ~ok~. Scott A (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) So you don't know? Do you accept the work of these "scholars" without question? Your reply reminded me that you once said this: "I come from a traditional that believes that each and every person has direct access to God without the need of (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: American Idolatry
|
|
(...) Events in Iraq have proved that. Scott A (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
????? JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Good. I guess I didn't catch the irony in his statement (with no winky to guide me:-) JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: American Idolatry
|
|
(...) lol Because it's a non-issue! I'm guessing it is a tit for tat when Kerry was overheard swearing at that secret service agent while he was snowboarding... (...) The point is civility. We dance around those terms as a way of showing respect to (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) It's not what I think-- it is what biblical scholars think. So again-- leave the exegesis to the ones who know what they are talking about. JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: American Idolatry
|
|
(...) I don't get this issue. My guess is that Leahy and Cheney are both asses. And who cares if Cheney profaned a senator? I mean, I guess y'all do, but frankly, I think his remark was the most meritorious thing he's ever done in his life (that's (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Before I attempt this documentation, can you give me an idea of what would qualify as acceptable to you? Honestly, a scientific theory that can be falsified is, as an explanatory device, superior to non-falsifiable statements of faith, so I (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) What makes you think the "ten virgins" are "bridesmaids for the bride"? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: American Idolatry
|
|
Personally, I’d be more concerned about the flags flying over Bush’s gulags. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) The "ten virgins" are bridesmaids for the bride, not whatever you seemed to be implying (polygyny). Or were you just making some throw-away joke? JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: American Idolatry
|
|
(...) (snip) (...) I'm saying, he who has never dropped the F-bomb in conversation-- let him cast the first aspersion. (snip) (...) lol Please, Cheney has been around the block a few times. What it sounds like is that Leahy is an A-hole. But in (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) Well, let's see... Jackson didn't resort to legal action to get himself installed as president against the will of the people. Jackson didn't spend $100M on ineffective negative campaigning against his opponent instead of actually talking (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
