 | | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) Have you ever heard the phrase "what does not kill you makes you stronger"? I'm a big fan of food hygeine, but I also feel that germs are a friends too! Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
David, Two points: It is only a TV programme! I expect all DNA tests would be checked against those involved in collecting the sample... likewise for fingerprints etc. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) I have, thankfully, never experienced that (at least not that I can recall). The closest I've seen is when they tend the register before removing the gloves, but the gloves ultimately end up being discarded before they get back to the food (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) It's also funny (maybe not) when sandwich-makers used their gloved hand to take your money and return change, then return to sandwich production. I hate to think what lurks on paper money passed from hand to hand, though in Australia we have (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You have an exasperating habit of picking at irrelevent details when debating, and to my eye, the wording of your post suggests that you were doing it once again (though you didn't pounce on my grammar error, which is a bit surprising). When I (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I'm guessing it would have to jump the hoops again. Maybe opinions on the law changed in the meantime, and it wouldn't have passed after being made constitutional. (...) Ex Post Facto applies, preventing him from being punished according to a (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Here’s a convoluted but well-intended hypothetical (with a hugely compressed timeframe). Let’s say Guy A commits an act in January that’s against State Law X, he’s convicted, and he’s sentenced to 10 years in the big house. He appeals on the (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Politicians allowed to veto use of news footage?
|
|
(...) I did a quick search, but could find no other reference to this story. I feel that ABC should only withhold material if there is a risk that it may be misused. I know the BBC no longer releases its Hillsborough footage due to the risk of (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I'm not convinced that the enjoyment value of the .debate group is added to when you make statements such as that one, which some may perceive as unnecessarily combative. I suggest you temper your words. I'm comfortable with the extraction I (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You ripped that sentance totally out of context, and by doing so totally failed to add anything new or even contradictory to my original statement as a whole. Let's look at the key points of the original text: (...) I accidentally left a word (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
