 | | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) Yes and no. There has been some interesting research into this (I think I saw it on Scientific American Frontiers, but I'm not positive about that), and what they've found is that the more hardy germs become in terms of surviving all those (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) Oh, I agree on that point. If you're putting on the gloves to keep your skin clean while you're scrubbing out a scum-coated pipe, do whatever you feel is necessary to get the gloves to fit right. (...) No, it kind of got sidetracked by the (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) Dude, I think they have a cutoff at 50 or something. But you should do it anyway. (20 years ago, 30-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) Have room at the house for your fam. until you're settled into Canada, and the selling feature (for you mayhaps) is a basement full of LEGO bricks--and I won't shun the non-LEGO elements :) I heard about the capture earlier on teh radio--a (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) I can't remember for sure if it's completely sterile, but I do remember hearing that it's by far the most sterile bodily fluid. But it doesn't make it any less objectionable when someone drops trou and adds the "special ingredient". (...) (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. (...) Gloves do have the advantage that it's easier to notice when someone didn't change them after hitting the restroom or hauling out a bin full of skanky rotting trash. When I worked (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) No, this is NYPD 24/7, not NYPD Blue (if it was a fictional show, this would have probably been a major plot point). This is a documentary show of real members of the NYPD. This was a real detective manhandling his latex gloves on a real (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Right on Schedule
|
|
If memory serves, John Kerry was supposed to give his speech tonight. So, exactly on cue, we learn that a "high level Al Qaeda operative" (unnamed as of 15:37ET) has been captured in Pakistan. Although I don't give credence to "secret master" types (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) I'll go farther. Swifferization, overmedication, and anti-bacterial soaps strike me as bad things. We're training (via natural selection) the bacteria to be hardier. Strikes me as a bad long term strategy. (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) Hey, in my defense, I didn't say it *wasn't* sterile. I just don't want it on my sandwich! My understanding is that, after the initial blast (to clear out the plumbing), the stream is actually a nice anti-bacterial solution, due to its (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) Actually, urine is sterile. Still not a good idea to ingest it, but not for any bacterial issue. -Evil "full-of-useless-info" Wayne (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) There certainly IS such a point, sometimes... The gloves are there to protect you from what you are about to touch rather than to protect what you are about to touch from you. That's not the case in this particular example, I suspect, and I (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) Heh. I've calmed down some since yesterday, so maybe I should cry "hyperbole" as my defense and leave it at that... (...) Well, on that I agree completely. I see it as connected to the swifferization of the culture and its antibacterial (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) Dude, you guys are creeping me out. Are you all serious? Man, I'd much, much prefer to have a human touching my food than some rubber-gloved freak. I've held off on posting until now because I can't find my words. This isn't about germs and (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) I once saw a friend (a microbiologist) pick up his ice cream sandwich from where he'd dropped it in the dirt, and he ate it without pause or brushing it off. When a few of us expressed our disgust, he noted that "the dirtiest thing we eat (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) Holey moley, did you just hit a hot-button for me! I'm not fluid-o-phobic, but in most circumstances don't care to have other people's DNA deposited on me or my food or my purchases without my express permission (I even mention this as an "I (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
...when you've touched them all over on the outside? I'm watching NYPD 24/7 right now, and they just showed a homicide detective testing a smear on a wall to see if it's blood. Before doing this, he puts on his rubber gloves. Okay, that sounds (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | If I can't, do it ... maybe you can... (torture that prisoner for me, I mean)
|
|
A suit has been brought against my dear friend John Ashcroft, et. al. to force the goverment to stop asking their dear friends the Saudis to keep a US citizen in custody without bail, charges, or trial. (URL) Jonah Goldberg, who really ought to know (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) A great example of this is currently in the offing, much to the (URL) disgust> of Justice O'Connor. The ruling may undo thousands of sentences because the methods by which those sentences were imposed has been identified as unconstitutional. (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Politicians allowed to veto use of news footage?
|
|
(...) ianal, but I have had a passing association with both the TPA and torts, and this sounds like drivel, and not even very entertaining drivel. (...) Mmmmm. Sounds like the ABC is only a step or two away from starting Winston's (URL) work> in the (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Unless the state declares something illegal that it is unconstitutional to so declare. For example, if a particular state prevented the right of free assembly or free association, that would be unconstitutional. The supremes might not rule on (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Whoops, I did misread what you wrote. Anyways, the bit about the Bush v. Gore Florida ruling still shows that they have no problem turning you away on a mere technicality, but then deny your claim later. And you know what? I'm perfectly okay (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Mike, I generally agree with you. In this case I agree with your logic, but I think one of your foundational premises is questionable and really, this whole issue revolves around it. Is marriage merely a contractual relationship? I think it (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Actually, I think you need to reread what I wrote. I think the common man's stance is that the POA is fine as is. That's what the court could have asserted. (...) And this "difference between belief and fact" is what you're claiming underpins (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Wrong, yourself. The Federal government has no right to make a law declaring same-sex marriage illegal. They can always make a constitutional amendment. Also, state governments don't need to be given specific permission to do something as long (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) To be fair, slaves and women were seen more as property than people by many of the colonists, and they basically inherited the idea that political rights were tied to landownership from England. But if you were a white male landowner in the (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Politicians allowed to veto use of news footage?
|
|
(...) Not in the US. At least not any that I've ever heard. Once you're deemed to be "in the public eye", you lose a lot of your privacy rights while in the public view (they can't sneak into your house, but they might be able to get away with (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Politicians allowed to veto use of news footage?
|
|
(...) I wouldn't be surprised if other politically controlled news-orgs have that policy as well. It sort of stands to reason they would not want to upset the apple cart, derail the gravy train, rough up the golden-egg-laying-goose, you know what I (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Wrong. Any law that violates the constitution is invalid. The government has no right what so ever to declare gay marriage illegal. I would argue they have no right to be involved with marriage at all. (...) Wrong again. It is the judical (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Did the IR not also make the slave trade economical by inflating the price of slaves? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Agreed. Although I do go into "FF worship mode" here from time to time (no, really??), they certainly had feet of clay just like everyone else. (...) Good question in turn. Taking that a bit further, what would have happened in Britain? Would (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) That's true, of course--they were distinct individuals with distinct ideas. My intent, though, was to show that the document they brought to the table allowed the denial of rights to certain groups for the most mundane and terrestrial of (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Careful, don't fall into the trap of thinking they were of one mind on everything. I fall into this trap a lot myself. The D of I, the articles of confederation and the constitution are held by many to be compromise documents, particularly in (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I think it's more accurate to say that our founding fathers believed rights to be inherent to some people, but they had no problem in accommodating slavery and the denial of women's suffrage. These aren't trifling matters, either--the founding (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Politicians allowed to veto use of news footage?
|
|
Our largely taxpayer-funded free to air TV channel, the (URL), now (URL) says> it can't sell archival footage of politicians to 3rd party documentary makers, unless they get permission from the politician involved. They think "...the ABC could be (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Huh! I guess I've never really investigated the meaning; rather I've just gone by how people use it (which, for philosophic terms, I'm more inclined to doing anyway, and reject outright whatever a dictionary says if it tells me differently (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I don't see why a true agnostic would have any problems with answering that. It's the next question that's the problem (What do you mean you don't know?). (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) But the Declaration of Independance states that our founding fathers did. (...) Some are more mutable than others, particularly in Minnesota. (...) I don't remember ever hearing anyone else credited with a similar statement. It was a dangerous (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You are missing something. Just because a "right" is not universal does not mean it is therefore exclusive. I cannot deny that the US Constitution could have come out of another religious background, but I can deny that it actually did. You (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Firstly, I think "common man" is a bit inappropriate here, since it very inaccurately suggests that the majority of Americans are opposed to pledging "Under God" (remember that many non-church-goers still consider themselves to be religious). (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You mean that you understand the correct and incorrect usage but are willfully contributing to the further incorrect usage? ;-) 00>Bruce<01 (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) For the sake of a disclaimer I should probably underscore that my use of "undecided" in this context was to address a popular connotation of the word agnostic, rather than a literal denotation. Dave! (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Not the way I understand what an agnostic is. An agnostic holds that the ultimate truth about God existing or not existing is not knowable. That's not undecided, though many undecided people misuse the term "agnostic" to describe themselves. (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I definitely agree-- to be agnostic is really to be undecided. And if you really simply "don't believe in God", but *would* if given sufficient reason, then I'd say agnostic matches pretty well. (...) Hmmm. Not really. I guess I see a (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I dislike that term because it's often seen as too wishy-washy, or a way to hedge one's bet. It can also carry a connotation of undecidedness, due not to a lack of evidence but a lack of conclusion. Additionally, if you say "I'm an agnostic" (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) What's wrong with "agnostic"? (...) This sounds closer to atheism-- IE you believe in not-the-Christian-god. In my experience with agnostics, they often reject one (or multiple) religions, but are 'undecided' about the rest: "I don't know what (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Only to the extent that all sane atheists are also agnostic. In other words, I don't think so. I'm comfortable with the assumption that there are no supernatural phenomena based on the (lack of) evidence. I'm just reasonable, too. Chris (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Does that make you an (URL)? (...) Get yourself some open toed sandals. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Chalk this part up to miscommunication, then. And for the record, I certainly don't believe that any "rights" are truly inherent and undeniable (inalienable). (...) Science may be a flawed tool, in the same way that the Constitution is a (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Unless I'm missing something you're assigning a causative relationship between religious background and the commonality of "rights" and other(?) socio-legal constructs. In effect, you're saying that these notions of rights are demonstrably not (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Gosh, you haven't even begun to see me zealous. :-) (...) And the SC had the opportunity to make a ruling supporting the common man's stance on the wording of the pledge and chose to stick to the limited legal point. While I agree with their (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Really? I kinda get the same impression... DaveE (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
Somehow, I get the feeling you are being deliberately obtuse. Scott A (20 years ago, 25-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) That you were making a joke? Great! A joke it was. (...) Negates your joke? By no means! Does it negate your "point" that polygyny was still common in NT times? No, but it unless it was solely a joke, your use of the quote had about as much (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) None of which is clear (to me at least) in the text Dave quoted. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) What does it imply to you? (...) Do you think that negates my point? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) That's scientific theory. Proof requires that you can difinitively show that the opposite is not true. Science has thusfar failed to do so in regards to the metaphysical origins of the universe. (...) I can to the extent that we can trace the (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Probably some sort of historical precedence. By modern standards, they probably wouldn't be, since they're characterized as waiting at the reception hall rather than being part of the wedding party itself. On the other hand, they're (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) So was I, but it appears to be white-supremecist propoganda, so... (...) Trumped by virtue of the fact that there were movements to include specific mention to Christianity (if not any particular denomination thereof), while there don't appear (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I was in a polygonal relationship one time: a love triangle. The other guy was a real square, and it finally ended when she found out that he had a rectangular dysfunction. Dave! FUT: off-topic.what-have-I-done? (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Well... uh... since the quote you used really doesn't seem to imply a polygynal relationship between the bridegroom and the virgins unless taken out of context, shouldn't you have found a better quote, unless you were making a joke? I mean, as (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) As the header & my initial post suggests, my point was only that polygyny did exist in “biblical times” in historic Israel. I am not saying that the bible encourages it... only that it was not uncommon. If you read around ((URL)) you will see (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Pakistan connection
|
|
(...) The old "you're either with us or against us" speech only applies to countries without "nucular" weapons. James Wilson Dallas, TX (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) It is necessary to distinguish between "scientific proof" and "literal proof" in this context. Scientific proof is established when all observable data are consistent with theory and prediction. Literal proof is established only when something (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Ahh, Scott, always to be counted on for persnicking the details. You were right the first time, in quoting "bridesmaids for the bride" rather than 'bridegroom' since that's what John posted initially: (...) And you're right insofar as it's not (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) **Blush** I'll have another go at that: I don't get it; am I missing something obvious? What makes the "ten virgins" "bridesmaids for the bridegroom"? Scott A (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | The Pakistan connection
|
|
(URL) This> is a good read. It tells us how General Mahmoud Ahmed, (head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence) wired Atta $100,000... the rest shows what a great “ally” Bush has in the region. A bit worrying given where we think OBL is! It (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Whoa! Girl-on-girl-on-girl...rl-on-girl action, straight from the pages. I'll have to reread this book after all. Dave! (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I was actually unaware of Franklin's claimed opinion on Judaism. But anyway, what about the evidence that hasn't been debunked? (...) Here's the thing. You claim that our culture has a powerful J-C influence because (I think) of the (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Big 2 willing to help with ballot access?
|
|
As an aside, I did wonder how different yesterday's 9-11(tm) report would have been if it was not written by the two parties sharing the blame for past failures... Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I don't get it; am I missing something obvious? What makes the "ten virgins" "bridesmaids for the bride"? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) No, I just think it's brainlessly stupid to walk around crowing about how you're committing some crime. There's a difference between being willing to be arrested and actively campaigning for it. (...) From what she's said, she was just tired. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: American Idolatry
|
|
(...) See (URL) this> post. Please respond to it there (rather than here) if there are further questions or concerns. Hope that helps. (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) So, "don't ask, don't tell"? "Ya I smoked pot but I didn't inhale"? That sort of thing? Is that the moral creed you espouse? Further, was Rosa Parks right or wrong? How do you feel about civil disobedience as an instrument of change? How about (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
|
(...) I believe he only bought the *publishing* rights, not the copyright. But that's not really relevant to the Ldraw discussion, so I've Futted to debate. ROSCO (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Not getting arrested seems like a good start. Also, breaking the law as a means of trying to have it repealed tends to turn people against you on the grounds that you're one of "those" criminals instead of "us" law-abiding citizens). Protest (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I thought we were considering the definition of marraige, not the legality or otherwise of that definition. Even so, there is a world outside the USA. Muslim countries all over the world permit polygamy. One woman + one man = marraige isn't a (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) That's only true because the state law supercedes the local law. California also ruled that it's legal to prescribe medicinal marijuana, but it's still a federal offense to do so. (...) Change rarely requires a true majority in the US legal (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Nope, just five of them. ;P (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Keep on Trekkin' (was: The Incredibly Mutating Thread)
|
|
(...) Ha! Hadn't thought of that. That would pretty much limit you to only having to undress for medical reasons (surgery, pregnancy, growth, weight change, etc.) and "extracurricular activities" (since, presumedly, it should even be able to recycle (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: American Idolatry
|
|
(...) Interesting, because (URL) earlier> you seemed to think that was reason enough to hold someone in disrespect. (...) Sure, but holding one of the highest offices in this nation brings with it a responsibility to conduct oneself in a more (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Sorry, why should he shut up about it? If it's against the law and the law is worth enforceing, enforce it. If it's not worth enforcing, get rid of the law. The law against polygamy is such a law. Not worth enforcing. (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I'll admit that it's pretty thin, but there is a distinction nonetheless. By refusing to perform same-sex marriages, the Church is not refusing to perform weddings for gays at all. They're just refusing to perform weddings between them. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You'd need to prove conclusively that this is the case. The New Testament is proof enough that Christianity evolved directly from Judeism, just as the Koran is proof enough that Islam did as well. The Old Testament doesn't claim to have (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Truthfully? I'm not sure you can, in much the same way that it's currently impossible to disprove the existence of ET life in the universe. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of using unprovable statements to disprove other unprovable (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Where'd you get that? I'm more concerned with whether it's constitutional for the federal government to do something than whether the states should or should not be the final authority. If the federal government wants to pass an ammendment (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Shame on you for following Dubya's lead. It is a mistake to pretend, because you have not made a statement using a specific phrase, that you therefore have not made an equivalent statement using other words. Dubya does this all the time: "If (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Thank you. (...) I believe I am. (...) No, no, Tom. The MM would have a hard time with my beliefs-- I am hardly a schill for them! Merely because I am a Christian does not mean for a NY minute that I agree, especially politically with other (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Used. They changed it a while back, but they really only enforce it if you make a big stink about it (in other words, you have to make your crime seem that much more important to enforce than someone else's murder before they're going to come (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
You've never said it in those exact words, and you have several times tried to profess that you're an open-minded person, but just about every post you make in this group is tight-a@@ed Moral Majority pap where everything is fine as long as it goes (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
