 | | Maale Adoumin
|
|
(URL) Further theft.> Scott A (20 years ago, 2-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) John, Yet again you have snipped the best part of my post! (...) It takes two to tango John! Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) What's it to you? (...) Aren't you being a little paranoid? (...) Don't you know what you do when you assume? JOHN (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) Did I give you reason that I didn't? (...) Are you impuning Scott's communicative abilities? (...) Is that rhetorical question? ???? (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) Who wants to know? And why do you think they are interested? Am I wrong to assume you don't appreciate someone who has all the questions one could ever want? (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) Haven't you noticed that Scott debates via loaded questions? Do you think it is a communicable disease? Am I doomed to writing only questions now that I responded to this? :-0 --?Bruce?-- (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) Do you really expect me or anyone else to have the foggiest idea as to what you are talking about? But more importantly: will this ridiculous interchange continue in interrogatives? JOHN (20 years ago, 2-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) Is that really what you thought I meant? (...) Wow... Fox News! Even they qualified the headline with "appears"! It is strange how Scuds = Bush was right, whilst no Scuds = CIA was wrong... (...) (20 years ago, 2-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) So what is your point? Because I don't stick to facts means that you don't have to? (...) That was (URL) reported>. JOHN (20 years ago, 2-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I guess it depends on who you think gets to interpret the constitution and define our rights. The Supreme Court has at least sometimes supported the understanding that Larry and I share (I think), that the 9th is an umbrella for all rights (...) (20 years ago, 2-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) John, since when have you let the facts get in the way of a good story? John Neal, Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:10:12 GMT: "Scuds are flying everywhere-- where the hell did they come from? It's all been a big lie. The fact is that Bush was right." ;-) (...) (20 years ago, 2-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Dude, you've flat out told me to stay out of discussions where I've had more authority to participate than you, or where the only person who really had authority to answer was known to be incommunicado at that time. You may not be seeing (...) (20 years ago, 31-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) Unless you have specific, fact based allegations to make, why not keep your stoopid mouth shut? JOHN (20 years ago, 30-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Right on Schedule
|
|
(...) "it would be best if the arrest or killing of any HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston. How does he get away with this? Are you guys (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You have many exasperating habits, but exhaustively enumerating them here is not likely to be productive. I think you need to get over your notion that I'm out to persecute you or whatever paranoid notion it is you hold. (...) I don't see the (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
