|
|
 | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
| (...) Unjustified, maybe, but certainly not pointless... ROSCO (19 years ago, 7-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
| (...) Fine, fair friend. (...) Not said. "Say". (...) <hands over ears> LA LA LA LA LA LA LA! (...) It wasn't pointless. (...) Now you seem annoyed. Let's call it even. JOHN (19 years ago, 7-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
| Let's forget Finding Nemo and face facts john. You got a little annoyed about what I said with regard to Israel. However, as I was telling the truth, all you could do was engage in pointless and unjustified name calling. GET A LIFE. Scott A (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
| (...) I don't think that's quite right. On the one hand, let's think about lightning for a second. We have a pretty good idea how that gets generated nowadays. But for a long time science had nothing to say on the matter. Not enough data. Hence, to (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
| (...) Let's throw out the term "Creation" in this context, because it stacks the deck in favor your argument. Additionally, we've previously discussed the imprecision of term "Science" with a capital-S, so can we refer instead to science? The (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
