|
|
 | | Re: what is ALE?
|
| (...) Ahem, Joe, but they were mocking your hobby choice, not your title! :-) (...) I've always preferred "lush", but "wine taster" isn't much better. (...) Don't be surprised if they still laugh:-) (...) Joe, terms like "AFOL" are "in-house", part (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: what is ALE?
|
| (...) So, you like it better because there was little thought behind it? Next you'll be saying you voted for Bush. :) (...) Some people spell it out, but even that isn't very euphonic -- unlike the other initialisms you mention, AFOL when spelled (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: what is ALE? (was Re: Brickshelf going away???)
|
| (...) To purists, I barely qualify as an "AFOL," but even I agree that that term is preferable to "ALE." AFOL has history behind it, and its creation was organic, rather than deliberate, and it therefore has greater aesthetic appeal to me on those (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| OK. I shall use mime then: Gotcha! Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) I always found quoting MP was the ultimate retort, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!! WMMV JOHN (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?" -->Bruce<-- No, don't bother to respond, I'm not listening, lalalalalalalalala....... :-) (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| You’ve certainly raised your level of debate. ;) Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| I know you are, but what am I? I'm not listening! Lalalalala.... I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you. ...and, the ultimate retort: Nyahh, nyahh, nyahh. Sorry, I just was trying to raise the level of (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
| (...) And on that point we wholeheartedly agree. I just see that as a short-sighted hospital policy that has nothing to do with government. (...) Ha, that must have been some sort of Freudian slip:-) I don't really want to slog through the issue of (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
| (...) The basic freedom of being with your spouse in the hospital. Maybe not consitutional, but I would consider this a basic freedom. (...) Thanks for actually admitting it. (...) Very funny. The Right is much better at hounding people for the (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) Yeah. Sure. What does a few thousand dead matter. (...) **yawn** (...) Actually John, I was highlighting your rank hypocrisy. Morally, I don’t believe it is correct for you to accuse others of murdering civilians without looking in your own (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) It's all a guessing game. We played it safe and took him out for good-- something that should have occured in '91. (...) No doubt we weren't talking about them. Start a new thread. (...) To help Israel so that they wouldn't be forced to defend (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) OK; so you can't list any then. (...) So you're guessing now? (...) No doubt the Uzbeks say the same about the USA. (...) So basically, you spent billions and killed tens of thousands to help Israel hold on to illegally obtained land? (...) (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
| (...) What do you think should be the platforms of the Democratic Party? (...) My evidence of nothing? Better, where is the evidence of wrongdoing? (...) I disagree. These people fought against US forces. They are enemies of the state. (...) They (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
| (...) That's my point: we'll never know--one way or the other! So the conspiracy theorists joyfully foam at the mouth without any prove whatsoever. (...) Proof? Potential for abuse is not a "smoking gun". JOHN (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) <snipping> (...) Yes. Point? <snip> (...) Who knows? I know he aided and abetted terrorists. Whether they were the actually ones involved in terrorism against the US is anyone's guess. The point is that he was a friend of terrorism and an (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
| (...) We provide plenty of details. It's just you'd rather believe detainees lying from a playbook rather than your government. Again I give the standard "we aren't perfect", but we do a good job; better than any other. (...) You are changing the (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
| (...) While almost half of the American population agrees with you, a little more than half felt otherwise. And, here soon, someone else will have to handle this mess. And, you are correct, this is a mess. What would really go far in cleaning it up (...) (20 years ago, 29-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
| (...) Actually it is grossly rigged, just not the way most folks think of it. It is rigged in to a brain fried, corporate sponsored 2 party system. If you're part of any other party , you might as well pucker up, because your going to end up kissing (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
| (...) What is beyond reason is blindly believing a government that refuses to divulge details of the confinements. (...) Gay Marriage? Go ahead, tell me you support it. If you do, then you've been lying for a long time. (...) Gay Marriage. (...) No (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
