 | | Re: what is ALE?
|
|
Hello! (...) I say "eta" (That's a terror organization in the Spanish Basque region.) or E-T-A (meaning "estimated time of arrival"), R-S-V-P (what the heck is it?) and U-S-A. But I say "afol" and "mock" and "burp" because: (...) Or does anybody say (...) (19 years ago, 6-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Supreme Court Rules Agains State Rights
|
|
(...) May I present Justices (URL), (URL) Moore>, and (URL) Brown>. Dave! (19 years ago, 6-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supreme Court Rules Agains State Rights
|
|
(...) Reason this month had an interesting series of articles about the Supremes. Stuff analysing their work, and asking people to predect who MIGHT be nominated and who the person asked liked, as well as favorite past justices... fascinating stuff. (...) (19 years ago, 6-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Supreme Court Rules Agains State Rights
|
|
(...) Well, we already knew that, didn't we? Despite his putative support of states' rights, he's never missed the chance to curtail them. Man oh man is this a stupid ruling. Shame on the SCOTUS. Dave! (19 years ago, 6-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Supreme Court Rules Agains State Rights
|
|
(URL) Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even (...) But apparently democratic processes in the states aren't important... Frank (19 years ago, 6-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what is ALE? (was Re: Brickshelf going away???)
|
|
(...) (URL) lol> I'm trying to push "neoilluminati" but it isn't taking:-( Maybe "Legoluminati"? Just trying to help. JOHN (19 years ago, 3-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: what is ALE? (was Re: Brickshelf going away???)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: (snip) (...) (snip) Whenever I read "IMO" I pronounce it in my noggin as "ih-my-oh" all fluidlike, one word. Ihmyoh. The "ih" is like the beginning of "idiot", the "my" is just like the word, and the (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: what is ALE?
|
|
(...) I've often had to descibe myself and what I do in my class to school administrators, and I always use "Adult LEGO Fan", which I suppose would be ALF but I know you guys don't wanna be ALFs! Usually when I describe the community (especially the (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: what is ALE?
|
|
(...) Huh-- I almost never say "fan of Lego" or "AFOL" to people who aren't in the hobby, because it just doesn't give them a good frame of reference. I think I've always said "Lego Hobbyist" because that's what people understand. Usually "fan" is (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: what is ALE?
|
|
(...) Holy moley, them's fightin' words! (...) I don't know. I can think of all kinds of abbreviations that don't snuggle into the ear all that pleasantly. The Society for Creative Anachronisms (The SCA, which sounds like ESS-YAY) is one such (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (19 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 (...) (19 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 (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) ...based on a case made by the USA. (...) Bush trusted him, why don't you? (...) No John. It is a question directed at you. I shall try again: Can you list any terror acts against the USA which SH sponsored? (...) What is the difference (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) On the contrary--the problem facing the Democratic party is that it has too long embraced a policy of placating the Republicans in the hope of catching some right-leaning moderates. As a result, the party has compromised its identity. (...) On (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) How would you know? The Diebold machines can make up whatever results they're programmed to make up, and there is no paper trail of validated vote receipts to audit... recounts consist of checking the same files again to see if they have the (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) That's my whole point, Tom! The election wasn't rigged, for pete's sake! Why is it that every time the Dems loose it must be due to fraud? Deal with reality! Dems should be more worried that their party has been hijacked by Lefty wackos like (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) So in other words you have no problem with a voting system that is rigged? Something that this country is based upon? You've trumpeted in here many times before about our great democracy, and how the majority should rule, yet you have no (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) The ones the UN believed that he hadn't destroyed. (...) What about them? (...) Figures you'd cite someone like Woodward. <yawn> (...) If? That, again, is merely your uninformed opinion. (...) I don't care if he got them from Uranus, it (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) I haven't used the newsreader since the first years of LUGNET, and not since the advent of FTX, so it is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma to me as well. (...) As a feature of my fiendish plot, only those who have faith in the UN (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
|
(...) Are you on a newsreader? I've only ever accessed LUGNET via browser, so the whole thing's a mystery to me. (...) You fool! You'll kill us all! One editorial note: When I use Bush's name in a general sense as in "Bush invaded Iraq," of course I (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) What WMD's???? But John, what about those poor Iraqis and their thirst for "Freedom"? (...) You need to read Plan of Attack. (...) Even if true, he still posed no threat to the USA(?) (...) Yep, and he got them from Washington. (...) What (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A few things...
|
|
(...) Good try John. As you (and Larry) well know, I said very much more than that. Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
