 | | Re: Introducing Your Cycle 3 LEGO Ambassadors
|
|
(...) I thought it was funny, but then it's mainly USians that need a laugh track. (...) I'll take your word for that. pete.w (19 years ago, 3-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Introducing Your Cycle 3 LEGO Ambassadors
|
|
(...) They're mostly sheep there anyway aren't they???? ROSCO (19 years ago, 3-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Introducing Your Cycle 3 LEGO Ambassadors
|
|
(...) Well I'll have to take your word for that, since I really have no idea what the Ambassadors do. So far the exchange of information seems to be decidedly one way, if it happens at all. Apart from the occasional marketing survey, we (the general (...) (19 years ago, 3-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | A Time For Mourning
|
|
(URL) For me> (URL) For Lar> (URL) For Surfer Dudes> (URL) For German kitties> You? JOHN (19 years ago, 2-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Introducing Your Cycle 3 LEGO Ambassadors
|
|
(...) --SNIP-- That's an interesting interpretation of my post then. All I said was that it was a pity that spanned-the-globe didn't cover its Southern half. Not once did I say I had expected it to. --SNIP-- (...) I can't wait for the day I can be (...) (19 years ago, 2-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Introducing Your Cycle 3 LEGO Ambassadors
|
|
(...) I don't follow your logic there. You seemed to be thinking that the purpose of the Ambassador program was to be representative of the global, and I was trying to correct that view. Obviously the more countries that participate, the better. (...) (19 years ago, 2-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Introducing Your Cycle 3 LEGO Ambassadors
|
|
(...) You also said "Jake has stated elsewhere that the Ambassadors will be selected from available applicants, and that the Ambassador program would not be recruiting for representation of all parts of the Globe or all countries." in response to my (...) (19 years ago, 2-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Introducing Your Cycle 3 LEGO Ambassadors
|
|
(...) I'm not sure how you got that opinion. What I said was: "My guess would be that as the Ambassador program grows, there will be a greater diversity in language support, and thus a greater variety representation." And indeed that has shown to be (...) (19 years ago, 2-Mar-06, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) I guess I'd agree, although as you said elsewhere, I think that sexual orientation of the parent is as much of a factor in whether they'll be good parents as, say, a parent's level of strictness. It chanages things, certainly, but I would (...) (19 years ago, 28-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) "Less fit"? Only in the sense that given two couples, one gay and one straight, it is better for a child to be adopted by the straight couple. I'm not advocating never letting gays adopt. I'm asserting that one relationship is superior to the (...) (19 years ago, 28-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) -snip- (...) These two paragraphs put together seem to imply that you do have some against gays adopting - that gay parents are less fit to raise children than straight parents. That's "harsh reality" tho. But then we're already dealing harsh (...) (19 years ago, 28-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Ahh, it's all about media attention. I think that you are onto something, Dave! (not to be confused with Dave!!) (...) Barring homosexuals is extreme. But I do contend that there is a definite hierarchy when selecting prospective parents. 1M1F (...) (19 years ago, 28-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) I'm not informed on the issue enough to know why the Ohio legislature is taking this radical stance on gay adoption. Off hand it sounds extreme. So does amending the Constitution defining marriage, but I guess when people are pushed to the (...) (19 years ago, 28-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Does it say anything about the rights of Republican voters? :) (...) So you disagree with Hood's proposal? I guess I was assuming you were agreeing, but that is admittedly pretty presumptious of me. (...) I don't think gay marriage is the (...) (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) All right; take it easy. There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around for everyone... (...) This has nothing to do with any specious "supporting data" argument. (...) You can't have your cake, eat it, and argue out both sides of your mouth. Take (...) (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) **snip** (...) DaveE's (URL) comments> made me realize a few other weaknesses in this argument. First, you're apparently equating homosexuality with being a centenarian or a polygamist, at least to the extent that you think that Hagen is (...) (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Well, if he had picked something slightly more equivalent, like "personality type X" or "brown eyes" or "under 5 feet tall", it wouldn't quite get the same type of media attention he's looking for. But I think his point still stands-- IE that (...) (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) In that case, maybe he needs to join the GOP. (...) Not at all. He equates the utter lack of supporting data for Hood's bogus (though seriously-intended) legislation with the utter lack of supporting data for Hagen's own bogus (and (...) (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Mr. Hagen shouldn't quit his day job at the public teet for a career in comedy. He might have a promising career as a professional hypocrite, however. Hagen equates being a republican to being gay. Certainly one can change their party on a (...) (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
|
(URL) Good luck, Mr. Hagan!> Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims. Just as `Hood had no scientific evidence'' to back his assertion that having gay parents was detrimental to children, Hagan said. Dave! (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
