 | | Re: Thoughts on the UN "Racist" poster?
|
|
(...) Well, at least I was good natured enough to have made my sarcasm obvious. Your comment borders incivility. ROSCO (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on the UN "Racist" poster?
|
|
(...) Well, at least I was good natured enough to have included a smiley. Your comment borders incivility. JOHN (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on the UN "Racist" poster?
|
|
(...) Time to let it go. Really. ROSCO (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on the UN "Racist" poster?
|
|
(...) Time to let it go. Really. JOHN (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on the UN "Racist" poster?
|
|
(...) The UN doesn't have embassies, as far as I know. (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on the UN "Racist" poster?
|
|
(...) Are you serious, or is that just a turn of phrase? ROSCO (19 years ago, 21-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on the UN "Racist" poster?
|
|
(...) Dejure it's out of copyright/trademark, true, but defacto it will be LEGO that will be influenced the most by any ill will engendered. Most people's first thought, I would expect, would be "hey those are legos" (with some small subset thinking (...) (19 years ago, 21-Mar-06, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament's entirely unnacceptable intellectual dishonesty
|
|
Just wanted to chime in again and say I appreciate your thoughtful response to my concerns. I also wanted to say I really enjoy your work, even when I don't agree with the commentary and editing decisions. And I look forward to more entries. Thanks, (...) (19 years ago, 13-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament's entirely unnacceptable intellectual dishonesty
|
|
Hi, Bruce. Thanks for the comments on this matter, too. I will probably redo the Acts story as part of my revamp of the New Testament part of the site, and will add the missing panels there as well. I think it's not just that it would be (...) (19 years ago, 7-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament's entirely unnacceptable intellectual dishonesty
|
|
Hey Brendan, I appreciate the fact that you added the final two illustrations to the Canaanite woman story. I think that it was right to do so, as to leave those out seriously misrepresented the story. While your commentary on how everyone selects (...) (19 years ago, 6-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament's entirely unnacceptable intellectual dishonesty
|
|
(...) That's very decent of you. Great work as ever, Brendan! Marc Nelson Jr. (URL) Marc's Creations>> (19 years ago, 4-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament's entirely unnacceptable intellectual dishonesty
|
|
After continued discussion with others about this matter (not on LUGNET), I've decided to add two more illustrations to the Canaanite Dogs story. I now realize that my original version really makes it appear as though Jesus does not heal the woman, (...) (19 years ago, 4-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament's entirely unnacceptable intellectual dishonesty
|
|
Hi, Steve. I've moved this over to off-topic.debate since that seemed more appropriate. (...) I am presenting the story of how Jesus insulted a Canaanite woman. I grant that this can also be seen as part of a larger story about how Jesus exorcised (...) (19 years ago, 4-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Introducing Your Cycle 3 LEGO Ambassadors
|
|
(...) snip (...) Thanks, Paul. That was exactly what I was asking for. It's certainly more information about what goes on in the LA program than we've ever had before. It should happen more often ;) I look forward to seeing the fruits of the LAs (...) (19 years ago, 3-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Introducing Your Cycle 3 LEGO Ambassadors
|
|
(...) Let me try to shed some light on the LA program without revealing things I am not supposed to. First off, I will (later today), ask some of the new ambassadors to review what we have done in the past 2 cycles. Then, I'll ask if any of the new (...) (19 years ago, 3-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: "Australia will become dominated by Muslims"
|
|
(...) And, probably, the next federal election too. Cheers Richie Dulin (19 years ago, 15-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Australia will become dominated by Muslims"
|
|
(...) She just needs to throw in gay marriage and she'll win my right-wing conspiracy theorist of the year competition. Tim (19 years ago, 14-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
|
(...) Are you sure about the latter? ;) Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 9-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | "Australia will become dominated by Muslims"
|
|
(URL) latest news from down-under: Australia will become a muslim dominated nation in 50 years if our current abortion rates continue. Yeah right. OK. Maybe if we're currently producing politicians like Danna Vale, a muslim nation in 50 years would (...) (19 years ago, 14-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
|
(...) This is SO obvious-- we are engaged in an violent struggle (ie war) with radical Wahabi muslims. If the rest of Islam doesn't not stand up against these extremists, they are allowing THEM to define themselves (the rest of Islam) and their (...) (19 years ago, 13-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
