 | | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) Hmmm. Their is one notable flaws of logic in this test. They compare the burden of proof for the Loch Ness monster with that for the existence of God which, given that the LNM exists or does not within our sphere of discovery and God may not (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) Somewhat fun, but I agree that some questions were flawed. The used certain words like "rational" or "justified" to put you in forced choice dilemas. About halfway through I stopped trying to give my own beliefs and started trying to just make (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The God Game!
|
|
This one's for you, Dave! (URL) it counted me as being contradictory several times, though I'll maintain that either I wasn't contradictory or (in at least one case) the questions are rather flawed. But cute, nonetheless. DaveE (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Neat-o!
|
|
(...) Take it easy on yourself, Dave! At least here you didn't use "scourged", or worse yet, that you flatulented yourself. JOHN (19 years ago, 18-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Neat-o!
|
|
(...) Yeah, afterwards I scolded myself for writing that, but the damage was already posted! (...) Ironically, their failed lawsuit would likewise have been more convincing if they'd admitted that HBHG was fiction, too. Instead, they continue to (...) (19 years ago, 17-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Neat-o!
|
|
(...) That was a very bad Freudian slip the day after Easter;-) (...) Ah, yes. And as we speak Baigent is trying to wrest millions from Brown in court WRT these 2 works. Having not read HBHG, I have to say that I found TJP wandering and rather (...) (19 years ago, 17-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Neat-o!
|
|
(...) While you were gone it was like the sun didn't rise. Does that sound sincere? Wait, I'll try again... I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Baigent et al about 10 years ago, before The Da Vinci Code was even a gleam in Dan Brown's eye. I'll take a (...) (19 years ago, 17-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Neat-o!
|
|
(...) I was thinking: It's as if Andrew Lloyd Webber scripted Jesus Christ Superstar (a favorite of mine) from it. Ever since I heard JCS back in the 70's, I've thought that a Gospel account featuring Judas as a main character was pretty radical. (...) (19 years ago, 15-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: lowering noise
|
|
Hi Jeff, --SNIP-- (...) Thanks. You've summed up almost exactly what I meant much better than I did.... with one slight exception: the above statement is not strictly true. While it was a secondary intent it was certainly not my primary intent to (...) (19 years ago, 8-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: lowering noise
|
|
(...) It seemed to me he was trying to show a percieved double standard. While I do disagree with the use of the term "flaming" here in this thread (I consider flaming to be a post in order to denigrate another individual openly and and for no (...) (19 years ago, 8-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Awww (was: IRON MECHA...)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote: ***snip (...) ***snip (...) ***snip (...) ***snip (...) Not to make sport of all this, Lindsay, but I can't help noticing a vaguely eccliesiastical flair to this post. Are you undergoing a (...) (19 years ago, 6-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Neat-o!
|
|
I don't exactly cling to the literal interpretation of scripture, but (URL) is still fascinating to me! Dave! (It's in OT.Debate because lots of religious discussions wind up here anyway...) (19 years ago, 6-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Awww (was: IRON MECHA...)
|
|
(...) Soren, one is a meaningful number where that is concerned. But the bad-taste quotient in general was really my particular lament--not having children or being an actual small child, I'll leave that outrage to those who may. (...) I think (...) (19 years ago, 6-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | I too do wonder!
|
|
I wonder how speach could get so angry? how topics could get so disgusting? who will be the next to get teated that way? whether every LUGNet member can be object to such treatment without cause? whether this is the penalty for violating the ToS (...) (19 years ago, 1-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I wonder ....
|
|
(...) Tim, As discussed, I actually agree with you and ask someone with the authority to please delete (URL). I have sent emails to who I thought are the admins to deal with this (Todd, Suz and admin@lugnet.com) and have not received a response, (...) (19 years ago, 1-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Awww (was: IRON MECHA...)
|
|
(...) I'll admit that I haven't read the entire thread, so I haven't seen those threats. When I get a chance, I'll find them and respond appropriately. Paul Sinasohn speaking for myself (19 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I wonder ....
|
|
--SNIP-- (...) Hi Jude, Please refrain from posting messaged that are in clear violation of the ToU of Lugnet. In light of recent events this is really inappropriate. Tim (19 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Well it's more than mental now. (...) Please explain. I'm truly interested. (...) Who? Ought to know better than to do what? (...) Which ones in particular, and why? (...) Indeed. (...) I've given up trying to prove things to you Larry. (...) (19 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Maybe you esteem them, but I don't. Anyway, I didn't see them in this thread, which is the thread I was talking about, but if they turn up and act like Allister or Soren or you, I'll be sure to add them to my mental list. Here's the thing, (...) (19 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Awww (was: IRON MECHA...)
|
|
(...) If children young enough to be harmed by that image actually read lugnet in meaningful numbers I will eat a hat. With your choice of garnishes. (...) Well, I haven't got a sister, I'm not married, the girlfriend list would be mostly on the (...) (19 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: I wonder ....
|
|
(...) I would say he would be someone's bitch before the bus rolls to a stop when he arrives. Jude (19 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | I wonder ....
|
|
How long Eric would last in prison?! He seems to think he'd be punching people out. I don't think he would last very long. It's a wonder he has been tolerated here. I doubt he would be tolerated anywhere else. I know that I'm just throwing gasoline (...) (19 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Thanks Lar. I love you too. :kiss: I would like to add that since this post, I've had a flood of applications of people wanting to join the 'gang of trolls'. These applications are currently under consideration and I'll post an updated list un (...) (19 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Wow! Such a short list! And no sign of the esteemed Messers Dulin or Arthur! Oh and you seem to have omitted your list of anti-trolls. ROSCO (19 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) That might be YOUR list of trolls but it's not mine. Mine is much shorter Allister, Soren, Ross I mean, really... putting kind, helpful, courteous, and thoughtful David Koudys in the same list as Allister? That's a bit of a stretch. Hope that (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Hmmm, well lets list this so-called "Gang of trolls" shall we? (In no particular order) (URL) Timothy Gould> (URL) Soren Roberts> (URL) Mark Neumann> (URL) David Koudys> (URL) Jeff Stembel> (URL) Keith Goldman> (URL) Bryce McGlone> (URL) (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Awww (was: IRON MECHA...)
|
|
(...) No Paul, you are not speaking only for yourself. It's a safe bet that you are speaking for virtually all women. I'd say much of the righteous indignation in this thread is misplaced. And I also agree with LFB, Lugnet sure ain't what it used to (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Is this in fact what Jeremy was refering to? (URL) know LUGNET doesn't have a list of "okay swearwords", but I'd think if stated as "BS" it'd go by unnoticed. I haven't read every post in this thread yet, just the ones which have come through (...) (19 years ago, 29-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Is that a 'no' to the first statement, second or both? Legoswami (19 years ago, 29-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) No, you suck too. (19 years ago, 29-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) By posting it in .geek are you implying Tim is a geek or are you trying to defy us evil oppressors again by posting it in the wrong group? Just asking. Legoswami (19 years ago, 29-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
|
(...) But they also don't believe there isn't a god. Could you call it 'soft religion'? (...) Surely it only takes the exposing of one 'ungodly' act to discredit anyone using belief in god as an election platform. How hard could that be? a (19 years ago, 27-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Xmodz_lego
|
|
(...) Pull your head in. If you've got issues with people polluting lugnet, take it up with Eric, not me. Your post is no different to mine, I just happen to take a more satirical tack than just telling people to 'shut up'. Have a nice day. a (19 years ago, 27-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Xmodz_lego
|
|
(...) That wasn't made clear from the initial post, nor the bump post. My telepathy is a little sketchy at the moment, and I wasn't able to divine that from the random pictures of non-lego cars on 'scenery' that any six year old would be proud of (...) (19 years ago, 27-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
|
(...) I've heard the argument that since an agnostic doesn't actively believe in god, they are technically a subset of atheists. I might call it 'soft atheism' versus 'hard atheism.' This is actually something I've been thinking about recently. How (...) (19 years ago, 24-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Ultimate Discussion (was: Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!)
|
|
(...) Ahhh, but see is unrestrained murder of thousands of your subjects "more ultimate" than the murder of the guy that breaks into your house? If so, how can murder be the "ultimate crime"? If not, why do they carry different sentences? (...) (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
|
(...) lol, my veiled point was making a distinction between the definition of the term "atheism" and one such as "agnostic", which I assume that you are (technically). JOHN (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
|
(...) Probably true, and it's a shame. We've discussed Pat Robertson before, and what a shame it would be if he were everyone's idea of a "typical" Christian. (...) I hear that all the time, and it baffles me! Besides, I've told you before--if it (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
|
(...) Ha, and that study was conducted in my own backyard! I think this is a classic case of misunderstanding. As an atheist, you have been tarred by the likes of Michael Newdow, from whom I'll bet 99% of the GP draw their conclusions about y'all. I (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
|
(URL) are not to be trusted... Dave! (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | The Ultimate Discussion (was: Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!)
|
|
(...) Now, now, settle down, Dave! I'm pretty sure that the word "ultimate" pre-existed some apocryphal, presidential playbook and no association with OFL whatsoever was intended. (...) Let's see. (...) See? You got it on the first try! :-) (...) (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) All that "ultimate punishment" talk is, alas, straight from the George W. Bush buzzword lexicon. In typical Dubya fashion, it enables him to sound tough without actually taking a definitive stand. Since I know you to be a person of conviction (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) Okay, Tom, let me take a stab at justifying a position such as this one. A pro-life stance would hold that a human life above all is sacred. So, the ultimate crime would be the taking of an innocent life. Therefore, the ultimate punishment (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
Honest question - which is more ridiculous? 1 - pro-life and pro-death-penalty 2 - pro-choice and anti-death-penalty I don't know, but I see far too many conservatives that fit #1, which makes little sense. And of course I see a decent amount of (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) Yeah, O'Reilly uses his radio program to say things he wouldn't say on the telly, and vice versa--in this way, he can claim he didn't say something bigotted or factually wrong on whatever (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) Ahh, I forgot to factor in O'Reilly. I didn't even know he had a radio program. As for Howard, well, he is the poster child for much that is S & R [1] with our country. JOHN [1] Sick and Wrong (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) Good guess, but actually, it was a not-so-stern jab at Bill O'Reilly. I'm not sure, but I don't think that Howard currently has a primetime show. And anyway, he's more of a kvetcher than a whiner. Dave! (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) But if you go there, don't tell them that you know John, or you'll be summarily booted. Dave! (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) See Sore Thumbs (the webcomic) lately. I'd give you a link but not from behind this firewall... (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) Sorry. That was an inside reference to Dave! I was referring to the (URL) Democratic Underground>. (...) You could have a sample size of 1,000,000, but if it isn't random, then it is worthless. Berkeley is arguabley the most liberal place in (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) That's an inside joke between Mr. Neal and me. Nothing to do, incidentally, with discussions of the UN Embassy in Denmark, which we have all "let go." (...) I don't know about that last part, but a sample of 2,000 kids growing up in a famously (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
--SNIP-- (...) ???? (...) Disagree. One hundred people is a decent amount (error is proportional to 1/sqrt(sample size)). Besides, if the sample size was considered inadequate in a statistical sense by the experts in the field who review the paper (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) lol For the record, I signed up again with yet another email addy, and was summarily nuked; they must checking IPs. I have officially given up life in the underground. Pity. (...) Agreed. (...) I wasn't a whiney child (so I'm told), and I did (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) I read about this on a certain Other Forum and basically said "eh." It's a too-small sample size from a too-small geographic area. I'd say it's close to meaningless, and in any case the factors of adolescent life and parental leanings likely (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) Would you explain what points you disagree with? It seems a fairly narrow but objective study to me and a surpringly well written science article about the study. Tim (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
I'm shocked. I'm also kidding. The most interesting thing to me about (URL) study> is the motivation of the researchers. When the day is done and the results are in, it simply amounts to patting oneself on the back. This is research? JOHN (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on the UN "Racist" poster?
|
|
(...) What-- is it "Sarcasm Day" down there? (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on the UN "Racist" poster?
|
|
(...) Well good naturedness was certainly the overwhelming impression I came away with from your post. a (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on the UN "Racist" poster?
|
|
(...) Is this yet another example of your "obvious sarcasm"? JOHN (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 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)
|
