 | | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message <386A45E1.237C@minds...ng.com>... (...) Remember what you said, stupid consumers... (...) I don't think (stupid) "consumers would quickly demand a level of packaging which would minimize waste" simply because they must (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) "We" (who?) already are saying those things, statistically. We just shouldn't write them. What do you mean, "giving in?" This isn't even an issue of grammatical correctness--it's an issue of style. There is no rule in English that prohibits (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy)
|
|
<FnIv3w.JtC@lugnet.com> <FnIvDJ.Kvp@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Of course, the short story *I* remember was called the "Sesquicentennial Man" (150 years). (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy)
|
|
(...) The short story is among my favorites in any genre, so I recommend it whether you plan to see the film or not. I confess that I don't see how characterization that isn't in a film can affect the film, except by its absence, regardless of its (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy)
|
|
Because of your description of this movie, I have made plans to go see it. Your "scathing" review has interested me in something I would have skipped, so thanks Dave!. It sounds typical of movies, to leave much of the story out, so should I read it (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy)
|
|
(...) Aagh! I've been revealed as a fraud! Actually, I was trying to maximize the Scrabble value of his name, and Z is worth more than S! Anyway, "the master?" Hmm... I can't quite get behind you on that one, I'm afraid, but I do enjoy his stuff. (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (Something - I don't know what anymore) Was [Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging]
|
|
(...) Ah yes, to not make misteaks like the great Larry.... All Hail Larry! ;) (...) I don't think people should discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, but I don't think it should be an issue in the first place. Some try to make it seem so, (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) Yea, sounds like you need some sleep, or you need to bow down to the great Larry more so you don't make as many misteaks... (...) Things like benefits for domestic partners, having personel policies which state that the company doesn't (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) Oops, I did. Ugh, I can't wait to go to bed tonight! :) (...) Hmm.. that is interesting, I don't know how Libertarians would view that. I never thought that the first part was bad. I will have the great Larry P. on that one... I think the (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) In your original statement, you said "hose" when I assume you meant "house". I was just making fun (sorry for being off-topic...) (...) To a pure Libertarian, laws telling you that your store must serve anyone regardless of race (ect), are an (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) Trying not to take this out of context or anything, when you say hose, are you saying store, as in storing the balls? I am slightly confused & perplexed on my own, not by you or anything, I think I need more coffee..... (...) Really? What ones (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) Well, I don't think it would be any easier to hose 1000 loose balls than 1000 boxed ones, but it would certainly do less damage to the product, however, the hose really should be aimed at the teenage jerks who play ball in the toy store (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bicentennial Man (don't bother)
|
|
(...) c /Azimov/Asimov/ (getting the master's name right takes you up a notch on my "credence-o-meter" when discussing his work :-) ) I confess to a bit of shock at your perception. What a radically different perception than mine! As I said, I found (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bicentennial Man (don't bother)
|
|
(...) Just a side note: don't see the movie--it's awful. Well, not awful, exactly, but pretty darned uneven with not a single moment giving us any sense of what Robin Williams' character really has at stake. The short story is a much better (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) Yes, I am all for that! :) Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) I haven't seen the movie (yet), so I hadn't been taking it into consideration. I'd consider it a bad trade, too - but then it wasn't me making the choice. To him, it may have been worth it (and I'll shut up now - at least until I see it). (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) I have little sympathy for stupid consumers. I see too many of them at my second job for that. "This was supposed to be 80% off, there was a sign." Lets say they have a Christmas sweater. (Actual example) I went back there to see, and it was (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) Hear hear. Trash fees DON'T cover costs because the government runs most landfills, and regulates the rest. That regulation, by imposing standards instead of using strict negligence, allows landfill operators to meet the standards (of (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) You say that as a mortal. :-) I don't want to .debate this, but I do want to highlight (and I guess I may be spoiling some of the plot here) that this character already WAS immortal, practically. He was faced with the choice of trading it away (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) I think that it's not so much a case of the consumer wanting more packaging, than that the companies perceive that larger packages sell better because the stupid consumer thinks he's getting a better deal. As far as government regulation of (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
John, (...) Oh, I agree with the concept of them doing what they are supposed to do. Having them in the first place, on the other hand.... Don't worry, John, I am having a case of me overgoverning again, and it just booms out of me every now and (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
Scott E. Sanburn wrote in message <386A025E.278F00DF@c...eb.net>... (...) A quick search on the net found that Japan and Germany have laws such as I mentioned, and, voila! so does the US, many of them in fact. Maybe you missed this pork while the (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Since Larry is the most eloquent than I can ever be, I will just agree with him and be done with this. Scott Larry Pieniazek wrote: < Snipped the Larry & Jasper commentary > ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn -> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Work Email -> (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
< Cross posted to off.topic.debate > (...) Well, all packages contain what they have in there (i.e. 5.5 oz, etc.) The packages may need downsizing, which I can agree with, but the government taking action against them? What agency should look at (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Why? Is it OK to break the law if it was long enough ago and you didn't get caught? That seems to be George W's perspective. Hogwash. It is either wrong and the law should be changed, or it isn't. (...) What do you mean? Quayle came right out (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) That one is actually beyond the statute of limitations and thus irrelevant. (...) That one is not proved and not provable, AFAIK. (...) And here you're agreeing with me. I don't however think Clinton is any worse than the alternative. Jasper (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Agreed. One cannot ignore a law because one feels it is unjust if one is a politician. One must stand up and say "I think this law is wrong and I will work to get it changed" and take the lumps, not secretly disobey it. If one cannot support (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Just a quickie here: This definition isn't "bloody": (URL) but I didn't see 80% mentioned in it. Rather, I saw the use of "exclusive" pretty much exclusively. 80% isn't exclusive, it isn't even close. So 80% share is NOT a monopoly. It's (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Microsoft has 80%+ market share in the consumer OS market. It is _by_bloody_definition_ a monopoly. (...) Amendment, BTW. (...) Kenn Starr should have been fired a long time before all the trouble started. If I didn't know better, I'd think he (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Direct Questions
|
|
(...) We're not lucky, just more market oriented. Not to mention smarter and handsomer. Seriously, you can't have it both ways. Of COURSE stuff is generally cheaper here (not just in dollar to dollar terms, but in terms of the time it takes to earn (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Really? I hadn't guessed! (...) Well, it seems apparent enough to me. If you disagree, that's fine, of course; we just see Al's analogy in two different ways. (...) I can see where a former actor, skilled in portraying himself in a number of (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) IIRC (and I am pretty darn sure I am), he had them demonstrate how a computer could function/not function with out IE installed. Again, IIRC, the Microsoft attorneys couldn't demonstrate conclusively that removing IE had any adverse effects. (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Dave, (...) Moderate? Boy, I can't wait (I being a proud partisan, BTW!) (...) No, not obviously. (...) Reagan and Bush had a million times more qualifications to man the nuclear arsenal than Al Gore or Bill, IMHO. Badly, as always. It isn't just a (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) You used this as your SIG at one point, and I commented on it elsewhere, but since you bring it up here I thought I'd throw in an observation from a Moderate's viewpoint. Obviously Al is alluding to the nuclear "red button" of the Cold War (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Jasper, (...) Well, considering the law in this case is something crafted against monopolies, which IMHO, Microsoft did not do. When you lower prices on items, and produce a product, instead of raising prices, it is bad law. I think this whole case (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Direct Questions
|
|
(...) Ahh, the upside to living in a culture that is insanely materialistic;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Irrelevant to a court case. The law is the law, and if it is being broken, it must be prosecuted. Not just ignorerd because some politicians feel the law is unjust. How would you feel if the second was effectively repealed in the way you're (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Direct Questions
|
|
(...) At this point in the discussion, I'd just like to say "You lucky American bastards!". (400 piece buckets tend to cost $20+, rather than $5 or $7, around here) Jasper (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad Justus' Comments - Why Complain?
|
|
Okay, I see that my intent was not clearly stated. I will give it another attempt. I was trying to present the idea that for those who disagree with Lego's comments about what is okay with them regards posting of retailer information, just because (...) (25 years ago, 27-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Most of the time, especially when the government messes with the private sector, in the ridiculous ruling against Microsoft. Especially considering the anti-trust laws are from the 1920's or 30's, which has no bearing in the marketplace today. (...) (25 years ago, 27-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is anyone happy?
|
|
(...) Well, for those who believe in pink elephants (That's for you, Larry P. :) ) or God, I am glad. There is a real reason behind the season. It is hard to work in a retail establishment and see the people just go nuts. I rather have a nice day (...) (25 years ago, 27-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Wayne Hussey's Comments - Why Not Complain? (was Re: Brad...)
|
|
(...) <snipped most of post that I agree with> I would argue (hence the .debate follow-up) that driving IS a priviledge as opposed to a right. The necessity of high-speed transfer of stuff (and it's effect on our economy) has nothing to do with it (...) (25 years ago, 27-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Longest railroad (was Re: Longest train?
|
|
(...) I can attest to this. Here in Knoxville we have one cable company - now owned by Comcast. Our basic cable lineup doesn't include History, Sci-Fi, or Comedy Central. If you want those you have to pay $10 extra AND pay for a box - can't get them (...) (25 years ago, 27-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is anyone happy?
|
|
(...) Ugh, see my post on .market.shopping and .loc.us.mi.det -- I think you're absolutely right on this one, Larry. Anyhow, can we qualify this New Years'--what with Y2K and all--as a "commercialized holiday?" (I mean, it's not holy, but darned if (...) (25 years ago, 27-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) Or else they'll have to admit that it's a necessary evil, or just ignore the statement in practice. Was this a civil court or a religious court? I don't think they're one and the same in Pakistan, but I haven't been keeping up with late (...) (25 years ago, 27-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Longest railroad (was Re: Longest train?
|
|
(...) Sorry, there is NO WAY I'm going to agree with privatized highways. That leads to tollbooths every 200 ft, with the Companies basically holding you for ransom to get anywhere. And you'll never know on a cross-state trip whether or not you have (...) (25 years ago, 27-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Longest railroad (was Re: Longest train?
|
|
(...) Highways are the hardest. I'd be happy to see them privatized last, but they're no big deal, really. But you miss my point. Merely asserting that the market has failed to produce something doesn't meet my criterion, above, of demonstrating (...) (25 years ago, 26-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Longest railroad (was Re: Longest train?
|
|
(...) Have you seen the market produce a viable system of highways? Of high-speed digital lines? I rest my case. (...) You sure do. (...) Stop speaking for me. Presuming you know what I think is a bit much, especially in the face of the evidence to (...) (25 years ago, 26-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Longest railroad (was Re: Longest train?
|
|
(...) Sheer poppycock. Please demonstrate to me how exactly the market has failed to provide infrastructure when allowed to do so. Be specific. Include underlying assumptions. And the onus is on you to prove it hasn't, as I am not trying to convince (...) (25 years ago, 26-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Longest railroad (was Re: Longest train?
|
|
(...) I notice you haven't convinced me of that yet. Why are railways properly private? Why are highways properly private? It's not because they result in less drag on the economy, because the increased competition you keep harping on can only (...) (25 years ago, 26-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Longest railroad (was Re: Longest train?
|
|
(...) Easy, railways properly are private. Try to keep up, eh? The only proper functions of government are the courts, the police, and national defense. Old ground. (25 years ago, 26-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is anyone happy?
|
|
(...) It's not over yet, the best part starts early sunday AM!!! Clearance Sales! Although I predict the pickings will be bad this year, this was one of the best seasons for retailers ever in the US, and they're getting better at stock management. (25 years ago, 26-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Underlying assumption of the article given are taken over by me, overstated ridiculousness ignored. (...) How do you expect the economy to cope with an unlimited influx of immigrants? (...) Anyone who doesn't want airplanes to be certified safe and (...) (25 years ago, 26-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Longest railroad (was Re: Longest train?
|
|
(...) Hiya Larry ;) (...) Absolutely. What does that have to do with railways? Or highways, for that matter? I'll do my best to poke logical holes in what you write, so be careful ;) Jasper (25 years ago, 26-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is anyone happy?
|
|
(...) Valentine's day isn't commercialised here yet, anyway. Besides, I've just learnt how to make my own chocolates. Man, do they taste _good_. Jasper (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: CNN just left my house
|
|
(...) Much better, thanks. I've been wanting to bring that up but cou;dn't find the right moment. Now for pointless pedantry.. Do you think you could include a proper sig delimiter? It consist of "\n-- \n", or in other words, (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) ITYM South Park. Jasper (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) Sold for scrap metal would suggest to me a few options: these things were so outdated they figured it's OK since every secret service in the world would have stolen at least one once (apparently not the case, as you learned stuff :) ), or the (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) That's what I figured, but hey, what's life without a little smart-arse remark now and then. (...) It happens. You know what (don't tell anybody else I said this, mind!): It's happened to me too. More than once. Imagine that... Jasper (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) So how do you feel about that plan to take all the decommisioned used-to-be-nukes missiles and loading them up with lots of fake meteorites for the millennium next year? (...) The problem is getting it there before the Patriots shoot it down (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is anyone happy?
|
|
(...) Sorry, that should have been Febuary. Bad fingers, bad. -- Erin (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is anyone happy?
|
|
Erin Windross wrote in message ... (...) on (...) know (...) Don't they have Valentine's Day where you live? -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (URL) weird Lego site: (URL) Hooray! Hooray! Its Y2K! A new decade starts next year. (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is anyone happy?
|
|
Is anyone here happy Christmas is over? I for one am. No more crowded malls (well except for boxing day), no more circling for ages until you find a parking spot, no tearing the hair out of another persons scalp to get to the last furby, no more (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) Really? My information was incorrect, then. I must admit "The modern terrorist's guide to building the atom bomb" isn't all that likely to be completely accurate, of course ;) (somehing like that. It's on the net somewhere, anyway, though I (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) Okay, sorry. I see that you are talking something like my language. And I wasn't using the bible to justify anything, merely pointing out the many faiths have this idea in there somewhere (relating it back to another offshoot of this thread). (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) No bet. I keep thinking (at 2 am or so) that none==no OR negative. I should have just said negative too. (...) I was insufficiently precise and what you said is what I meant to say, basically. (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
Whoa, whoa... (...) This, above, has almost NOTHING to do with interest. It so happens that I agree with some (most? almost all?) of your points(1). I'd prefer that my money be issued by a private bank, and backed by something tangible, instead of (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) Nope. Between 1.5Kt and 20-40Kt for a straight Fission weapon. Dirtyness has very little to do with the weapon itself. If the bomb is a airburst, then it will be relatively clean, if it is a ground burst, it will be dirty (it takes the crap (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) load (...) a (...) Oops :) Mind you, I have no doubt that they were -scrap- metal, and probably useless as rockets (except for Guy Fawks Night/4th July type rockets :) ds on who's "they". The US has had suborbital missiles capable of (...) (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) It's Ok then,..:-) (...) Yeah. again when I was a rocket scientist, once we took delivery of trucks load of abondoned missiles and missle parts from the former USSR which were having a strange story. a Turkish trader who were buying and (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) It's Ok then,..:-) (...) Yeah. again when I was a rocket scientist, once we took delivery of trucks load of abondoned missiles and missle parts from the former USSR which were having a strange story. a Turkish trader who were buying and (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) That's probably _because_ I'm not a native speaker. Okay, let me rephrase that. "Even though that is a sad thought, it happens to be truth" (or possibly even TRVTH..) (...) Yeah. At least the US won't be taken over by junta number x tomorrow. (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) Well, I am not sure about the exact nature of your hypothetical, but how about the way one uses an ATM for different purposes -- your use being contigent on available money in the account. The account itself is simply paid for with a service (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) Exactly. Try running a global economy filled with 80 % utter lusers on it. We're talking about people who need to call Support to tie their shoelaces. And then still can't. (...) In the real world, as well. But can you see me shipping three (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Your English is much more challenging then even the native English speakers. I can't understand this sentences at all..:-( (...) Yeah, I know. A third worlder with nukes, its even more frighthening, huh? (1) But it is not that (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) Barter is a fantastic system. It's only drawback is that it becomes impractical as volume increases, and it requires all participants to have an idea of the value of goods. It's only TWO drawbacks are... ;) (seriously, though - barter is GREAT (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) Well, if you're smart you're paying that balance every month (or your company is), so the CC company wouldn't be making anything off the meal from you anyway. They'd be making their 2-4% from the restaurant for the transaction. :) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) Charge card? Electronic cash is EVIL. We should all return to barter as a payment system. So that's no problem at all.[1] BTW, Richard, on the subject of thread-drift: You don't own the thread or even the subthread because you started it, this (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) I'll give you three to one odds and go for "dramtically negative", myself. (...) Interestingly, I've heard one rumour that this is _exactly_ what they're doing. I suppose the system of investing in companies in exchange for shares in it (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) Seems I forgot the "<snort>" here. (...) As sad as that sometimes seems to people. Unfortunate truths, and alla that. (...) Pakistan is a nuclear power nowadays. Worrying, since they're so close to Europe. Fallout from a fullscale (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) Interesting, take me through how my charge card company would get a stake in the profits when I charge a meal for a client? Are you sure that's a workable suggestion? Do I have to give them an accounting of how exactly that meal resulted in (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) I think this thread has gotten VERY far from anything I wanted to talk about, even as off-topic debate, but even the bible prohibits usary (not a word my spell-checker catches). But in any case, my brief point would have been to point out that (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
(...) I'm gonna go with "none" unless they find some way to redefine rewarding the owner of capital for risking his capital as something other than "interest". I rank banning interest right up there with defining Pi as exactly 3. Both are about the (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
Jasper Janssen <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote in message news:387356c2.218055...net.com... (...) understand why (...) 12 of (...) I don't think so. We have a party here, which defends fundamentalist opinions mostly, claimed once (before they came (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: CNN just left my house
|
|
Scott E. Sanburn <ssanburn@cleanweb.net> wrote in message news:38627C2F.33E2A1...web.net... (...) the (...) What?..Communist News Network?..Muhahhahaaa..I was believing well emposed communism paranoia (once upon a time, US fired even Chaplin from (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
|
[Yes, responding to my own post. New information.] (...) The latest news is that a court in Pakistan has just in essence subscribed to your views. They say interest is against the the Qur'An. By 2001 Pakistan will have to have an economy without the (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: CNN just left my house
|
|
Oh yeah, I also mentioned Todd Lehman and James Jessiman by name. I mentioned Todd for the great work on lugnet and James for his LDraw program. Whether or not that gets aired is yet to be seen, but I figured at least those two names had to be (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: CNN just left my house
|
|
(...) How's this, Mr. Lehman? Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn CAD Operator Affiliated Engineers, Inc. LEGO Page: (URL) (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: CNN just left my house
|
|
(...) When CNN comes to your neighborhood, I'm sure you can find plenty of ways to shoo them away. Until then, way to go, Greg!! --Todd [followups to lugnet.off-topic.debate] (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: CNN just left my house
|
|
Cross posted to off.topic.debate (...) hmm, that's neat, but I would have second thoughts about having the Communist News Network, or the Clinton News Network anywhere near my place, but that is just me! Scott S. (...) (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) Doh! Was that my snipping error? If so, I apologize for getting in your face about it. (...) I'll have to watch more carefully in the future--who knows what I'm missing? Dave! (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) What you are responding to is some creative snipping. I'm pretty sure that footnote regarding Chicago Hope is from one of my posts a while ago. The person who said that the F bomb has arrived many times already *wasn't* me. (...) Yeah, I was (...) (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) You don't watch TV, but you hear these words on the Simpsons "all the time"? That's a neat trick! On which episode has the F word been used? I'm pretty sure I've seen them all, and I've never heard that. Dave! (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
<snip> (...) The "F bomb" has arrived many times already... I hear F*ck and D*mn and B*tch and B*stard on the Simpsons all the time.... Jameson Robert Gagnepain (URL) 17714608 (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) First, to answer Christopher-- No, it's not ok-- get into therapy NOW;-) (...) Well, give guys a break, sproat. There are mitigating factors involved, such as the fact that we are genetically programmed to respond in a sexual way to breasts (...) (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) What cracks me up is that a woman's nipple is the single most useful item on the breast. It's like, showing a water fountain, but blacking out the nozzle. How did breasts get to be so obscene? IMO, a thong bikini is more obscene (and painful (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Language slipping?
|
|
(...) Good points, and bravo to you for bringing this debate out of the realm of the pointlessly theorical and putting it back into Lugnet! (...) Agreed. Some people might not like this seeming Monarchy of Lugnet, but it *is* Todd's sandbox (as (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Language slipping?
|
|
(...) Ok- got me there. (...) Yes! Both, I think. I just chose objectionable because I was trying to make a definition that wasn't circular. (Obsenity is obscene, fearful things make you feel afraid) Perhaps "extremely objectionable" is a better (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Language slipping?
|
|
(...) Well, how about another AFOL acronym- CRAPP- obviously NOT "polite usage." I think that it is a convention thing- defined by the community- in this case, however, since LUGNET is worldwide, I guess the standards are Todd's. So I would tender a (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Language slipping?
|
|
(...) state; (...) Let me start by saying I think we agree on the meat of the issue. However, I think some people are succumbing to the falacy that in order to exist, something must be identifiable in words, which is surely not the case. I can't (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
