 | | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Can you honestly tell me that you have never ever in your youth swiped a candybar or something similar from a store? Taken a pen home with you from school? etc.? The point isn't that it wasn't _wrong_, it's that after <mumble> years, there is (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy)
|
|
<386A85C4.716D28B3@n...scape.com> <FnJ57G.8vs@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, I don't know what decade I read it, but I do remember that the Asimov story I read was titled (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy)
|
|
(...) Was that its original title? I only came across it about 7 years ago, but I'm almost certain it was "Bicentennial Man" even then. Dave! (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
Scott E. Sanburn wrote in message <386A5CF5.B1434BC3@c...eb.net>... (...) all (...) Treating (...) Just a comment, when did regulation of the waste disposal industry occur? Around the same time that Civil Rights was in full swing? While the Civil (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
Sorry for so many posts on this boring subject, but... Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) transferring (...) I think if this particular industry (and nearly any other, for that matter) were privatized, the actual costs would go down (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
