 | | Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) That's _not_ what immortal means. By definition, immortal means _not_ able to die or be killed. Not by a .25 bullet, not by an A10 2 kg depleted uranium round, not by a tac-nuke, not by a full-blown 20 megaton H-bomb, not by hurling yourself (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) So how would the situation be in the southern states? The black population _didn't_ have cash to spend, and they didn't have much chance of improving that either. Would gays be open about being gay like they are now, without the entire (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best Lock instruction scans (Re: Best Lock Adverstising
|
|
(...) Despite our Bicentennial Man issues 8^), I agree with you here 100%. I'm pretty sure that all the Best-Lock sets available to date are still available, if not still in production, so it probably isn't cool to scan the instructions yet. What (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Do tell. (...) That was a joke, son. (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Opiates and Coca-derivatives _are_ generally harmful for human use, unless done under guidance. Most humans tend to not be able to provide that guidance to themselves, as seen in all the addicts. AFAIK, various opiates are legally available on (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Yeah, I didn't do the best job of citing references--sorry about that. I'm at work now, so I can't give you the titles at the moment, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you, either! Next time I log on from home I'll follow this (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Good isn't objective. What we, society as a whole, consider to be "good" is both up for debate in certain areas (I'm specifically _not_ going to mention ab*rti*n here), and it is no more valid than the ideas of other societies, other than (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Industrious in the area of work is something completely different from lazy in other areas. You know that. [move stuff around a bit] (...) Exactly. Now replace "feel" with "under their analysis", _or_ replace "under our analysis" with "we (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
I am going to ~try~ to make a sensible post... John Neal wrote in message <386C54F9.20331CB5@u...st.net>... (...) think (...) definition - (...) relativism I (...) others (...) is by (...) Discerning (...) good (...) In a huge thread where I (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Basically good ===[by The Jasper Janssen English Dictionary] at least trying hard. So that about corresponds ;) Jasper (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
