 | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Don't be so lazy. Go ahead, try to point out the contradiction. Remember, I was talking about different kinds of lazy there. You, as not having come out against free goods, should have no issue with a simple request that you do some of my work (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message ... (...) My grandmother born in 1899 probably would have the answer re 1900/01, but she just passed away this past year. The oldest living person (according to the Guinness Book) born in 1880 would know it, too, but she (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Welcome to the Naughties (was Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
I prefer the "naughts" or "naughties" to the "Ohs". On the whole topic, I found it interesting that last century, public opinion was pretty solid on the start being 1901 (the Grand Rapids MI Press published an excerpt from the Jan 1 1900 and Jan 1 (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Here I go again! James Brown wrote in message ... (...) general (...) quite (...) to (...) You cynic! :-) You are right - many peope are only as industrious as they have to be. Does this mean I am a cynic, too? No. I think the purpose of (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Sorry for so many posts, again! Jasper Janssen wrote in message <388409e2.919377893@...et.com>... (...) Jasper, I think you saw a contradiction where there was none. Point 4 that you refered too said (basically, what I read) that "constructively (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
Paul Davidson wrote in message ... (...) stick (...) Well, if we were to stick to convention, does anyone have any solid historical evidence of whether people living around the end of the first millennium considered 1000 or 1001 to be the first (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
You seem to know a lot about that which is unknowable;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
why not make life easier and just state that (...) and (...) Because it's not true. :) It's true that the calendar is somewhat based on arbitrary convention (since Christ was born around 5 BC), but one must stick with convention if it's to be of any (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
(...) Agreed...the '90s are considered to be dates between '90 and '99, not necessarily the 199th decade A.D. (which goes from '91 to '00). Paul Davidson (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Well, at least an all encompassing definition of good. It is not something that can be comprehended in its entirety-- it is a continuous learning process. (...) Sorry if some things aren't easily understood-- that's just the way it is, baby. (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
