 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) That's an old misconception. Having just helped teach a course called "The Emergence of Medieval Europe" (c.300-1000), I can tell you that it wasn't anarchy--things were in flux, but it only appeared anarchic because the meaning of fealty and (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) You are correct, John. (...) Never say never(;), but I'm with you in thinking that we as a race aren't anywhere near that state. (...) I believe that existence after death will be on a higher plane, although I know not how or even care (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) relation (...) In what guise would you expect Him? Could it not happen that someone could formulate their (and His) idea of good, put it into practice, and then people see that it works?! I think that is much (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38850a4f.919486838@...et.com>... (...) fancy of a (...) seekers of it (...) I take back what I said. I think Larry could tell you his objective definition of good, which I agree with. I will try myself. (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <387ab92e.833168838@...et.com>... (...) relativism I (...) others (...) is by (...) Discerning (...) good (...) I think you are just plain wrong. Some societies flourish while others perish because they have a better (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38830931.919200318@...et.com>... (...) evolution) (...) I had to think about what John said for a day or two to know what he meant. I am still not sure if I took it the right way, but I don't think he is nuts. I (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
(...) Actually, if a particular thrice appearing planetary conjunction were to be interpreted as the star of bethlehem (not an unreasonable speculation, using astrological interpretation), and its first appearance did indeed happen in synch with (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
(followups redirected to lugnet.off.topic) (...) (nitpick mode on again.... :) Yes, there was no year 0. Yes, the 21st century does not begin until January 1, 2001. Howeever.... Where in the world did you get the idea that 2000 would be *ANY* part (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
Mike Petrucelli wrote in message ... (...) 0000 (...) Logically (...) curiosity, do (...) While I can agree with the thought that we have not yet entered the new millenium, we have definitely left the '90s. Of course on another angle, we almost (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) Ah.... *bask* (...) I relaised latyer that we were talking about Asimov's robot, which movie now apparently has made it into release. I wonder if it'll go staright-to-video here or not get here at all. (...) Well, I hadn't been reading the (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
