 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Just to put my oar in here, I too oppose the NEA precisely because it is not the place of government to decide what sort of art to foster (which it, having limited funds, must inevitably do). It is sheer hubris for a government drone to think that (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Lindsay: Thanks for some great insights on the topic, in the following quotes and elsewhere: (...) Just to dispel some of my own ignorance here, how "Christian" is the artist in question? And what kind of ties to Catholicism does he have? I mean, my (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) to (...) Perhaps there's a miscommunication in progress here; obviously there's no "inherent" definition of art, if only because the term is itself a human construct. However, it is falacious to suggest that, as a construct, art cannot be (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Does that really capture the difference between the two? (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) ^^^...^^^ (...) ^^^...^^^ You're making unwarranted leaps in your logic. (...) That they're illegal - and rightly so - doesn't prohibit them from being art. BTW, what's your definition of child pornography? Anything with a naked person under (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: NELUG Castle Display at TCS Brainstorm...
|
|
(...) I thought they were the lords of the manor, actually. But it's been a long long time since I saw it, and that show never rises above mindless unmemorable timekiller anyway. Jasper (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Yup. There is no useful definition of art. "All is art" or "none is art" are no less useful than any others you care to offer. Jasper (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Now, if the NEA is funding the Virgin-Mary-statue thieves in Texas (if they're ever caught!), then I'll have a real problem. ;) But as far as a fund that doesn't cover artistic endeavours, but rather local libraries and other fora, what are (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) <crassness> Incidentally, I had some bird dung on a brick once (don't ask, I left it out overnight in the yard accidentally). Does that make it art? :) </crassness> I'll say the same thing about the "shock art" displays that I said about the (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) It's useful if you are a pervert trying to pass off obscenities as art. (...) Well, one is expressed in writing and the other is expressed in a painting. (...) How about Guernica is a painting that expresses a political statement? -John (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Random paranthetical aside: (...) Coke's formula really wasn't a secret. Pepsi long had the knowledge and ability to replicate Coke's formula. They just never bother to duplicate the formula, because they thought their own formula tasted better. (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) To state this another way: it's extremely useful to have the word "art" have the broader definition. If Guernica is a political statement, what makes it different from: "Corrupt government is bad." That's a political statement too. But it's (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) I think that what you're doing is creating a restricted redefinition of what art is. Historically, art has had a much broader meaning than the one you'd like to assign to it. (People even say this sarcastically: "Oh, that doesn't have to be (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Well, it's certainly a political statement about a horrible event. On that level no, although one can marvel as to how Picasso's fracturing, cubist style creates a mood of chaos and tension. It is arguable either way. -John (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Because art has a much wider scope than that. Would you say that Picasso's Guernica is not art? (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Agreed. (...) Why not? (...) By whom? (...) What you missed was that I was specifically referring to those "artists" who created the works described by Christopher Lannan: "A crucifix submerged in a jar of urine or a Madonna with feces for (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
My capitalist running dog lackey Frank Filz answered most of this append faster and better than I could. However a few points remain... (...) You can do that if you wish. Coke did, seems to work for them. However if someone else susses it out, (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Something which sums up all of this is, and a definition I use, is: "art is expression which communicates at an emotional level". (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Welcome! The more opinions, the better, IMO (...) Ahh. I was an art major in college. (...) Interesting. Although I think that a lot of beautiful things have been created since the end of the abstract expressionists, perhaps the concept of (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Some people are smart enough to realize that they (and their children) can't be hurt by occasional naughty words. But Matthew's comments below apply to mine as well as yours... (...) Chris (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Well, potentially, depends upon how convincing I am;-) (...) ??? A nude "child pornography"? You need a child in there somewhere! (...) It would qualify under many people's definition. 1. Art is subjective....check 2. Art is thought (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
Hi all, (...) I spent six years and 30 college credits taking art classes and spent a fair amount of time thinking about this issue. To my mind, some, but possibly not all, of the criteria are: 1. It must be intentional. (a beautiful sunset is not (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) ok, you guys have drawn me in... as an artist and drawing teacher, i do feel somewhat qualified to define some terms here. ;-) my favorite definition of art (which is like trying to define "love", or "god", anyway) comes from my art teacher (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) the (...) be (...) What gave you that impression? I most certainly did not. Would you call child (...) That's a crime, no matter how artistically put. Someone from France might have a whole different definition of what constitutes "child (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) So what you are saying is that everything is art? Would you call child pornography art? How about performance art where the artist kills an animal-- or a human? I can think of many things I (and most others) wouldn't consider art. Why is (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Art is whatever you can convince people is art. Yeah, I know, a provocative and somewhat cynical statement designed to drive art historians nuts (it helps to be familiar with the French Academie and the Impressionist movement). There isn't a (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) This is so weird for me! Now I'll have to start taking those pins out of my Scott Sanburn voodoo doll... 8^) Dave! (whimsical followups to off-topic.fun) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) It happens, really! :) (...) Hmmm...I think so. I will have to check on that. (...) That's for sure, but I would rather have the states have any money targeted to arts come their way instead, even to local areas, if possible. (...) Correct. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Scott: Wow! We're agreeing (mostly)! How did that happen? Wasn't part of Guiliani's problem that the state-funded museum was also charging admission? I seem to remember that, but I could easily be wrong. I don't think the NEA should be (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote: Dave & All, (...) I think the biggest thing in regards to this was that the art in question (Madonna, elephant dung, etc.), in which Guliani was referring to, was paid for with taxpayers money. As an advocate of eliminating the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Yes. Look them up in a dictionary -- you'll find all sorts of words like "perception", "taste", "regarded". (...) "likely" "considered" "majority of people" "social group" "in this case". (...) Smartness doesn't come into it. Anyway, insulting (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) I agree that the term beauty is nebulous, but I wonder if beauty is so subjective as to be *only* in the eyes of the beholder. Is there something (can there be something) that is beautiful outside of what is thought of it? I like to think of (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes, in response to my questions: (...) Interesting. Without reducing this debate to equivocation, I'm still concerned that "beauty" is too nebulous a term to use as a benchmark for definitions of obscenity. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) I am working on a definition of art that enlightens through beauty. Obscene "art" which tries to offend or elicit certain thoughts I would say is a form of political speech. I am trying to distinguish the two. (...) Exactly. When art is (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: NELUG Castle Display at TCS Brainstorm...
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure Al's long lost ancestor was a blacksmith (in the 2-part episode where they go to England and two towns try to kill them to alleviate an ancient curse). Wasn't he? eric (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Yikes! Well, I won't flame you because I expect that neither of us is qualified to define "art." However, you've mounted some ad hominem attacks against prospective artists, and, in the end, these can weaken your own credibility and do nothing (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Ah, one of my favorite debate topics - what is art, or more specifically, where is the line between pornography and art? Your examples of "art" IMHO aren't really art, but are (very intentionally) vulgar, obscene attempts to offend particular (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal and others write: (...) One thing that's always bothered me about the dying-on-the-cross thing is the question of how could He have done otherwise? I mean, if He knew, as I suspect He must have known, that His (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lucky Americans
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:3870F1E0.8D1B0D...ger.net... (...) Peh..:-) Slightly less then 1000$ (after tax) per month is just my income, and yes I'm not a blue collar, actually a relatively well earning white..:-) (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but any history account from those times isn't error free. Historians back then were not objective reporters like the press is today.........Okay, I'm back, I just laughed myself silly;-) (...) The Bible is not a (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Two words: Turkey Baster. No, seriously, you're right - what might be known as Extremely Heavy Petting has resulted in the occasional (but rather rare) virgin pregnancy. -- jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily" (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) A post of yours chastised me for my line lengths, I believe. I chose to respond to one and only one of your chastisements, and it was whim that made me respond to this one rather than that one. (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Reading for comprehension isn't your best subject, I see? Neither is proper snipping when replying, apparently. (...) Nice try. I will not be baited this time. Jasper (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Larry's hasn't been wrong yet, but the post I was responding to, John Neal's (URL) , apeared for example the following lines: (...) Which are 90 characters long, slightly over 80. This is as I mentioned a known bug with Communicator -- (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lucky Americans
|
|
No, it's bloody IMPOSSIBLE to get by on $400/week POST-tax in my area, unless you have multiple earners in a household. With rents at $1200+ for any area short of slums around here, $400/wk barely pays the rent. Don't get me started on that :-/ (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Medical virgin birth is quite easy, but I won't go into the details here ;-) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
(...) See I equate the '90s with the 200th decade. (the 199th decade was the '80s) Every history book I have seen follows this concept of dates. 2001 is the begining of the 3rd millenium, the 21st centruy and the 201st decade. (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: millenium debate(look at Richard's site!)
|
|
(...) I do feel a little bad about that. I probably should have changed the subject sooner. Chris (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
|
(...) Poor Richard. He finally wins the Cool Lego Site of the Week, and it turns into a debate about what constitutes the "millennium". Go to his site and check it out: it is very cool. Heck, it's kewl! Bruce (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
|
(...) I just thought of another fix, while still accepting the current dating system. All we have to do is redefine what a millenium is. here's the new definition that will make 2000 be the "new millenium" millenium- 1000 years, except for the first (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
|
(...) of (...) first (...) Well, in order for there to be a "new millenium" to argue about I think that we should accept as a given the current (albeit quite probably inaccurate) dating system. In this system there is indeed a year 1 and 5(although (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
|
(...) You're right. Nor is there a year 1 or 5 or 30 either. The current calendar was made not too long ago as a device to easily keep track of all the meaningless crap we run around doing our whole lives. The actual birthdate of Christ is not (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) I'm assuming your asking about the discomfort with the word God. The reason: atheism/humanism. Many (most) Unitarian Universalists (my religion) are humanist. Some take that all the way to atheism. It has caused much difficulty in many of our (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) I am surprised and intrigued by this notion. Why would this be? -John (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lucky Americans
|
|
First, no offense was intended in my original statement and none was taken by me with regard to Pat's response. Nor should any be taken by the below. One point I forgot to make though. (...) I'm not sure (and this IS .debate, after all) that luck (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) You won't hear that word very often at my church, but then my religion doesn't believe in eternal damnation. On the other hand, there are some people in my church who are VERY uncomfortable with the word God. follow ups to (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) I think we would still have some public space. There would also be plenty of property owners willing to grant broad priviledge to their tenants. I know my church would offer almost complete priviledge of speech on its property. The only real (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Shouldn't the airspace above your property be yours, subject to deeded covenants? Obviously if we were to switch over to Liberatopia, air rights would have to be negotiated with everyone. I would expect a few airports to be forced to close (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lucky Americans
|
|
(...) Your point is well taken, although I'd go farther and say that 10 an hour isn't considered by everyone as 'doing well', if that's the wage that a single wage earner is making. It is HARD to get by on 400 a week pretax (that's about 20K a (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad Justus' Comments - Why Complain?
|
|
(...) greatly. (...) Heh. The five-year-old in my life got the huge Naboo Royal Starship toy for Christmas. I was impressed that Kenner (or whoever owns that name, now -- Hasbro?) toned the volume of the electronic noises it makes down a very quiet (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lucky Americans
|
|
(...) Heh, I hear you. I'm still (for the time being) very "blue collar" pay-wise at my current FTJ (full-time job). But on my last consulting job I think I would have had to work about 17.14 minutes for that CD player. Can't (or at least haven't (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
<386EFD98.7B4CFC41@p...t.msu.edu> <FnqIsM.4Lo@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) There are a lot of Europeans who would disagree with you that "slow" socialism has failed. It's alive and (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lucky Americans
|
|
(...) Larry, Anyone making $60 an hour is indeed a lucky person. Considering that minimum wage is only around $5.25 and most people consider a $10 an hour job doing well. No hard feelings intended here....but some of us have to work 3 hours for that (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best Lock instruction scans (Re: Best Lock Adverstising
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <386C3EE6.E1AEFDDE@v...er.net>... (...) sets (...) As you may or may not know, I don't concern myself with copyright issues. I'd just like to see Best Lock (or Megablocks or Tyco) instruction scans if anyone has (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <389ab7c6.963900110@...et.com>... (...) Life-affirming (...) Search this group for 22/7 - read some of my earliest posts, then follow the thread if you wish. (...) and (...) OK, what if you were a dinosaur? I don't (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3899b16b.962273428@...et.com>... (...) Don't we all. (...) Wrong. You can learn from arguing, I have. (...) I am not a Bible-beater, I am not a Christian, but the Bible was written by men for men. There is much good (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38aee357.975055273@...et.com>... (...) I haven't researched Libertarianism, but I think I will check the links at about.com within the next day or two. I have never heard of a brand of Libertarianism that struck me (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3897ae4f.961476863@...et.com>... (...) he (...) in (...) anyway) (...) no (...) perfection - (...) OK, Jasper, just for fun, I will acknowledge this. Lets say the ideas of Libertarianism are only one step from (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
So, you hate Thomas Edison because you've been shocked before? That makes sense. You hate him because he bent the rules to fit his needs. Your anger seems misplaced. Perhaps the wrong person got the reward and the fame, but perhaps you shot JFK (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote in message <386EFD98.7B4CFC41@p...su.edu>... (...) same (...) would (...) I've (...) still (...) optimal (...) than (...) In 1907 the Federal government in the US imposed income tax. People adapted to that. Whats the problem? Its (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3898af73.961769278@...et.com>... (...) Jasper, never give up. (...) Larry, I had not thought this through until today, so it may be wrong. As compared to a perfect God, I would think man is evil, because he is far (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Tom Stangl wrote in message <386EFFA9.A7755EDC@n...pe.com>... (...) who (...) for (...) others (...) I (...) ALMOST (...) while, (...) I remember a country named Germany that did that, and stomp they did, but didn't good prevail? Maybe I am wrong, (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
All's well here as well. I think the blame lies with an incompatible reader ;-) Mine are set at 76, is that OK with everybody? Tom Stangl wrote in message <386F0784.8CF5B770@n...pe.com>... (...) -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Civil Liberty Resources
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <386EEC00.A6E836A1@v...er.net>... (...) Good read. The only quibble I would have is the statement: "Marriages have traditionally been sanctioned in formal style by organized religion, and there is no significant (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad Justus' Comments - Why Complain?
|
|
(...) Yeah. When in doubt, I usually go for thread cohesion over directing it every which newsgroup - and I was in doubt. (...) Oh, yes, I could have. But that wouldn't have been _bad_ enough to compare with whatever it was I was comparing to. (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
(...) A paraphrase from a letter in an upscale monthly magazine, december 1799: "Will you guys please just all shut up, the century isn't over for another year!"[1]. Same argument ensues, except that nowadays more people take part due to more (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Netscape Communicator has a whole host af well-known "issues" in this regard. Bottom line is, unfortunately, that it's impossible to _always_ get it to do things the right way. Jasper (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Actually, that was a derivation _from_ all rights are property rights. Very big difference. Jasper (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Yes, in fact, very few MINERS got rich, but many of the support network DID. -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
No, you wrap fine from what I can see. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Until we have a planetary wide homogeneous society, Good Societies will ALMOST NEVER flourish longterm over bad, as history has proven. They may last a while, but sooner or later a "bad" society (more warlike) stomps on them. -- | Tom Stangl, (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
<386E8B8E.EF62ED6C@voyager.net> <FnorLK.8q2@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) By John's definition, the socialist/anarchist Utopian projects *are* in the same category as "libertopias". I (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38a2c49d.967187668@...et.com>... (...) Look it up. (...) And where did those mineral seekers live? Who built their houses? Why were there towns, banks, saloons, stores? How did they get to those far off places? Who (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Civil Liberty Resources
|
|
I've not nosed around much on about.com so I can't say how it's organized, or who decides what is what. But I did stumble across this: (URL) "guide" for this area seems to be pretty much aligned with my way of thinking, it was actually a bit eerie (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) That, dear Larry, is what one would call "sarcasm". To restate more clearly: Pure libertarians (or so I've been led to believe)(which you obviously don't come under by this definition) want to do without government altogether. I've talked with (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad: A way for almost ANY piece to be sold...
|
|
Followups redirected to lugnet.off-topic.debate (...) Labor laws do allow a person to perform normally paid labour "gratis". This is effectively the same thing as volunteering. (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Agreed. I am and have always been set to wrap at 72. Now, if I could rap at 72 I'd be a happy camper;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad Justus' Comments - Why Complain?
|
|
[could have posted this to .fun, it belongs in .rant, but whatever...] (...) You could have stopped after 'service'. Or any other public gathering/performance. Inconsiderate users of noisy devices bother me greatly. Especially the ones that are (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) New, virgin territory, actual land, would be one. The internet may be vaguely analogous to the real world, but it just doesn't apply. The internet simply isn't space. It is a communications medium only. It provides a way of reaching new (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Aughtsies was Naughties (was Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
(...) So I guess they will be called the aughtsies. (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Indeed. I knew I was leaving myself wide open to exactly that response, but I wondered who was going to make it. Shoulda known. ;) BTW, you realise that EST is quite different from a mild 220/50 shock? I've also heard at various times that (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) <snipped derivation of 'all rights are property rights'> Larry, bookmark that post - you'll need it again. ;-) James (URL) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Sure it isn't you? I'm set to "wrap at 72" for new posts. But it could be my NS Comm is damaged. (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) So 'good' is "what works"? That's cultural Darwinism. It's also moral relativism, whether you like it or not. Because "what works" is a very large range of things - and it changes over time. In Sparta, what worked best was to leave unwanted (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Will you stop? Where do you get that idea? What "higher power"? That's not it at all. My goodness what a stew of misconceptions. Do you listen to anything I say or are you just so sure you know what it is that it all blows past you? One more (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) You need some qualifiers, or you'd better drop dead now in order to avoid your immune system killing any bacteria, yourself from swallowing one-celled creatures and eating and drinking, and to provide a fertile bredding ground for maggots and (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes: <snipped lots> Took me a bit to read through that and have it sink in, but I think I understand what you're getting at. And I (cynically) disagree. I don't think society is sufficiently evolved for a (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
On Sat, 1 Jan 2000 21:09:41 GMT, John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote: BTW, Neal, your line lengths could use some work. 72-75 is a good value. (...) Oh, I don't really care about how easy it is. I have my own morality, and it mostly coincides with (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Naughties (was Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
I did glean enough from the old timers to know that last time around they were called the aughts. -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (URL) weird Lego site: (URL) is yet another tool in the dumbing-down of America by a power (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
