To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *3966 (-20)
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
<388E2A0B.67DF7930@voyager.net> <Fowz19.44A@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (...) Because person X _took_ that responsibility freely. I agree that it wouldn't be fair the law just decided (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) Soylent green is people. Dave! (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) Just to clarify - I'm assuming that responsibility goes up the management tree in a serious case? Ie, the employee, his boss, his bosses boss.. the CEO. In a lot of cases, managers would claim that sub-managers hadn't informed them of a (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) are (...) Boiled (...) contrary, (...) in (...) direction - (...) First off, the CEO is only responsible for the activities of his employees which are reasonably related to their job. If one of your employees (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <388E2BFD.FB5B993@vo...er.net>... (...) Interesting, I guess either of two cases would apply: 1. They're trespassers. I guess the property owner is responsible for dealing with the bodies (though his community (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) I understand the sentiment, but I don't understand the position. You(the collective you) appear to say that the officers of a company are liable for the actions of that company REGARDLESS of whether or not they are personally responsible, or (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) Right you are. But why were they starving where they were? Were they starving enroute? And why would they starve once they *got* to libertopia, if they wanted to work? (and, since there's no public assistance, why would they want to come to (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
<3885F82B.31DF@mindspring.com> <FoLIpw.MEu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wasn't a 100% fan of Truman but he did have one thing on his desk that pretty much summed it up for me... A sign (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) Yeah, they can starve here just as well as anywhere else. But who buries them? That costs money and presents health problems if not done. Bruce (This wasn't meant seriously, but I suppose it does apply) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) And if you give government assistance to those who are in need. Absent that, there is no good reason. (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
<FoKHoG.F5A@lugnet.com> <3885D04A.C01401FD@eclipse.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In response to the quiz analysis. Chris is right, to a certain extent it's a marketing tool. It's designed to produce (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) I agree with you. I don't think that's the argument, though. I would expect that a defense of "we truly believed this was a good insulator, our research aligned with everyone elses" ought to carry some weight. Not get the company off scot (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
<3884AC5E.6720F61@voyager.net> <FoJsx8.7Dw@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Oh. Well, I'd say then that most governments today ARE evil. Further, many corporations of today are as well. (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
<3884AEDA.9C6DA48F@eclipse.net> <FoJMsz.K0p@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I'd say the answer is yes to both. You don't get to commit a crime, then just change jobs and use that as a (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The fix is in: Rams go to SuperBowl
 
I'd say that for pro-wrestling to be an olympic sport, we'd need a bunch of different matches and the judging would be on the match as a whole (that is, all participants in the match would be judged together), with criteria such as: realism, safety, (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The fix is in: Rams go to SuperBowl
 
(...) Thanks for pointing out that important distinction! Or is it? I didn't think that rigging implied that, I had always thought it was just a less polite way of saying predetermined. :-) Honest question, NOT flame bait. (...) Larry Pieniazek - (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The fix is in: Rams go to SuperBowl
 
(...) ???!!! $1,000,000 of legal bets are placed on the NFL each week, and you're saying "so what, it's rigged"?? Last time I checked that was illegal. (...) But that's exactly my point! NO ONE will debate the point that the Bucs were flat out (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The fix is in: Rams go to SuperBowl
 
(...) I'll buy that. My question was only a little serious, in any case! 8^) Dave! (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The fix is in: Rams go to SuperBowl
 
(...) I suspect it's not the scripting that is the problem, it's that in wrestling, somebody knows who is going to win and tells the athletes that information. In your examples, while probably much more heavily scripted than the average wrestling (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The fix is in: Rams go to SuperBowl
 
(...) For that matter, why is pro-wrestling denied the status of "sport" on the grounds that it's scripted, while Figure Skating and Gymnastics, which use highly-coreographed routines, are applauded for the same thing?! Dave! (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR