 | | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) I should hate myself when I am right??? Whatever. Bruce (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) When you put it that way it gives me the giggles too :) (...) Me too, and one day I might actually be right, and then where will we be? (1) Richard 1 - Fear. (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) I agree there's a cost to someone. I just don't see it as a cost to "society". Some one entity or group of entities is going to be, bad luck for them, stuck with it. If this is what the entire anti immigration argument boils down to, I (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) corporate (...) Well, you may ultimately have to jail more that the CEO. I wish I could remember more. I seem to remember a recent case where a company officer was jailed because the company wouldn't do what (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Good/Bad/Neutral (Was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) inherently (...) believe (...) social (...) One problem is that those who believe in the inherent goodness of people sometimes shortcut things. What we really believe is that everyone has the inherent (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) No, actually. Try "Either the CEO is personally liable for everything or the company is." I have no problems with the concept of a group of people being responsible, as a group, for what they do. (...) And I would say that if you are dealing (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message <389057B0.D972D535@e...se.net>... (...) Two comments. First, what do you propose to do with the (few) people who absolutely refuse to follow the rules of the society they participate in? At some point, putting (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) or (...) Toppling stiff? I don't know why, but that phrase gives me the giggles. I love it. "Dear, there's another toppling stiff out by the jacaranda. Do you think you could pop out and clean things up a bit before the Burgess's arrive? (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporate vs Individual liability
|
|
(...) OK. That makes a *HUGE* difference from the arguements I was seeing earlier. The arguements I was seeing to date lead me to believe you (collective) were arguing "punish the CEO, then the company" <snipppage> (...) Ok. Going from that basis (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) Maybe in the example of the toppling stiff, the responsibility is an assumed or implied responsibility that comes with owning land or property? As opposed to a direct responsibility such as that of your children etc. (...) Bruce, I know that (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) I take it you don't read your own messages. You have outwiggled me the whole way. (...) For someone who doesn't understand, you summed it up pretty accurately. You basically said if their is no public assistance then there can be no objection (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I agree. And children and underlings are examples of extra responsibilities freely taken on. Chris (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Except that the fines from the first time would be sufficient incentive. And would also be sufficient incentive to prevent all the other companies in that industry from following their example. Perhaps I'm not following you. (...) I don't (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) OK, I was talking about once we were at the fully implemented system. Transition is always a problem, but those problems are not enough of a reason to look at a better system and opt not to strive for it. If we adopted a gradual aproach to the (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Good/Bad/Neutral (Was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) :) This is another either-or trap. I don't believe that people are inherently good, neither do I believe that people are inherently bad. Rather, I believe that peoples actions and thoughts are moulded by the environmental and social structures (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I think you're doing fine. We seem to be getting forced into an invalid either-or trap. Your opposition is taking the "Either the CEO is personally liable for everything or no one is" tack, it seems to me. And that's just not so. Companies (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
<388F7A61.E86A728A@voyager.net> <Foyv25.HE6@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm just completely lost, Bruce, as to what point you're trying to make and what assumptions you've made in making (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporate vs Individual liability
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) find (...) the (...) can (...) and (...) but (...) employee's (...) if (...) The liability need only be assigned to the CEO if he is unable to make a satisfactory assignment. Also, in this case, I think all we (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38ad8949.518186155@...et.com>... (...) Actually, the short answer is that international treaty sets a ridiculously low limit for baggage loss/damage on international flights. On domestic flights, the limits are (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38ac87e0.517825005@...et.com>... (...) Because you can't put a company in jail if it refuses to pay the judgement. This is why a PERSON MUST have ultimate responsibility. If they don't, the corporation can just (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) centralized (...) Why in the world are you running on about it? I don't understand. It was just the shortest-to-explain-example that the guy was walking on some public area. Mountain out of a molehill. (...) Mountain. Molehill. (...) I can't (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Short answer: You want to fly, don't you? Long answer: insurance premiums, high, plane tickets at 10-100 times current cost. Jasper (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) No he didn't. Not while the laws are not in place yet, certainly. And what makes you think there will still be people willing to take that responsibility should you pass this? This way leads to either huge CEO salaries, to cope with insurance (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) No, I said it wasn't intended to be taken seriously. I was refering to my example only. But after thinking about it, I decided it may have legitimate repurcussions. My point really is that there can be a cost to a society by having an open (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporate vs Individual liability
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: (case study #1) (...) Corporation, yes. CEO? This is obviously where we are disagreeing. How can liability be assigned essentially at random to an individual? Why the CEO and not some other company (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
<Foyq1t.BEt@lugnet.com> <FoysHv.tu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Mostly, I just can't FOLLOW it. (...) Yes. Toll walkways may well exist. And, property owners may choose to provide free (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
<388F65A5.9AD75FB2@voyager.net> <Foyr5w.Fo2@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) You yourself said it was an example intended to amuse at the start of the sub thread... I'm just playing along. (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Hey, no way! I left the country! It's on YOUR property. :-) Further, for the example, it is important that it happens on your property. Now if you can ever prove that your neighbor (...) Already addressed: You can't prove it. And it happened (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Any CEO that keeps that much distance between himself and the company he's running won't be running it for long, and I wonder how he got there in the first place. If bad things happen while he's using his unique "hands off" approach to (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) <FoynLG.JGJ@lugnet.com> (...) You seem to be taking this as a personal insult, Larry. What's with this perjorative labeling? If it's flippant, it isn't really worthy of response. If it isn't, then aren't you just taking a cheap shot? I (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) funds (...) perhaps (...) border. (...) Well, you are responsible. Now if you can ever prove that your neighbor dragged the body onto your property, you might be able to sue him for damages. He's also (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) the (...) after (...) would (...) I didn't say "is responsible", I said "is probably responsible." In this case, perhaps not, however, anyone having the opportunity to observe that someone is drunk does carry (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) They were on the toll walkway (no public sidewalks) and fell there as they died. Smugglers aren't involved because they weren't restricted at the border. Actually, they died on your neighbor's property, but he dragged the corpses over to yours (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporate vs Individual liability
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) that (...) all (...) should (...) an (...) ships (...) chemical X (...) or (...) inspects (...) investigation) (...) that (...) within (...) at (...) This (...) and (...) permanent (...) dump (...) would (...) (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
<Fowt5K.s1@lugnet.com> <388E2BFD.FB5B993@voyager.net> <FoynLG.JGJ@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Fair enough, why not me, I'm as good an example as any, and better than most. Posit for (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Corporate vs Individual liability
|
|
<this is in follow up to another conversation, but is being re-threaded for clarity. (URL) > OK, here are three case studies. In each of these studies, I don't feel that any individuals should be held liable. I have gotten the impression that, all (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
<FoyED8.8A8@lugnet.com> <FoyJxA.Kqw@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) You raise a good point, one which is often raised, and one to which considerable thought has been given. The stock (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) You tell me. It could equally be war, persecution, bad weather as crop failure. (...) As long as they were still physically capable of work, what does it matter? (...) You are confusing wanting to and actually getting work swiftly enough or (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I didn't mention that aspect, I took it as a given. Sorry. (...) Yoiks! So if I go to my boss' house, tanked to the gills but very good at hiding it, he's responsible when I kill someone on the way home? Maybe I'm reading this completely (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) It does in theory, but in reality the market isn't educated to the level this requires - everyone would have to research which toothpaste, which dye-companies contributed to which t-shirts, which rainforest their toothpicks came from etc etc. (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) and (...) The marketplace has the power (or would have the power under Libertopia). (...) I'm not sure if there's a need to directly fine the stockholders. If you whack the company hard enough, the (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Ah.. so after the second time they spill nuclear goo in a kiddies playground(1), things will change? Unless they've got a new CEO who does exactly what the old one did? My point is that having to wait for a company to violate rights a second (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
(...) I have no problem backing this thesis. It is obviously correct. However, the way for them to gain that wisdom is to be allowed to experiment and learn. If, as an adult, a person doesn't profane because they have a conditioned (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
<Fox8H5.9D4@lugnet.com> <FoxrLq.Cn8@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) That's basically what I was getting ready to say. (...) No, the courts have the power to try and fine/punish them. I (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: The fix is in: Rams go to SuperBowl
|
|
Larry, (...) Hmm... I don't know, Larry, I get crispy every now and then. :) Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The fix is in: Rams go to SuperBowl
|
|
(...) The WWF (and wrestling in general) isn't rigged, it's predetermined. There's a difference. Rigged implies that it was done immorally or illegally. Wrestling matches are predetermined so that the storyline is followed, just like any other (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The fix is in: Rams go to SuperBowl
|
|
(...) Well, ya, it's rigged. But so what? Look, even the WWF is rigged, but it is still true that: - being a WWF participant requires a great deal of skill. Falling HURTS if you don't do it right. - it's a gateway to even MORE rigged things. Name me (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
(...) My original point, which I think you have partially and inadvertently backed up, is that kids lack the maturity to use profanity wisely. Armed with the "F- bomb" as it is so tactfully put, a kid is just as likely to waltz up to the Queen and (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The fix is in: Rams go to SuperBowl
|
|
I found it comforting that a local radio personality thought the same thing I did that something nefarious was/is going on-- I can't believe nobody is taking my troll bait! -John (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Harry Potter(ish) lego line possibility?
|
|
(...) I've read two of the books, and thought they were amusing, but the plot was identical in both books. The first book might have had some originality, but with seven planned, they're bound to get dull real fast. (IMO, of course) Please FUT (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
(...) HaH? You got a PROBLEM wid' dat? You got a freekin' PROBLEM? I noticed this as well, coming from MI (rather than MO) to NJ. I occasionally get looked at funny when I say "excuse me?" when they use profanity freely (but the elderly have (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
|
To All, Thanks for the responses, I don't know why this perplexed me so much, now I have a better understanding of it. My fiancee got motion sickness from this film, and I just got frustrated. The website does seem to have a lot more information, (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
(...) Wait. The first part of your note sounded like it was about calm civility. How is it more civil to "insult, flame, or denigrate" someone just because the F-bomb isn't used? So is it about being decent to one another in this forum and trying to (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Oh, I didn't mean it like that, I meant it like this: Where are we going from there? As a member (sort of) of the side (sort of) opposite (sort of) yours, I'm willing to accept that corporations have the power to hurt people inappropriately. (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Spoiler... (was Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?)
|
|
(...) The official web site had the interviews as they were filmed (not edited like in the movie), so if anyone needs a refresher, I'd go there. I'd have to agree that the fishermen were the worst actors in the movie. They weren't SUPPOSED to be (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Spoiler... (was Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?)
|
|
(...) I don't think it's a big deal, but just in case.... SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! SPOILER!!!! (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Peter Callaway writes: <snip> (...) I think this is the heart of the "profanity in newsgroups" debate. I can fully understand profanity in the heat of the moment, in a spoken conversation. It is extremely easy to let a (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
|
What was the slip up? I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and did not notice anything? (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
|
(...) cost (...) ???????? (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
|
(...) The movie was promoted as if it was real and as you've probably seen, the official site is full of back story material that makes the movie seem more realistic. The movie was not based on a true story, but they thought that promoting it as if (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
|
(...) Doh! c/it's/its James (URL) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
|
(...) I didn't bother finishing to watch it. The whole gimick of the show depends on you buying into it, and about 20 minutes in, I saw something that shattered my suspension of disbelief - I left to avoid spoiling the mood for the people that (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
|
Ben Roller wrote: < snipped Ben's oberservations > Good points, seeing it in a theater always helps. I am not really scared by anything anymore, much less movies. I have been looking at the official website for this a little this morning, was this a (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
|
(...) As with many movies like this, the mindset you have while watching makes or ruins the experience. I first saw the movie on opening night at the midnight showing at my favorite theater back home. I had seen very little commentary on the film (I (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
(...) Todd, I couldn't agree more. Thanks for taking a stand for civility. When my kids get old enough to read, I'll be happy that they will be able to use LUGNET without picking up language they don't need while they are too young to understand the (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
|
To All, My friend rented this movie this weekend, and after watching, I can't seem to find what the big deal was. I saw some parodies on it, and the actual movie was just stupid. I was actually rooting for whatever killed the filmmakers at the end. (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I find this an exceedingly callous statement, on the surface. Explain further. (...) The disposable income of the US government isn't that high. (...) You are. The law just happens to be unconstitutional. Jasper (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Ugh. Yes, if corporations break the law, they do hurt people. They should be prosecuted. The government prosecutes corporations, right? I agree with you that the US government has a tremendous amount of power because of money, etc. The (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Some would, and some wouldn't. Obviously if your culture feels that it's appropriate to feed them via the government, they would still feel that way if the government disappeared right? But they might make them work a little for it, which (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Two things: First, I think that there is a miscommunication here. You are saying that companies have little power compared to the government if they don't break the laws. Others are saying that by breaking the laws, companies have the power to (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The fix is in: Rams go to SuperBowl
|
|
(...) Cemented there, as a matter of fact. :) At least I don't have to feel bad for rooting against Manning since the Titans are going to the Super Bowl now. Lots of people around here had a problem picking sides for that game. (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The fix is in: Rams go to SuperBowl
|
|
(...) We're not talking about the WWF where no pretense is made. The NFL is *supposedly* on the level (I'm assuming your tongue is firmly planted in cheek). -John (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The fix is in: Rams go to SuperBowl
|
|
(...) I can't believe you would suggest such a thing. Are you honestly suggesting that something as time-honored as a championship professional football game could be rigged? What are we supposed to believe next, that a popular televised quiz show (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The fix is in: Rams go to SuperBowl
|
|
Did anyone see the NFC championship game today and think the Bucs got screwed? That overturned call in the last minute was beyond belief. I guess ABC wants the flashy Rams to go to the Super Bowl rather than the defense-led Bucs. And Kurt Warner's (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
(...) Just one major point here: I don't agree with what Todd is doing or why he is doing it for reasons stated previously. It should also be kept in mind that this thread began with the use of certain language on RTL and NOT on Lugnet -- I think (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
Wow, hasn't taken long for this hot potato to bounce out of the oven again. No sense in missing out on all the fun of the discussion, so here's my two minifigs worth (Star Wars, ofcourse!) (...) I'm with you there. Far too many arguments have got (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fix Or Repair Daily (was: Re: Lego in Chevy Venture)
|
|
(...) You posted this in off-topic... So you're off-topic in .off-topic. Being on-topic is expressly off-topic in off-topic. Confused yet? (...) ITYM: Any GM or Ford cars would be built outta Mecabloks. Any Japanese cars would be built outta Tyco. A (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
(...) That's it, yes! And because of the tenets which hold that... 1) people give their real-life name rather than posting anonymously, and 2) people avoid the use of obseneties/profanities/etc., ...LUGNET is a much more friendly, much less (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
(...) No. These people and many others were visible indicators of a serious problem facing the community of AFOLs. Frank and others aready explained this quite well elsewhere in this thread, so there's not much I can add, and I don't want to get (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
