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 / *4061 (-20)
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) No you're not. There's just such a vast conceptual gulf between those that think that man is innately evil and those that think that he is innately good, that you may never be able to bridge it, distracting and disingenious accusations of (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
 
(...) I have no idea if you did or not, although I'd tend to doubt it. I'm asking what the phrase "to draw a longish bow" means, NOT trying to critique the overall argument. I snipped it all away except for the phrase because that's what I was (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
 
(...) Are you referring to the use of this phrase or the content of my argument? Have I used something incorrectly? Pete Callaway (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
 
(...) This is an interesting usage, can you tell me what it means? To make a farfetched argument by exaggeration? (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) neighbor (...) because (...) Good for you. I am sure you found a much better place to go. I'm really glad you left. Where will you be when the people you are punishing decide to vote with their feet? (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <389abd55.92129852@l...et.com>... (...) That sure isn't what I'm arguing. First off, the people making the mistakes are ALWAYS responsible. However, the CEO can be held responsible if there is some flaw in the way (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
I wonder if I stopped beating my head against the proverbial brick wall whether my ear problems would go away???? Oh, well, I'll keep beating, maybe I'll break through... Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3899b9ff.91276137@l...et.com>... (...) (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
 
Ugh...too much work and not enough Lugnet makes Pete a dull boy. I'm actually enjoying this discussion so forgive me if it appears we're flogging a dead horse. (...) So to draw a longish bow do you believe we should expose kids to absolutely (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Keeping Larry Amused
 
FUT .market.shopping as this is a shopping-ish question (...) No, it's not a store. Rather, it's a way to get rebates. Many e-commerce websites have so called "affinity programs" where they pay a rebate/kickback (1) to the site that gave them the (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.shopping)
 
  Re: Keeping Larry Amused
 
(URL) Larry, Is this a new on-line store? & another questions. I it any good? Thanks -J.W.Hummer (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Keeping Larry Amused
 
I decided to go back and see what the actual story here was, that is, what it was I actually said that started this thread. Every one has been making assumptions about it, even me. In a post which I otherwise heavily trimmed, Bruce said the (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) even (...) Yep, and we collectively agreed that the more successful people would do the major part in paying these taxes. Against their will (and rights) of course. (...) can't (...) People who are on (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: An Alternative..
 
Sorry Richard, this has been sitting in my draft folder... Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) <snip> (...) country (...) agree, (...) almost (...) That depends on geography. The Federal government doesn't exert that much control here. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Keeping Larry Amused
 
(...) Note carefully that there is no claim that the following is *practical* or a good idea. Merely that it is doable. In fact it is hugely impractical and a terrible idea. Lightning is a good thing, actually, despite the fact that sometimes it (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused
 
(...) Yes, you're right. I should have been more careful in snipping attributions, when doing so might have left the wrong impression. I've apologised for that. I'll do it again. I hereby apologise for snipping attributions. Although I certainly (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) Try "either the CEO is personally liable for everything his subordinates do, or those people actually committing the mistakes are". (...) What if "some damages" comes out to more than they can pay? In the majhority of cases, this is in fact (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) You can sell all its assets, quite effectively reducing it to rubble. (...) If the CEO takes all the corporate assets when there is a fine outstanding against those assets, something criminal is happening that has _nothing_ to do with general (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) It's not a better system, so that's entirely irrelevant. (...) I was in fact suggesting that the situation does not currently exist to the extent that it would. (...) Yah. Right. Big companies will always spend a dollar to save a cent (and not (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Keeping Larry Amused
 
(...) Because you're both right. The one does not exclude the other. (you a bit less than bruce, to be fair, but still..) Jasper (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused
 
(...) Larry, attributions are never, _NEVER_ "some stuff". Snipping attributions is not a good debating tactic, it's not clever, and in fact, it makes you look like an ass, which I know you aren't. If some notices you snipped attributions, the (...) (25 years ago, 30-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