 | | Re: Frog
|
|
John Neal wrote in message <36BFA673.677B4B70@u...st.net>... (...) Because it is difficult to declare absolutes in a relative world; because it makes people uncomfortable to think that there is a right and a wrong, and thus that there is a (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
Sentient I pronounce it "sen-tee-ent", but I've heard it pronounced your way too. Jeff (...) being (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) Sorry for clipping all that, but they are fairly common problems with eBay. We've basically exhausted this topic on RTL, although you do have very valid points. The late bidding thing gets into a lot of human (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
|
Yes, eBay's style of auctioning is perceived as unfair by many people (including me). Many other people don't see it as unfair. The bottom line seems to be that you can either play by eBay's rules, possibly hoping for something better; or you can (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
|
James Brown ranted (or is it raved?): (...) Yes. (...) Not only that, but they all seem to end past midnight my time which means that people who work probably won't be up to compete in the sniping. (...) I like it when they answer their own (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) And such a shortage of people! (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
|
Ok, is it just me, or does the e-bay style of auction actually encourage "unfair"(1) bidding practises? On about 2/3 of the auctions I've participated in, or followed, there has been a similar flow to the bids. Several people bid on it in the first (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) Never tried people either. Fortunately, there are more than enough cows to go around. (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) Right. Mostly because we don't have time to question everything. (...) Thinking about them and trying to explain them is not. (...) I agree. But, you won't ever come up with something better without questioning the status quo. To improve you (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) Why are you and Jesse sure that there are? I don't know. I'm not sure that there are absolutes, though the argument for in-group "murder" being inherently bad being embedded in the human psyche is strong, so is the argument for all such things (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) My society practices capital punishment right now. But, I don't think that it is sanctioned killing in-Group. The government must sufficiently demonize a person or group before they can be legally terminated. Whether it's someone accused of (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) What if people taste good? (I've never tried it, but I suspect I wouldn't think so.) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
sorry, hit that send button a little too quickly... no help outa spell checker...How the $#%@ do ya spell "senshunt"??!! I guess ya have to be it to spell it:( (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) [1] Although I refer to a being even higher than the one lifted up by the Larritarians;) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
John Neal wrote in message <36BFA673.677B4B70@u...st.net>... (...) For the same reason I'm reluctant to acknowledge the existance of Bright pink elepahnts, They don't exist! I don't deny knowledge of some absolutes, I'm pretty sure that 1+1=2 (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
I agree with Jesse here. Why are you so reluctant to acknowledge the possibility of absolutes? (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) Thinking about this some more I think I might be wrong, There is one absolute moral judgement: "Thou shalt not damage Lego bricks" <grin> Cheers Tim (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) maybe, (...) Not true, Our own society until recently practiced capital punishment, If this isn't sanctioned killing in-Group then I don't know what is. No-one does anything aimlessly, I don't even brush my teeth without some motive. I agree (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
Tim McSweeney wrote in message ... (...) so (...) assure (...) Well, I think a lot of people disagree with that on religious grounds, but since I don't want to get into that I'll disagree with it on logical/philosophical grounds: I think all (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) <grin> I think society would frown on that, and in fact I don't particularly want to do it because the society I live in frowns on self mutilation. I guess my point was that I don't want to kill and eat (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) I'll let you regret that. I'll just choose to not mind. :) You could always taste your own, though. You could probably cut off enough to fry up a thin steakums-type thing without doing too much permanent damage - especially if you take it from (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) I eat cows because they taste good, mainly. (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) There are too many things in the world to derive all of them from first principals. I accept all sorts of things that I was taught without reasoning through them fully, I suspect you do as well. If there are some issues that we each feel the (...) (26 years ago, 8-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) This is obviously the case, not just a maybe. What I mean is that for each person there is (presumably) a line of the sort described. It does change over a lifetime, it has for me. It is different from culture to culture. Etc. You suggest that (...) (26 years ago, 8-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) <snicker> Well, you know, we've all got to make choices... James (URL) (26 years ago, 8-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) Great. Now you've got me thinking about the film _A Boy and his Dog_. Steve (26 years ago, 8-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) Maybe there isn't a scientifically defined line, and maybe the line that does exist is not fixed for all of humanity or perhaps it even changes over the life of a single individual. consider dogs? Some cultures consider this food. Some put (...) (26 years ago, 8-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) I've always wondered about this. I have some questions WRT this stance. What does superior mean? Is it based on cognitive-emotional capacity? Frankly, using what I guess to be the answer, I consider myself superior to most of humanity, but I (...) (26 years ago, 8-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <36bf0d85.5966415@lu...et.com>... (...) Not seeing any smiley or elipses, I have to assume you're serious. It's not a net acronym, it's etc., as in et cetera. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? (...) (26 years ago, 8-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) It stands for Extra Tangy Cyanide. At least, it *could*... :-, Cheers, - jsproat (26 years ago, 8-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) I'm sorry, I must not be up on all the latest 'net acronyms. What does ETC stand for? Steve (26 years ago, 8-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) I suppose I should have taken it to .fun...... What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9. Jasper (26 years ago, 6-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
What about when you outlive *your* usefulness to them.... (...) (26 years ago, 6-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) Plenty of stuff which is poisonous when injected, yet harmless when digested... IIRC, IMHO, AFAIK, ETC. :) Jasper (26 years ago, 6-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) Think I'll pass on eating THAT meat, especially the part where the injection was done. :-) (26 years ago, 5-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) Lethal Injection? You do it to cats * dogs when they outlive their usefulness... Jasper (26 years ago, 5-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) This reminds me of something. My wife's parents had a small flock of sheep. When it came time to slaughter them for market, they hired someone from the Yellow Pages to do the killing and cleaning. His method of execution involved three quick (...) (26 years ago, 5-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) That's just the Kosher laws, which Mohammed rebadged and spiffed up. Modern evidence is starting to show that the throat cutting method, while very humane by 1000 AD standards, may still cause some pain. not sure there's a better way, though. (26 years ago, 5-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:27:57 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) You should eat meat the Arab way, rather, buy Halal meat. One of the things decreed by Mohammed was that the animal killed for consumption should die in the (...) (26 years ago, 4-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) OK, good to know. Learn something every day, these groups are great for that. Nevertheless I myself try not to do things that may appear to be cruel, even if they're not, because I don't want to remember what sorts of animals are capable of (...) (26 years ago, 3-Feb-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) merely (...) So...if we put YOU in this box and a cup of coffee, there is no way we can tell wether you drank the coffee or not? [11] B-) Follow-up set to .fun (I hope..never tried it before) [11] or can we assume you will drink it?[12] [12] (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) <stuff> (...) Ohwell. Why can't I try to keep a straight face? Jasper (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) we (...) for (...) Sigh..I should have taken it to .fun I am well aware of the various aspects of the Shroedinger theorum, I was merely attempting some humor. Mea Culpa, it won't happen again.(1) 1: if this sounds a bit snide, that's because (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) The box is sound, light & air proof. In fact, the material used is impervious to any Electromagnetic radiation. Otherwise, the first particle/photon that it emitted and that would happen to collide with either the observer, or cause something (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) I don't know... I think it's pretty safe to say we don't need to wait until we open the box to determine the state of the fishies existence...just listen for the sound of a satisified cat. :) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) None and all.. I don't think the nerve gas used in S's box is very specific :) And when we open it, there'll be a collapse of waveforms to none or all. [4] Jasper (...) [4] No, I don't know what I'm talking about [6] [5] Yes, you can have (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Jasper Janssen writes: [[Sniped some stuff]] (...) [[snipped the rest]] Why don't we put all the fish in the Schrödinger-box[1] and wait till tomorow to see which fish has survived? Mark [1] This is the box in which you put a cat and some poison and (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Okay, that's the last straw (was Re: Translating catalogues)
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <36A9D214.F685A741@v...er.net>... (...) Much, except for that "intelligently" part, given their current course of action (when view from Lugneter's perspective). ;-) Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking (...) (26 years ago, 24-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Okay, that's the last straw (was Re: Translating catalogues)
|
|
(...) OK, here you go then: "That's their right, and if you don't like it, give them whatever feedback you think might help in the hopes that they'll listen. You're certainly within you rights to make whatever non slanderous statements you wish to (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Jesse Long wrote: <good fish explanation> (...) Well, there are two kinds. That one, which makes me chuckle, and another one which substitutes TRUTH as the word in the middle on the larger fish. THAT one makes me steam. The first is clever. The (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) Thanks. (...) Oh yeah, right, I think I remember seeing that once or twice now. (...) We here in the Netherlands almost never have bumper-stickers, so I guess we missed out :) (...) Any bets on when we will see a darwin fish being eaten by a (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No way for a LEGO newbie to get up to speed? Unfair!
|
|
(...) Firephobe! :) Jasper (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <36a8aa9f.144815446@...et.com>... (...) I'll start this from the beginning, in case you don't know the whole story. Christians use a fish symbol to represent Christianity. It looks kind of like this: <>< if your (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No way for a LEGO newbie to get up to speed? Unfair!
|
|
(...) If you let the tree dry out really well first, you don't need very many candles... Steve (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No way for a LEGO newbie to get up to speed? Unfair!
|
|
(...) Ewww! Artificial trees? Whaddaya wanna bet that's the same kind of people that use _electric_ ccandles in their tree? :-/ Jasper, who's always celebrated Winter soltice with _real_ candles in the tree... (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) What _is_ a Darwin fish? or a God fish, for that matter? Jasper (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No way for a LEGO newbie to get up to speed? Unfair!
|
|
from lugnet.general (...) Well... some of us do, anyway. :-) We celebrate the winter solstice instead, and we use all artificial trees. (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Christopher L. Weeks wrote in message <36A7985D.6AF9AF4@cc...ri.edu>... (...) Spotted recently on a car: a "Darwin" fish getting eaten by a larger "God" fish. The saga continues. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? Read the (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that it's possible to write this and assure that it won't be taken the wrong way, and maybe since I'm responding to something a month old, I should just let it go, but as you've already guessed, I'm not going to. (I'm going to (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.foreign.policy (was: lugnet.religion.flame)
|
|
(...) I happen to know that some people in the US would agree. and later wrote again: (...) Wrong. I think it is up to us. I think this because as a society we have taken on the burden of opposing tyranny world-wide. I support this stance, but (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Okay, that's the last straw (was Re: Translating catalogues)
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <36A68964.87B295D4@v...er.net>... (...) I figured your philosophy would require you to say something like "that's their right and if you don't like it, suck it up and go somewhere else." Jesse ___...___ Jesse The (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | SF Story (was Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this)
|
|
(...) check my back issues of Science Fiction Age for the author and title. The action took place on a lunar colony, IIRC. I forget who won the case, though. Chad (26 years ago, 8-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity (was Re: Trains)
|
|
I'd hardly call that a profanity... nor 'hell', but that tends to get picked on a lot on American TV shows too. But we're rapidly heading off-topic here - the problem is that Lego trains resemble no kind of (mother-flippin') train that is currently (...) (26 years ago, 8-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: High Crimes and Misdemeaners (was Impeachment)
|
|
I think you're right, although it seems to imply that a president could be impeached for jaywalking. The upshot appears to be that whatever the House and Senate consider impeachable is impeachable. as evah, John C. (...) (26 years ago, 7-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) I did some digging and I could not find it either. Well, somebody ELSE said it was, and I should have verified it before I alleged. But I'd be willing to bet (since you can't call me on it, they're all dead now) that what I outlined was what (...) (26 years ago, 6-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
Well ... we could go ad nausium on this subject ... it's getting old ... Now for something completely different ... What about the new Drudge report possibly linking Clinton to a 13-year old boy in Arkansas? (URL) for the whole story. (these guys (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) Cool. Thanks for the site. But it does, to my mind, state clearly that lying under oath is perjury. Period. There's no way around it. So we're back to my original point: it's prosecuted so little in this country that turning it into an (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) This, to me, is one of the worst things about this whole affair. Saying he didn't have sex with her - ok, that's a lie but I'll grant that it was simply a lie by a gutless adulterer trying to cover his ass. Actually saying things like, "well, (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) There is a "perjury standard". The US Code, Title 18, Pt 1, Ch 79, Sec 1621 fully states how perjury is defined. (you can also go (URL) ) (...) With the amount of evidence available, in my opinion, there was sufficient information to find (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) It's a good logical argument: perjury is of greater significance than lying under oath and is a felony to boot, therefore it is a "high crime" when applied to the president. (I'm not sure I agree with your definition, that it has to be (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) Lying under oath != Perjury. They are two separate issues. Perjury is the active and repeated lying under oath, with intent to cover up information, and to thwart the legal system. A Lie, is may not be considered perjury, if it's about (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) I guess my point is that 115 people is a minute fraction of the number of people who lie under oath in this country and that the equation: perjury == treason (for example) doesn't hold. (...) So he wouldn't have to deal with it any more. Cases (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
John, currently there are over 115 people in jail for perjury. Of those 115, at least 5 have come forward to say that their perjury was for a sex related cover-up. Perjury is the thoughtful willingness to lie to the court. I'd say that yes, the (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
Jim, I do find your argument fairly convincing, at least in the abstract. We shouldn't lie under oath. We should be punished for lying under oath. That assumption should hold. (...) I guess this is a point where we disagree. I would argue based on (...) (26 years ago, 2-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
Also sprach Lee Jorgensen: : What is actually meant by "High crimes and misdemeanors"? Is it : a grandiose crime that is considered a felony? Or is it a crime by : an official in a high office ... Like the President? Here's a point: Clinton's crime (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) The latter. high is a modifier of "crimes and misdemeanors" and refers to the office held by the alleged perpetrator. See the Federalist Papers. Once, long ago, I even posted a URL to an online version. The other parsing doesn't make much (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here we go again
|
|
(...) The judges are having trouble deciding if you answered correctly. :-) Thomas Paine wrote some great stuff but Ol' Poor Richard was who I had in mind all right. (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here we go again
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <368BD1ED.FA123C08@c...AM.com>... (...) Ben Franklin?? or was ti Thomas Paine? (...) Matt Marshall $%#$% Vacuum Cleaners Always get my pieces!!! Matt's Lego Page (URL) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
What is actually meant by "High crimes and misdemeanors"? Is it a grandiose crime that is considered a felony? Or is it a crime by an official in a high office ... Like the President? Should there be two sets of laws? You or I would be prosecuted (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here we go again
|
|
Beaker wrote: <snip> Yup. Tangential but appropros: "those who would give up a little freedom in exchange for security are doomed to soon have neither" is a paraphrase of a famous quote. For 100 points, who said that? (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
Also sprach John Cromer: : I would not say "testimony under oath must be truthful" is a throw-away : issue. It is not, however, in my opinion, the cornerstone that underpins : our legal system. I am convinced that people lie under oath every day in (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here we go again
|
|
Also sprach Matt Hanson: : much. I think that is what the real issue is. Some people just aren't : willing to give up their cozy lifestyle for a better *quality* : society... Now we get to the heart of the issue. You want others to change their (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Impeachment
|
|
Well, Jim, I have read your long post regarding the impeachment. I have read it several times. It is well-reasoned and argued. Still, I disagree. Let me explain, and I hope to do it without the name- calling, labeling and slander that seems to (...) (26 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here we go again
|
|
(...) <big snip> This group was trying to enforce religious code - I'm not in favor of that, at all... But if that's what they let rule them, so be it. We live in a society where money rules, not people. We are a profane and perverse people. You (...) (26 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Here we go again
|
|
Matt, I found an exmple of a functioning theocracy for you. The following story appeared on cnn.com recently. Keep in mind that these people are only trying to enforce a simple moral code, not regualting morality or anything: Afghan police crack (...) (26 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) Not to pull a Clinton or anything... but sir, it clearly depends on the meaning of the word "full". (26 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Message-Id: <slrn78itgo.1gd.cjc@...S.UTK.EDU> X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.4.3 UNIX) p.IWANTNOSPAM.com> Reply-To: cjc@newsguy.com Followup-To: (...) If you walk into a room FULL of LEGO every day I'd say that makes you pretty small or pretty flexible. :) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) Garshk, I would *hope* so... and, no doubt, you do walk into such a full room whenever you can. I know I wouldn't mind doing so. :) I gotta start going to KKK's Thursday night poker games... From Tom McDonald Anti-spam block in place. (URL) (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) Yes but if I walk into a room full of LEGO every day, does that make me a LegoManiac?? :-) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) But a promise to do what? I agree, people should be held to promises they make of their free will. But the government has a monopoly on granting marriage and constrains who can be married and under what terms. I will not hold a group of people (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) I have no faith in our system of government... It serves those who serve themselves. I would much rather live under Hammurabi's code of Laws. (...) It's not a level of government. It's one of the flaws of our constitution. One that has been (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Also sprach Matt Hanson: : Divorce, in my opinion, ought to entail some sort of punishment on both : sides, to discourage the practice, or to make people think harder about : marriage. (another abused institution) Yeek. What you are asking for has a (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) Wouter van Wageningen writes: (...) True. My apologies for not being clearer. With the exception of whether I do believe or not, Larry largely put it (as far as I can tell :) how I wanted it said. Be genuine either way. The way I see it is, be (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this (ain't it though? :)
|
|
(...) I'm not quite like that either. At the same time, I don't believe that every person becomes saved either. <snipped middle of thought out response> (...) Yeah, I can't answer them all either, as I didn't invent the mechanism of salvation - (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) Divorce, in my opinion, ought to entail some sort of punishment on both sides, to discourage the practice, or to make people think harder about marriage. (another abused institution) (...) Well, you seem to have overlooked the part I wrote (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Also sprach Matt Hanson: : That's really a pity. I think that if somebody has an affair, they : should be punished, according to the oath they took at the altar. (or : wherever) Out of curiosity, what punishment do you have in mind? And on what (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Marriage and Law (was Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Various people have been writing about what it means to be unfaithful. Now, I have no idea what deal Billary and Billary worked out, and this is kind of tangential, but I DID want to point out that in the US, the state has a monopoly on the ability (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) Prosecute, no. Have faith in them to run the nation? Not me. (...) I'm not saying infidelitey ought to carry a criminal penalty, but infidelity, basically, is dishonesty and betrayal at its worst. I know people who have been unfaithful to (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
