 | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
The snipper from heck strikes again... (...) You forgot advanced beer drinking, how to file previous year exams to make them easy to find, why eggs are legal only at breakfast time, why freshman lab students might want to jump their lab instructor, (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
Again, selectively snipping for the heck of it. (...) I agree with you, private colleges *should* be able to. But it's a forlorn hope. They provide public accomodations so they're stuck with the same loony regulations as everyone else. Even if they (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
I'm just sort of picking tiny snippets to comment on... (...) I know for a fact from personal experience that a high SAT score is not a perfect predictor of college success (at a good college, where good study skills are important). Don't even ask (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) I'm not sure I agree with this. At least not the part about bleeding. For example, if there were a Satan, would he bleed? I don't think so. Rush is certainly moronic, though. In a good mood tonight because dubya got trounced in NH. Not that I (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
Well, we're both right. I think the phrase must be a bit more common on your underside of the world ;-), because of your more pure English heritage. You guys probably use it more, and probably have the right to spell it how you like. I only found (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote: <snip> (...) I have to totally disagree with you here... We work in groups in school right now, You have to learn the team spirit and how to work in a group in order to be productive in the REAL world.. Companys don't want (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
(...) I'm a parent of children ranging from age 6 to 16, and I happen to really appreciate suggested age ranges. Although all of my kids are well past the age of putting things into their mouth that they could choke on, I've observed that the (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
(...) Umm, no. In this case it is long bow. It's describing what I'm doing to the bow, that is drawing long on it, or "stretching the truth/argument" to interpret it as a colloquialism. So I'm not drawing a longbow (noun), I'm drawing long (adverb) (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
(...) To say that the United States saved anybody's butt in WWII is ridiculous. I am American and have a tremendous amount of pride for the role that the US played in WWII but I wouldn't begin to think that the US saved anyone's butt. I personally (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) _not_ (...) Generally when someone professes to be a conservative they are refering to their belief in conservative values, i.e. God, family, rule of law, and individual freedoms. The term conservative has nothing to do with foresight or (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) (major snip) (...) This is true, for the most part, and for most majors. However, for CompSci, at least at my alma mater, there was a "team programming" course where your grade depended on the output of your team. I think the architectural (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) someone (...) What I was stating in the initial message was that a Lego robot test would harm the acadamically intelligent student. And it would. As have stated before that does not mean that I am content with the current system. I admit that (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) And a "academically intelligent" person is always the best person to solve a problem? This is the thing, the collages have to look outside the box (outside the top 5-10-33% of students _by marks_ or _by SAT_ or by any other method that is (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) I would _disagree_ with you that the test to see how well a group of you can rebuild a lego robot is a poor test. I think that it is _just_ as valid a test as a SAT or other "grade" test, it is _not_ the only thing that should be tested for (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) What I ment by "academicallly intelligent" person was somebody who excels in the traditional areas of academics, reading, writing, history etc. Not someone who can make the best duplicate of a Lego robot. -Rich (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Can they do like this?
|
|
(...) What about building with LEGO bricks excessively?;) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) So what about that part which says "minority admissions procedures that can withstand allegations of unfair preferences"? Sounds to me like they're vying for a more fair environment, not necessarily within the restrictions of affirmitave (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) What exactly is an "academically intelligent" person? Is that a person that just knows how to get good grades? I remember many excellent students that were not so intelligent. Especially in High School, where there was a much more direct (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
"we saved your butts" That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and I would bet most of the Americans who fought in WWII would agree. To say "We fought & died along side of you, in the fight for freedom" is more accurate. We're not talking (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) conservative (...) _not_ (...) Conservative-1, Tending to conserve 2, Tending to preserve established institutions: opposed to change. This is the definition of the word "conservative" that is given in the Websters New World Dictionary. I am a (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
Dave, (...) College is a learning experience, just for the most part, not a pleasant or an enlightening one. (...) Yes, to a point. Colleges are so bad in everything in terms of paperwork, etc. It gave me a bad taste for inefficient, non consumer (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
Scott: (...) Boy oh boy, for the most part, you just hit the nail right on the head. Anyone asserting that college isn't a learning experience is using too narrow a definition. Almost invariably, one will learn about bureaucracy and incompetence, (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) Or you are showing yours, but I digress... (...) Yes, but what does that have to do with admitting minorities into a college? Business and college are very different. (...) Yes, see above.. (...) Yes, work again... (...) My point exactly. (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) To me there are two issues. The first is do we take people into college who are not necessarily the most likely to succeed. The second issue is how do you assure someone is most likely to succeed. Since I believe it is impossible to come up (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) Actually, most conservatives, in the US, are classical liberals, that do want to change a lot of things. I think we are going into different issues here. (...) Just because you are a progressive, doesn't mean you look forward either. Scott S. (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
Jeremy, (...) "With affirmative action programs under legal fire, colleges and universities are searching for minority admissions procedures that can withstand allegations of unfair preferences." I am not assuming anything, this is a quote from the (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes: [SNIP] (...) Once again, Limbaugh shows his vast ignorance. These kinds of tests are routinely used by management consulting firms to test employees to see how well they fit into an (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) Rich, and every one else out there!...Conservative _IS_ exactly that, IE, not all that forward looking. You are by definition if you look to new ideas _not_ a conservative. It always strikes me as funny that here in Canada, one of the major (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) Show me a test that is fair across the board. You can't, they don't exist. Standardized tests are "standardized" for the majority, and time after time have been proven to have prejudices against those not taught to what the test makers thought (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) You're assuming that the entire reason for these tests is to get around these court decisions. What if there was a larger, more important reason -- like attempting to make testing the applicants more realistic and fair (see below)? It is a sad (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
Frank, (...) Yes, but I repeat myself many times: Since these people that are taking these test, mostly Hispanics and African Americans that would not normally get in due to the admission policies (I took this from the article, BTW), they use this (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
Kevin, (...) That's what the article said, which I mentioned in the quote earlier. (...) Mine was probably CAD and drafting classes, along with history. Again, I think this is just a way to get around the recent court rulings about affirmative (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
(...) Yes. But the single area where the US is ludicrously falling behind - that is to say, falling behind more and more as time goes by - is pre-university education. A major reason is the basic one-school- fits-all system which succeeds at pushing (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) What's so wrong about colleges looking for people with "initiative, leadership and an ability to work in groups?" You yourself said that those are real world issues. Why shouldn't colleges be preparing people for the real world? (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
Tom, (...) It might be, but doesn't have anything to do with testing people to get around affirmative action rulings. (...) So, giving an unfair advantage to people is being fair? (...) I took many classes over 5 years of going to college, Tom, and (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) That's why I said "in general" Obviously there are exceptions, and you would expect to find them here on LUGNET. (...) I guess we would have to look at the motive. If the motive was in fact to skirt the law then it's wrong, and probably not (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) Being a Rush anti-fan (I think he's a bleeding moron), I don't agree (not just because he's Rush, but because he's WRONG). Using Lego in this way is an excellent test of spatial skills, pinpointing people with the right skills for many (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
Clint, I fully supported you up until the WWII comment. It belittles the contributions made by all the people who fought for freedom around the world, including Americans. I am Canadian, and have had both Canadian and American relatives die in WWII, (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
(...) You will find that there are many forms of democracy around the world, and many would argue that they are freer then in the American system. Despite what a lot of Americans believe theirs was not the first democracy, and not the model of (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) Note- Not all Conservatives do not favor innovations. I am VERY conservative but I am also open to hear new ideas, and to see the results of those ideas. -Rich (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
Kevin, (...) I am a conservative, and I love the brick. Stereotypes of any trait don't do justice, one that has been used in debate too much, IMO. (...) Avoiding the law and court ruling is not innovating, IMO. It is ducting the real issues. (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
< cross posted to off-topic-debate > Rich, (...) Hmm... Being a Rush fan and a definite AFOL, I can see the logic of his thinking. Testing people on the ability to build anything, regardless of how good they might be, is a strange way of testing (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Can they do like this?
|
|
(...) True, doing anything excessively will lead to some kind of failiure. KL (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
It's simple. Rush is very conservative. Conservatives in general do not like the artistic or creative elements of society, which is what LEGO products encourage. Conservatives in general also do not favor innovations in education, (of which this (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
(...) In addition to an industrial base which was not in danger of being bombed, and on top of that a growing momentum of industrialization. I would throw in though that I believe our freer system of government almost certainly amplified the (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
(...) I'll admit that I flushed with patriotic indignation when I read Mr. Jezek's post. As a geographer, I can, however, concur with Mr. Jezek that the American public school system often does not equip students with an adequate understanding of (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Can they do like this?
|
|
(...) Except the casino owners who are, after all, engaged in a legitimate business, in a country where it is legal, and who now have been impacted. If you really think this is a good idea, there's not much more I can say. There is nothing (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
(...) There's not a lot of things that will get my "patriotic dander" up--but apparently the same thing gets Chris's up too. I'm a professional historian of modern Britain, western Europe, and modern Africa (it's a long and convoluted story (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The Nature of Evil (Was Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?)
|
|
<snip> (...) By no means. There's a big difference in defensive vs. offensive (a false distinction) and reactive vs. proactive. Defense and offense are really the same thing; both are defined in terms of what provoked them. "Reactive" is exactly (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
|
John DiRienzo wrote: < Snipped John and Adams Discussion of Blair Witch for clarity and length > (...) This is what my pastor is saying, and I tend to believe that myself. Since God (At least, in Christian and Jewish beliefs ) is without sin, any (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Political Parodies Music - Was:[ Art Debate, etc.]
|
|
(...) That reminds me of another great Parody was a Paul Shanklin remake of the Coolio song, AlGore Paradise. Hilarious! :) I also heard of a great parody off the Beatles "Yellow Submarine", entitled "We All Live in a Mellow Apathy." I love Paul (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Well, I'd disagree there, as well. Well, ok, sort of. I would suggest that many mainstream Christians have this belief, but that it is a misinterpretation of what mainstream Christian churches(1) are teaching - namely that man is inherently (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I also happen to disagree that Christian belief necessitates "man is innately evil." That's because my religion descends from a Christian belief that believes that man is innately good (though most people in my religion do not consider (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) See the smiley face next to my comment? It's only for the purposes of a hypothetical situation. Since the Libertarians (okay, some, Frank is always a pleasure to read) here are getting downright hostile, I'll drop out of this conversation (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38951CB8.C009E530@v...er.net>... (...) No need to explain! I'm just as guilty... (...) You hit the nail on the head, Lar. When their stock hits 666 its a clear sign of the end times. (...) All right! Now you're (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message <38959983.1F02FD9F@e...se.net>... (...) janitor. Its not at all ludicrous. Every nuclear generator, even the portable ones, have a meltdown button. You know, just in case. (...) Sure does... if your a CEO you want (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
Not nearly that full of wind! But its longbow, for future reference. -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (URL) weird Lego site: (URL) Callaway wrote in message ... (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) this (...) toothpicks (...) to (...) It seems like opponents of these ideas always try to make things more complicated... If all of the above is important to consumers, they will do the research, or they (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
(...) Hunh? We won. You, and us, and the UK, and France, and Russia, and the others. We won. What do you mean? Sure people died, but that doesn't change who won. (...) I think that this "we saved your butt" thing is a common response to feeling like (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
(...) Right, the bow's too long. No I don't. Some things can hurt them. The goal is to expose them (or allow exposure - rather than creating it) to the things which will help them to build their minds and character. (...) I don't think that (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
(...) So it wasn't about sketching a clown's big floppy bowtie? Oh well ;-) Chris (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) The managers that I've known were typically not forced into management at gunpoint. Maybe things work differently in NL, but I wouldn't have guess in that way. (...) But that doesn't make the company feel fear or pain. It might - if the sums (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Agreed, as someone who's often on the other side(1), you're both doing a good job (generally) of getting your points across. Where the communication breaks down is at base level assumptions, and the fact that the medium is slightly awkward for (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
(...) Pete Callaway (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Heavily snipped for dramatic effect, because I'm grandstanding. (...) On the bright side, at least Libertopia will let you leave if you want to go, and aren't currently wanted for a crime or judgement, unlike those socialist worker paradises that (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
(...) OK, I thought so. When you said "interesting usage" I thought you may have an alternative meaning (and possibly more correct) to mine. I also detected a hint of sarcasm, but that could just be me. The way I have used it is to indicate that I (...) (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>... (...) Oh yeah, that really worries me. (...) But its easy to get away with not doing it. (...) Move to China for ten years, and come back to this then. Better yet, just unlearn (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
I think he meant he was going to be wordy in his (near) final post on the topic. -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (URL) weird Lego site: (URL) Pieniazek wrote in message <38951578.D7CBB273@v...er.net>... (...) argument? (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) I don't know exactly what you're smoking, but I think I'd like you to keep it away from me. How, pray tell, could we prevent lightning from ever striking? Note, _ever_ means _one_hundred_percent_ effective. Jasper (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) For one, the electorate has to agree to go to libertopia in the first place. (...) Personal liability now includes not only things you might possibly be indirectly responsible for, which already is very insidious, but also things you are not (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
I would like to applaud Kyle for writing a very mature post without any naming calling. I was beginning to think that it wasn't possible. What I feel some of us are failing to realize is that every country is essentially the same. There are some (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
I agree with most of what Kyle said in this calm, well written post as well as the other one he posted in response to Clint. However, there are two fundamental points I do wish to take issue with and they are as follows: - Cultural relativism is not (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
I'd like to make one more point, especially to Mr. Rutkas Some of the previous posts originate from patriottic sentiments. Nothing badly wrong with that, but some would call these sentiments nationalistic. Nationalism is one of the things that (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kyle D. Jackson writes: <much well-written reason and logic snipped> <it's polite too> <;)> Hear Hear! K.M. (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) [snip] Clint, I've already posted a huge message in this regard, which I hope everyone reads, and will maybe learn something from..., not that I presume to be worthy of teaching anybody anything. But I decided to reply to your (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
I really did not want to jump into a sensitive issue, but I think I have some insight to offer that may be enlightening to people both in and outside of the USA. I am not making any statements one way or the other, and I reserve my own opinions to (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
Snip (...) I (...) they (...) This is also a class issue, where lower incomes get pushed to "lower end" jobs while higher classes get to have their sons and daughters assume management roles no matter how stupid they are. (Which I which we certainly (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Blair Witch Project - Thoughts?
|
|
Adam Yulish wrote in message <3893398D.617B42FA@ee.net>... (...) Sounds a lot like what I call life affirming versus non-life affirming, to an extent, so I can see where you are coming from, I think. (...) I am getting the impression that you say (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
