 | | Re: Lugnet for beginners
|
|
(...) In the same way that calling Lego brand building blocks "legos" is trademark dilution. In the same way that calling facial tissue "Kleenex" is. Well, not precisely the same, because those usages probably aren't negative, just dilutive, but (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet for beginners
|
|
Moved to off-topic.debate (...) Huh? Maybe there's some facet of trademark law I'm unfamiliar with, but how is *discussing* a product, even in negative terms, a trademark dilution? Are you seriously suggesting that saying something negative (even as (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet for beginners
|
|
(...) I've (...) I believe his characterization of IE would fall under (political) parody and is therefore fair use. The other possibility is that he meant it as fact, which he would be completely justified as claiming, even in court. I'm not sure (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) And, I must jump in, cause, well, I do, but if I remember my History of Anthropology course (if only I could find my notes!) it was actually Herbert Spencer (a wild and wacky social darwinist) coined that term. (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) Ack! >_<;; I took "The evolution of human nature" (aka intro to sociobiology) which the first third of the class focused on "real" evolution. Then in my "history of anthropology" (aka anthro theory) class, we started out with some of the (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just a suggestion... (Was: Re: Mormon bashing again)
|
|
(...) *whiny voice* I heard that they don't drink coke. is that true? Do they really have horns that they file off? Do they wear super underwear? (they do do that, but it's not super underwear) ^_- (Warning: this has all been in fun, I'm a wacky (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
Bill Farkas wrote in message ... (...) more (...) Oooh, can't wait for Larry's response on this one... Frank (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) intend (...) do (...) saved. (...) don't (...) I think his point was relating to those Christians who believe that the saving is something for the afterlife. In that case, he's mostly right. Of course he's (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) Are you lobbying to have this changed to lugnet.off-topic.troll? (...) How do you know that? Are you claiming omniscience? You *believe* no one knows if they're saved with the same apparant fervor that many christians *believe* they are saved. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) I think that's the underlying problem with labels, and yet they are a necessary evil. So many groups have been borne of a desire to be non-denominational and unifying; then begin to focus on what makes them different from everyone else to the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
