 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Dunno, I've never belonged to the NRA and never will. I personally believe most of the people who spout NRA rhetoric like it is gospel about as discriminating as people who believe Rush Limbaugh speaks nothing but the truth. Speaking of Rush, (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: one of the many reasons I think Slashdot sucks now
|
|
(...) If it fails, I'll take all the blame. But if it works, I can't take all the credit; there was a big thread last week with lots of good ideas from other people. --Todd (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: one of the many reasons I think Slashdot sucks now
|
|
(...) Well, I shoulda known you would come up with something better. I still think the human part of the equation could degenerate to Slashdot-like levels, but you will probably control it better. (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Assuming you really *aren't* trolling, have you tried visiting (URL) and following a few links? You might particularly look at (URL) and (URL).[1] [1] IANTNRA, but I have friends who are. (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: one of the many reasons I think Slashdot sucks now
|
|
(...) Slashdot has a major design flaw in its scoring paradigm: Any single moderator can move a message "up or down the ladder" by 20% (one point on a five-point scale, excepting -1). That's too much sway. What's worse, the Slashdot moderation (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | one of the many reasons I think Slashdot sucks now
|
|
What is it with Slashdot? With all the idiots on there now moderating their trolls and crap up and other things that are valid but don't agree with them down it's like some stupid popularity contest. Makes me wonder if "article scoring" here might (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) the (...) of (...) Hmmmm, well, I would have thought that the High School perspective would be that we needed guns to overthrow existing governments that got out of hand, so what do I know? :-) I was actually responding from what I perceive to (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Very true. In addition, the 2nd Amendment was written when the latest in firearms technology took quite a while to reload. Even today, I understand the concerns of some citizens who feel they must have their guns to protect themselves (against (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Website
|
|
(...) Here's the "real" press release... (not for the humor-impaired!) (URL) for the bookmarks. :) --Todd (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) It may say that to you now, looking back on things from a modern high school American history perspective, but it didn't mean just that when it was written. Think about the people involved in writing the first batch of ammendments and what (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
