 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Well, that came out wrong... :/ Next time I'll put the footnote *after* the sig, instead of in it. (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Only radio I ever listen to is CKUA(1). Good mix of music, and a stunning lack of talk shows... I wonder if that has anything to do with 50+% of their budget coming from listeners? <grin, duck> James (URL) getting paid for this --> (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Hedonist and Libertarian Tom Leykis is #1 in LA area (that includes far right Orange County). Not that I'd know either way - my 8 year old likes Radio Disney over either of those two. ;-) Bruce (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | LUGNET is my new home page...
|
|
...it used to be my.yahoo.com. Their news and channel services, while hardly unique, were what attracted me to them in the first place. Presumably due to my gender and age, I've been subjected to Yahoo's banner ads for Playboy, Maxim, and some other (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Mike, (...) Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Website
|
|
(...) Easy to fix (in fact, one of the very first things I do with a new install): Open an Explorer window; open up the Options dialog (Menu "View" -> "Options") Unselect "Hide file extensions for known file types" Also, select "Show all files" (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Website
|
|
(...) LOL! --Karim (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Website
|
|
(...) "Windows is so friendly and easy to use..." "How friendly is it!" "Windows is so friendly and easy to use, that you can now choose your own custom background color and patterns for the BSOD!" --Todd (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Website
|
|
(...) Windows is so friendly and easy to use that it hides extensions from you as often as possible. I use Dreamweaver to assemble the site, but I was lazy and just used explorer to copy the dat files in... somewhere along the way, the extensions (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Website
|
|
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:06:26 GMT Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote concerning 'Re: Website': (...) in programming it's easy - if I want to name a variable FILE, I don't want it to be misinterpeted as a command, if one day an upgrade introduces (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Website
|
|
(...) 2 reasons come to me right away: Case sensitivity contributes to a faster and less-buggy environment. If you need to match a string against a set of possible matches (e.g. looking for a file in the directory, or looking for a variable in a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Website
|
|
(...) Hmm, there must be a definitive FAQ or treatise somewhere on the net about this... --Todd (who has yet to see any good coming from case INsensitivity in a file system, much less a programming language; but who has seen lots of good coming from (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Website
|
|
(...) Why is case insensitivity evil? What good comes from having case sensitivity? I have yet to see any good coming from case sensitivity in a file system or a programming language. (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) ObRef: cows were out of season and one of the hunters wasn't insured.... (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Website
|
|
(...) The filesystem in Win32 is case-preserving, but not case-sensitive. e.g. if you open a file named "FiLeNaMe.txt" but the file was really saved as "FILENAME.TXT", it'll still load. Compare this to the Unix filesystem, where "A" != "a". Why they (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Website
|
|
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:11:54 GMT Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote concerning 'Re: Website': (...) oh - ok, I agree... having a case-insensitive platform, well, it just isn't good :) I thought the jab was at W2k or somesuch that finally does (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Website
|
|
(...) Actually, the EVIL part isn't uppercase filenames per-se, it's that WinDOwS is case-insensitive about filenames, even to the absurd point of allowing filenames in IIS-served URLs to be case-insensitive. There are few things more evil. --Todd (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Website
|
|
(...) MS made evil uppercase filenames popular. Inherited them from CP/M in 1981 and didn't begin to get rid of them until 1995. --Todd (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) gun (...) It's not the solution to the bigger problem, but I don't see how it's a bad idea. Are you railing against the seatbelts in your car because they impede your movement when you're driving and trying to change the radio station? It's a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Dan, (...) How can requiring gun manufacturers, providing this gun lock, making the consumer pay more (I don't care how "cheap" it is, this is used for taxes as well, and I don't buy it), and them going in the trash, going to solve anything? Bad (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) how is this "trying tog et rid of guns"? solve problems like kids shooting themselves when they "just wanted to look at it"... hurt others? like not being able to shoot fast enough? well, if you keep your gun under your pillow, you probably (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) wrote (...) I don't see how a trigger lock is an attempt to get rid of guns. A trigger lock is SUPPOSED to help prevent an accidental discharge from a gun, over and above what the safety switch is for. Do you think there was this much debate (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Update: Billy boy just said "Kids are dying everyday (Unless Congress passes new gun control laws), they don't know it's an election year." Al Gore was babbling about campaign finance reform, he is the one who can't even follow the laws in the first (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) It all depends if they're in season or not, and if they're on state game lands. (...) Or Little Buddha or My Own Private Idaho or even Johnny Mnemonic (though he wasn't the only thing wrong with that film...) Dave! (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:27:57 GMT "Scott E. Sanburn" <ssanburn@cleanweb.net> wrote concerning 'Re: Trying to understand': (...) I agree that there should be better education - but as long as guns are around, accidents will happen. IDF [1] makes (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
To All, (...) It was a bad one, I am known for good slips. At least it would have been an interesting high school challenge. ;) Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Hehehe, Or "Much Ado About Nothing" :) Of course, it does seem that good ol' Billy Shakespear wrote a couple of John the Bastard's lines just for Keanu... :) "I cannot hide what I am" "I am not of many words..." :) Just kidding to any KR fans (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Duane, (...) Well, here is a gut wrencher for all of you non violent types: teach this in school. (The sound of alarms going off, leftists kicking in their screens, mass rioting and hysteria result!) I have told this in the last round of gun debates (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) I know *I'd* fail the test more than once... (...) Yes, but do you need a license to catch a child? In all honesty, Keanu Reeves isn't that bad of an actor, as long as he gets parts that are compatable with him. (Kinda like Meg Ryan, I guess.) (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) "A well regulated Militia...", not "A completely unregulated Militia..." :-) Bruce (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) locks, (...) has (...) seemed (...) To actually try and answer your question, the real reason the NRA opposes this is because they are afraid of being nibbled to death. A regulation here, a restriction there, a warning label that gets worse (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) I could be wrong about its primary use these days... I've never heard it used in any was _but_ with ironic (or sarcastic) intent, but I'll buy into the old English grammar etymology of it! :) --Todd (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Oh man, where is this Concubine High?!? Why wasn't it around when I was a teenager? I hope this wasn't just some Freudian slip... ;-) Bruce (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) how (...) would (...) by (...) little (...) (URL)Secondly, why isn't little Johnny not taught about the gun? Go out (...) It's not little Johnny that I worry about, it's little Johnny's friends. (...) I could see my commute getting uglier yet. (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Look, I understand all of this... the point I was trying to make is that the trigger lock thing only says that the gunseller must provide a triggerlock.. NOT that everybody has to walk around with their triggers locked! If you don't want to (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Rereading this, I'm not quite sure where I agree with your stated purpose of the 2nd (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Karim, (...) Well, one could argue that when you are in a situation where you would need your gun (A.k.a. late night break in) trying to find the key to a trigger lock could result in your death, or your property being stolen, etc. Secondly, why (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Susan, (...) LOL! Sometimes I wonder.... ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) for (...) only (...) at (...) These sort of stats add nothing to the debate, your are comparing apples and oranges. I remember reading that a person is shot every 30 seconds in the US, that may well equate to 0.2% of gun owners, but is still (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) for (...) only (...) at (...) defense (...) yourself (...) Simple solution here. Buy a holster, remove the trigger lock and keep the weapon at your side at all times when at home. When it is not at your side, re-apply the trigger lock. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) I *believe* that this refers to test firing the gun and keeping the captured bullet for a ballistic cross reference against bullets found at the scene of a crime. Similar to the human fingerprinting system in place. (...) ^^^...^^^ That's (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) This is so typical of liberals: to impinge on the rights of all, supposedly for the protection of all. The problem is that laws are made to be efficacious only after they've been broken; and in this country we are innocent until proven guilty. (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) In Parenthood, Keanu Reeves (who gets my vote for the finest actor of all time on stage or screen (ugh—I can’t believe I even typed that!)) observed that you need a license to catch a fish, but anyone can have a child… Dave! (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) Hey! I'm willing to admit to making mistakes, but in this case, I'm being misunderstood. I was just disagreeing with Todd's understanding of the implications of 'exception which proves the rule'. I've never heard that phrase used with ironic (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) (I can't believe I'm entering this debate, but...) How, exactly, would trigger locks save lives? Parents who leave loaded guns lying around are likely to leave the same loaded guns lying around with the keys in the trigger locks. Children who (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Scott: (...) I’m not sure if that’s the "actual" term or the term that I heard on the news. In either case, it refers to a method of gun registration in which every gun is fired before sale, and the slugs and/or casings are laser-scanned so that the (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) (a question about gun registration and ballistic fingerprinting) (...) I think we should start licensing parents instead. It would solve a lot of problems. (Only half joking...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz answers: (...) Okay, that makes sense. My error was that I was perceiving an analogy between gun registration and, for instance, dog licensing or car registration. The difference, if I understand it now, is (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Actually, this is one that I can't understand at all.... I can't figure out how ANYONE could object to mandatory trigger locks... How in the world would something like that impinge on your rights? Now, granted, it most likely would not do a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Dave!, (...) Ballastic fingerprinting? Well, I don't know what that is, so you need to tell me that first. I think before we need *ANY* more gun laws, we need to start enforcing the *22,000+* laws that are on the books, which, BTW, won't solve any (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) The reason for opposition of gun registry comes down to what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is presumed to be, that of assuring that the populace can be armed as a defence against an out of control government (an understanding which I agree (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Trying to understand
|
|
I heard something on the news yesterday that puzzled me, and I hoped a few of the more politically-savvy around here might help me to comprehend it. It seems George Pataki of New York favors certain measures of gun regulation including, among other (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Longest Thread! (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) But -- But it took me a while HOUR to think up that one. *sigh* :-, Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Longest Thread! (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) takes (...) No, I was refering to the "most replies to a single message". AFAIK, no other message on Lugnet has generated over 70 direct replies. James (URL) getting paid for this --> alladvantage.com Sign up via me, the reference $$ go to (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Longest Thread! (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) simple high-school physics. See, Brad (and the organization he represents) is really cool. However, this thread on religion has lotsa people hot and bothered. (With me so far? You can see it coming... :) And naturally, most things expand when (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Longest Thread! (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) The thing I absolutely love about LUGNET is the threading goodies Todd has worked into the news server. That makes the Web interface more powerful than most news readers in many ways. And this help threads to *sustain* a life of their own, (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) Well, UU theologians would argue that it is predictable. Unitarianism is derrived from rejecting the trinity and the divinity of Jesus (something which wasn't "official" until 350 AD). UUism relies on reason to establish it's precepts, so it (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: (Movie) Mission to Mars
|
|
Arguably, we went to the moon about 10 years too early using the man in a can technology. DynaSoar would have been a much better way to go and we'd now have a big industrial infrastructure in LEO and commercial flights from NY to Tokyo in 5 hours or (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You wouldn't want one of these landing at your Airport!
|
|
I'd rather people didn't say it or any other swear word here. My kids do indeed say it, but that doesn't mean that I approve, nor does it mean that they don't know that it's wrong, because they do. There's no need to hurry up the growing up process (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
Steve's wrong, I feel. Exceptions invalidate a rule, unless they are themselves subject to a subrule (that is, that they are predictable exceptions) and I feel "the exception that proves the rule" is a bit of gentle humor pointing out that (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: (Movie) Mission to Mars
|
|
(...) Carl Sagan observed in an interview about 10 years ago that the "Space Race" was over, and that the U.S. had lost. In the grand scheme, the moon landing, though great propaganda, was less significant than the long-term manned missions of the (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Can you say *** on Lugnet?
|
|
(...) Hey, Todd, it's your web site, so it's your call. (...) Personally? I'm not offended. Most likely, the kids won't be offended, either. However, somewhere out there there's a stick-in-the-mud parent who would be offended, and who would deprive (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) Sorry, anyway..:-) (...) This is from Steve Bliss's message: "I thought that old saying came from English grammar, where every rule has any number of exceptions. The exceptions don't invalidate the rule, they're just exceptions." Since my (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You wouldn't want one of these landing at your Airport!
|
|
(...) I doubt that -- not unless zillions of people are offended and he makes a major repeat problem of it. (...) Kids don't say "ass"? They can say "ass" on television. I think they can even say worse things now, but anyway... Best to let things (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Longest Thread! (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) Well, dunno about most of those, but I'm willing to bet that Brad Justus takes the record for that last one: (URL) getting paid for this --> alladvantage.com Sign up via me, the reference $$ go to fund Lugnet. (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You wouldn't want one of these landing at your Airport!
|
|
Please don't restart this debacle again! Just let it fade away, okay!! (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) if (...) -Shiri (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Longest Thread! (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) Hey, you started it. ;) The most interesting part is that you started it by simply venting very reasonable and specific frustration--but it got general and took on a life of its own. What timing! Hmm, I missed that last .debate's eventual (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
Larry, Man, I really shouldn't get into this: Anyway, here is the start: < rant, babble, etc. (...) I am really trying not to grind my teeth, here, Larry, but you always had a spite against Christianity, which is fine, I have my own spites on issues (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
Skipped most of it but picked on one thing. James Brown wrote: \ (...) No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the basis for christianity is flawed. The basis for capitalism, and the basis for America, are not. Christianity will produce (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) I wasn't actually disagreeing with your supposition, just saying that he does lie, and his lies are destructive (see below). (...) A couple of "non-Hindu's" were burnt alive by a group of Hindu's for doing that very thing last year. One of (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Susan has that answer. (...) On a kibbutz, everything is community property, you personally own nothing. On a Moshav, you cooperate to produce a product/products, and the profit is divided to do with what you will. -John (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes: Is there a label for (...) Aren't those two seperate questions? <GD&R> James (URL) getting paid for this --> alladvantage.com Sign up via me, the reference $$ go to fund Lugnet. (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) I could argue this further, but we'd be getting away from traceable cause and effect, and getting really esoteric. (which is to say, getting into questions like 'Where does the concept of God come from' and 'Does the socio-political effect of (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) I don't think it showed up in _The Number of the Beast_. Then again, I read that one at a fairly young age, and may have been distracted by the illustrations. Steve (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted.
|
|
(...) Are you refering to reading an Ayn Rand book? Personally, I'd rather read an atlas. *Shrug* whatever. Steve (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted.
|
|
(...) [snip examples of stereotyping] (...) I thought that old saying came from English grammar, where every rule has any number of exceptions. The exceptions don't invalidate the rule, they're just exceptions. Personally, I think the 'old phrase' (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
Well we're definitely in "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" territory and I post this mostly in fun, not because I have issues... (...) I think that's STILL begging the question. :-) What's the difference between religion and (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) Some people do interpret "Justice" to imply income redistribution. UUs range almost completely across the political spectrum, and if one had to paint with a broad brush, one would pick up the Liberal brush, but I suspect if more people (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
I'll defer to Erik who is much more knowledgable. As I've said before, being convinced by an argument and being able to reproduce the argument accurately enough to convince others are two different things. Rand convinced me. I may not have all the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
To the reader, in the below quote Selçuk changed my words in a way that I don't agree with. He did it to make a point, I'm not mad that he did it or anything and no apology or retraction is necessary (to forestall any). (...) I don't agree. I think (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) $ (the sign of the dollar) <... and grins> (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) I tried to make it more clear and more universal, as being a former Muslim...:-) Selçuk (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) Wow wow wow! Just as me..:-) The thing that I first realized when I started to go down to the atheistic path was "it doesn't matter if it exist or not, I will be as same, and continue to live as same either way." Sorry the believers, but, (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) Ayn Rand's philosophy is not a derivation, or long list of concepts implying one another out of thin air with "Logic" hopefully proved true at some point in the chain. If you have to refer to Godel for supplemental reading, you don't get (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) well, I was only considering the arena of ideas... (...) Objectivity is usually taken to mean "independent of the observer." Since it's impossible to NOT be an observer of the universe, therefore, objectivity is impossible, goes the argument. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) No, no, no, no. The "H" stands for "Howard". Reference the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father, who art in heaven, Howard be thy name." (-; John (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) Who's John Galt? <ducks> ;) --Karim (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pope Apologies for occasional squiffiness of Catholic Church
|
|
(...) Yeah - reading on from some of those links, you start to see all the things he hasn't apologised for (collusion with Hitler (oops, I've lost), etc). Although it's a good move away from the self-righteous-can't...o-no-wrong feeling I've always (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
Typically, when a person says "don't take this personally" it means that there is indeed something there that might be taken personally, and when a person says "no offense" they are about to say something offensive. Sproat gave you some good advice. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
