 | | respect... (was Re: Polyamory)
|
|
True to form Larry, you have resorted to personal insults. I think one of your countrymen once said: "When people do not respect us we are sharply offended; yet deep down in his private heart no man much respects himself." I largely agree with that (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More changes at Paypal
|
|
(...) Advertising, sure... good idea, but what do you mean when you say "an IPO"? That they should find some sucker investors to buy stock in a company that doesn't have a revenue model and fund operating expenses out of capital, forever? Or did you (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.services, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) I haven't failed to answer your point, I merely refuse to play your game. Think about the difference. (...) By the way, in order for me to be concerned about what a person thinks of me (in a particular area), I have to have respect for that (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Yep, that about pegged it. If you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent God, you're kidding yourself if you don't think the ENTIRE game is rigged from femtosecond one to the end. Free Will is nothing but an illusion in that case. Personally, (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) OK. That is, I think, the 3rd time you have abjectly failed to answer that point. I would have thought more of you if you had just not replied - rather than adopt this "holier than thou" attitude. I can't say I'm surprised though. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Right, but Tom isn't just saying that God decides in advance which way we'll turn out; Tom is asserting, I believe, that in order for the outcome of an event to be known in advance with absolute certainty, that event must be pre-set in some (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Um-- huh? I don't really understand where that statement came from. I was asking you about proving things in a court, and whether a court's decision represents "proof". If O.J. was found innocent, does that PROVE his innocence? If someone who (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) now (...) that (...) What is the added value of having it? People getting mad at each other? People insulting each other? People ridiculing ones faith / politics etc.? I think it is useless. If you want to debate, go somewhere else. That's my (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
(...) Jumping in here, I'm not sure I agree with (1) or (2). The human species can be defined by both its shared characteristics (we're clever monkeys that walk around and grab things) and the variety in our population (both genetic and cultural). (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) I'm not going to play yours though, or at least I'm going to try very hard not to. Too disruptive. If someone else wants to try, they are free to give it a go if they like, but I see it as a waste of effort. Me, I've got better uses for my (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Well, I can't speak for others, but here is one take on it. (and I haven't thought this through overly much, so it may have holes...) I don't see a contradiction. If I choose to (X), or to not (X), how does God knowing ahead of time which I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Ask Suz why -- she was the one who put them there. --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
But according to others in this group, man doesn't HAVE free will - God knows everything anyone will do from cradle to grave - where is the free will in that? (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) This view is both aesthetically pleasing and consistent with much medieval doctrine. That is, man is capable of embracing salvation or damnation by his own actions. An infant starts as neither good nor evil but able to succumb to temptation (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) <snippage for the purpose of emphasis, also because I'm coming in late, and am (bluntly) too lazy to hunt up the argument to date and comment in a forward-moving way> I'm not sure about other flavours of christianity, but I know that the RC (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) And I ask, which is a better view of humankind? Personally, I would tend to think that Christianity is a pessimist's view, if it says man is essentially evil. No thanks. -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Interesting - I was thinking of using the same analogy. :-) Two big differences though - Murder is a crime giving death, and O.J. denied it. Christ's resurrection gives life to whomever accepts him, and not only did he "admit it" afterwards, (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
In response to "Kevin Wilson" <kwilson_tccs@compuserve.com> in message news:G5sE42.BEG@lugnet.com... Kevin, (...) I appreciate your effort at understanding my position. That's a tall order. I'll try to be as clear as possible, but to do that I'll (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
You forgot one moderating method: Use the password checker, and only accept messages which passes a certain limit of security (or a modified version of the checker, with a specialized dictionary). Seriously, if you have a group with 'free speech', (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I understand your intent and accept your apology, but you must recognize that a person who does not share your views of Christianity is apt to feel insulted at being called blind. Many among us have duly considered the questions of Faith and (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) We can't say which is more important, because Christ and His message are integral parts of each other. If I say God is love and you ask me which is more important, God or love, how can I answer? Can an atheist lead a moral life? Certainly. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) And there are many people who argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Just as valueless an argument. (...) These are your interpretations. (...) Well they interpret it differently, go argue that with them. (...) Not according to (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I think there is some overflow from .debate into other groups. I can't absolutely put my finger on it (in part because I realize that in part the Larry vs. Scott shouting match may have started outside of .debate, but I certainly see linkage (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I apologize if you were offended - my intent was not to be insulting. If I see someone walking into a nuclear reactor, I presume that they are doing so "blindly", and try to warn them of the danger - they can't see the radiation that's killing (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Change? Somewhat verbose...
|
|
There's been an informal moratorium on shouting the past couple of days during which we've examined the benefits and shortcomings of the .debate group. Generally, it seems, we're agreed that .debate should continue to exist, but we're unsure of the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) What is the added value to those of you who want .debate gone? I can completely understand not valuing the presense of debate, even I duck out now and then when I'm busy. But I don't get the motive behind the suggestion that it should be gone. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Thanx Tom, I see your point. I think sometimes it has to do with reading something in the "tone" in which it was written. I think we all sometimes assign a "tone" to a post, in our own minds as we read it, that might not accurately reflect the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) I think the general truth is probably that it does both. You have open a richer body of choices and experiences, but you do also lose some things. That may include tougher compromises. Many were discussed, but they were hypothetical. The (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) OK Larry. I'll play your game again. Let's revist this message: (URL) this text: =+= The point I was making about rights concerned political freedoms. For example - here in the UK one could always choose to be, say, a communist. Can you say (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
To all, I might as well thorw a comment into the fray here..... (...) I gave up on debate about a year ago now, simply because Icould not stand it anymore. There is a lot of hostile people around, that seem to thrive in debate, and not anywhere else (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Larry, you really are a conceited. I'm happy for you to refer to me however you want - as I am pretty thick skinned. The positions I adopt are, often, more about educating myself than spamming this group with my philosophy on life, the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
Bill Farkas wrote: <HUGE snip> (...) Bill, the only real problem I have with you is that when others defend, you call it whining, when you defend, it's Defending. Pot. Kettle. Black. Fess up to either both sides (including YOU) as whining or (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) How about the following? (to be added to the TOS?) *Only members can start new threads in .debate, or .market. No new tech stuff required, just include your Lugnet member number in your sig. If you forget, someone will remind you. If you try (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I took it as if you were accusing me of what you stated above. Again, I was only pointing out the obvious differences - which is why they remain Catholic and others don't become Catholic. Some people like one and some the other. I wasn't (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
(...) Steve can speak for himself but I think he's responding to me. I've said that I had in the past foundered on trying to derive a justification for natural rights from reasoning about how animals do things and about what evolution has crafted. I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree. I think it is possible to involve Christianity in the debates without the thread quickly heading for the gutter. But the reality is that the way threads go in .debate, the visibility of Christianity is what I'm complaining about. The (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well, my post seems to have shut down some of the pointless shouting, and there seems to be some interesting debate starting to creep from under the rocks it dove for cover behind... I'm still going to let it chill for a while and see if this (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I assume you mean "informally" in that for example, Frank sends me a note telling me to cool it... or vice versa. (because if you mean formally we're back to a moderator/council/review thingie) I think that's a good idea. More... I think it (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Yes, I think I agree with you on this. Life is a series of choices. The question that has bearing may be whether polyamory tends to give you richer choices or tends to make you make harder compromises. That would be a metric I'd judge it by, (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Yup, you're right. My bad. Doesn't make my point any less valid, though. I'll stick around like a good little boy, to see if anyone wants to refute it, or debate it. James (BTW, that looked a lot like a snipe, Lar. Albiet a friendly one. :) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well, I just went through the 24 posts that make up this thread at the time that I noticed it. Hmmm. I've been disappointed with the debates of late too, and maybe I'm partly to blame, but I think it's really only the past couple months that (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) (nitpick) Some christians. I'm not preaching, and I can't be the only christian who's stearing clear. (...) I'm not sure if I'm one of the folks you're talking about, but I've certainly dropped .debate from my reading. It's gone way downhill (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Hmm. Something that I've noticed for a while not, but not cared enough to mention before this is... The skip filter only works on the highest level, and goes away as soon as I drill down into a sup-group. (ie: I have .debate filtered out, but (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
Before leaping in to this part of the discussion, Steve, let me see if I have understood your point correctly: "Homosexual sex cannot naturally result in progeny, therefore it is immoral." Is that a correct restatement of your argument? If not, can (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Ya, the default is to omit .off-topic and .admin noise: (URL) and limiting .debate posts from showing in any search (except explicitly (...) That would be a bit trickier but might come almost for free since it already filters out groups not in (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) Certainly. The recipient of a bribe, for example. However, there's a possible landmine in your question: define "by definition immoral" :-) (...) Which principles, yours or theirs or ??? Kevin (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) Stipulated for the sake of argument that this is so, how can anyone tell which of the current brands of christianity are closest to Christian Morality - the "real thing"? What is that core which has never (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont) - basic assumptions
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) it's (...) Let me see if I can state some of mine. (I will undoubtedly miss some). SOme are probably irrelevant to this discussion too. I don't want to try and identify differences without you having the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Thanks for the restate. Yes, coughcough was just who I was referring to. Restated that way, I agree 100%. ++Lar (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
In response to "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> in message news:G5qotE.M0q@lugnet.com... Larry, I appreciate the interaction you've provided. Before going any further, I'm glad that you're not a relativist (which means, in turn, that you (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well that could be handled by having two groups. One for conducting auction business (soliciting bids) and one for asking questions about auctions. Then you just TOS quickly anyone who regularly manages to "announce" their auction in the Q&A (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) they (...) Mmm. That'll teach me to go around not qualifying my statements. Clearly, I don't think that the rules should be mutated too much to encourage everyone (coughMatthewMoultoncough) to join up- on the other hand, if subtle changes to (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree, I'd be sad to see it go. But what I'm really sad is that as far as I'm concerned, it's gone now. A year ago I really enjoyed .debate. The past few months, the time for a thread to deteriorate into one of the two recurring shouting (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
Call me elitist... (and I don't think I'm 100% disagreeing) (...) I'm not. That is, I'm not for enabling *everyone* to be a member. There are certain people I would be happy to see not join, heck, not even participate here. There are only a handful (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) That's a good point. It hadn't occurred to me because I don't usually get ensnared by a debate until it's already in .debate! Maybe we should have off-topic.debate.pure and off-topic.debate.spill. 8^) Dave! (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) <puts facilitator hat on> No no... post your ideas, no matter how wacky, as long as they haven't been posted yet. That's brainstorming. Even if you know there is a flaw in idea E1 and E2 of yours, and in L1 and L2 of mine, someone may come up (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Actually, those two are great ideas, IMHO. I wonder how many people that aren't members post updates about their LEGO eBay auctions on Lugnet, and never give back to the upkeep of Lugnet... I hadn't ever thought of that before. And the admin (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Hear, hear! Though I don't expect that I'll switch to Libertarianism or Christianity any time soon, I have learned a good deal about those two views. That, for me, is the primary reason for participating in .debate (that, and getting the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) The recent history of .debate is certainly that the types of shouting matches have little chance of being productive, however, I will point out that back some time ago, the "Libertarian" debate DID have real productivity. It DID change (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well, as soon as I can come up with an idea that I myself can't pick apart on 1000 levels, I will. Unfortunately, thus far I've been unsuccessful... (...) Yeah, but that's the default way of "winning" an argument or flamewar on Usenet. :D (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:>>Hey, that's a good idea- if you pay to become a Lugnet member, you're allowed (...) I'm not yet a member (mainly because most of my posting has been to OT rather than LEGO-specific contributions), (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Personally, I come and go. I lose interest in some debates, and gain interest in others. Occasionally I'll see something that really does peak my interest, and other times, I just feel like debating. As to whether it's actually a waste of (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I wasn't clear enough. I was looking for some brainstorming on possible solutions first before we trotted out the sharpened knives to rip holes in the ideas. All the ones i posted were dreamt up in about 5 minutes total to act as thought (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
I *said* they had flaws and were thought starters... so you'll see a smiley behind every one of my responses, I'm trying to be funny in them. I suggest you post some ideas of your own, I'm trying to get some brainstorming going... (...) Why not? (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) A good point, though the Borgias kinda skirted that one. :-) (...) Absolutely. (...) The general level of education was so low, yes, there was a fear they wouldn't understand what they were reading. But there was also an implied threat to the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Only post via the web interface? NO THANKS. I've posted maybe a total of 5 times via the web interface (and only because I was in a training class, not on any of my computers). Broken. (...) Then people would just watch the branches to make (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Well, geez, Bruce.. who'd you expect him to root for? By the way, in the NFL, he likes the Saints. ++Lar (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Hey, that's a good idea- if you pay to become a Lugnet member, you're allowed to voice your opinions. Sorry, Larry, I can't agree with that. (...) ...giving an automatic "last word" to the person who squeaks in under the post limit. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) Tom, you are 100% correct. Wearing clothing is "artificial," but it certainly has an effect on evolution. Going to the doctor is "artificial," but unquestionably allows certain individuals to pass on their genes, when they might not otherwise (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I'll take some culpability here, I'm a sucker for trying to show up the clueless, and no matter how many times I swear it off, it's just too tempting... he's just so cluelessly annoying when he wants to be. (but he CAN be a good contributor (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) This brings up a larger argument - are these changes "artificial"? I contend they are not. Evolution can come in many forms, and we are simply accelerating it with our own discoveries. If those changes are created by humans, I contend they are (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
A few margin notes to chew on... (...) Another reason was to prevent the establishment of a papal bloodline as a competing ruling lineage. (...) As well as heretical Arabs, of course. 8^) (...) Interestingly, there is extant a copy of a letter from (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree with some of the philosophies about needing a place for off-topic things to spill, and needing a seperate place for them, etc, but I have to admit that I'm starting to wonder if there might not be a need to somehow restrict the posting (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
While I think many of the posts have been somewhat useless (not even entertaining!), there are still many posts that either make me think, or entertain me, so I'm all for keeping the group around. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
Larry, To recap, I had written: (...) You replied: (...) And I responded: (...) Finally, you clarified and said: (...) I'm not sure that's true, for one (In what sense do you mean "subject to the same genetic rules?"), but it's also irrelevant (more (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
Mr. Powell, Thanks for your feedback. You responded to part of what I had said as follows: (...) No, I'm not saying that at all in the sense in which you are using the term "marriage". I was not thinking of marriage in the legal sense, but in the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
Kevin, (...) Well, you know more about my basic assumptions, I think, than I do about yours. If you care to take a moment to state the differences, as you understand them, perhaps we could build a bridge or two. Also, I think it's rare that any one (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I didn't say that you did - I was just pointing out the silliness of the whole situation. (...) A knowledge of history makes me feel enlightened. (...) I think you have an extremely narrow definition of "Biblical Christianity" not shared by (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Uselessness of .debate
|
|
Well, after another few weeks of .debate, I'm really really thinking I'm just going to abandon it, and honestly, more and more, I'm feeling it's a waste of Lugnet resources to have it. There are two constantly recurring shouting matches: - Scott vs (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) When you actually manage to coherently make a point that hasn't already been answered in depth, do let us all know, won't you? I won't be holding my breath. All the points I could glean from your ramblings have been answered. Pity you can't (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
<topped> (...) <tailed> Indeed. If you can not answer my points... there is no point. If you ever manage to get a response together, I'll re-enter this discussion with you. If you need me to explain myself further, perhaps I can draw you a picture - (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) To have this charge come from you, the premier time waster of the entire .debate group, as everyone knows, is so laughable as to be beneath any further response. (...) We've had this discussion before, I am not going to reply to every snipe (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
You are wasting my time Larry. Go back and reply to my full text - do not conveniently delete text to suite _your_ point. This discussion is about a point I raised - do me the decency of answering it, rather than raising issues of your own - or (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
You are wasting my time Larry. Go back and reply to my full text - do not conveniently delete text to suite _your_ point. This discussion is about a point I raised - do me the decency of answering it, rather than raising issues of your own - or (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
SRC wrote in message ... (...) One interesting thing about reading .debate is you sure see the "other" side of other people on here. Feh! Kevin (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Ah. As I suspected. Our definitions of 'prove' differ. To take a rather contravertial case, did O.J. Simpson commit murder? Both sides presented their cases, and O.J. won. Does that prove that he didn't commit murder? Perhaps he 'proved' it to (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
(...) Feel free to call me Lar or Larry. (...) No, I don't think this is necessarily true (whether others agree with it or not). I am not a moral relativist. I think there is an objective morality that is proper and good for humans to embrace. I've (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) If you can't grasp the distinction here, there's not much hope (...) Nope. (...) Nope. Government, in view of its great competitive advantage (it *makes* the rules) must be tightly constrained. (...) Yes, but in cases where there is a public X (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Which you never did answer, really. A one line answer was all that was required, but after about 5 tries, I finally dragged out of you that you're some kind of Civil, but not what kind. See, when I refuse to do homework for you, it's avoiding (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) ie. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Witnesses describe what they have experienced and any corroborating (or contradictory) physical evidence is examined, etc. Theoretically I could present my "Case for Christ" to you, but while it's proven as far (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G5pyGI.Dss@lugnet.com... (...) my (...) usage. Well, there was that time you were curious about my doctortate. (...) fiat (...) Not my point Larry. However, you are still wrong. Much (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G5oq6B.9Hv@lugnet.com... (...) more (...) able (...) including (...) including (...) in (...) governments. Why? Why should public/private be different? Do they not operate in the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) When I read this: In today's general audience address, the Pope said: "All the righteous on earth, even those who do not know Christ and his Church and who, under the influence of grace, seek God with a sincere heart, are ... called to build (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) I'm genuinely flattered that you think that. However it's not true. It only takes one good debater (someone who knows how to think critically and who doesn't just *snipe*) to debate me, not an entire team. Perhaps you're starting to feel (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) You have never done it for me in the past, so "again" is an incorrect usage. The US has a constitution, which trumps individual laws. Laws have to theoretically be voted on separately, not just put in place by ministers subject to votes of (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message news:3A3BB6C5.A05F09...faq.com... (...) is your (...) more (...) able (...) including (...) way. (...) position. I (...) really (...) to explain (...) already done (...) It is also not clear (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G5oqA2.9qK@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) freedom. (1) (...) you (...) I'm not going to do your homework for you again. If you are interested in my point - go find it. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Here's what I found, I believe this is what the radio program was referring to: (URL) particular, the second paragraph. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but that's what all the hallaballoo is about. Bill (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) But I also hinted at the fact that Constantine kept the old practices under new names, which was a round about way of saying what you said in the first part of the above statement. (...) I wasn't making any such statements, just pointing out (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) That's exactly the stance Unitarians took. Frank (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
