To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *9136 (-20)
  Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
 
(...) The humanity is very small part of the universe. Humanity can be good - there are just a few bugs that is all ;-) But I note your lack of confidence in you fellow man to do good - we must start a club. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
 
(...) I think it is all relative - if our universe was the godly creation equivalent of assembling a Duplo kit then perhaps said deity would perhaps not be so deserving of respect. However, respect would certainly be true if our universe and (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: I've said enough...
 
I mostly agree with Dave here... so I snipped most of it. (...) I don't see this as disruptive, not at all. I think if you're going to say "here is the explanation to everything", that a counter argument pointing out that the explanation doesn't (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
 
(...) Ya, Shiri, what Frank said! Thanks for sharing. I don't have the personal experience with the environs of Thoreau and Emerson that Frank does, but you can be sure that this "work within the system" vs. "we need active revolution/active (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Big ugly trolls (was Re: New stuff on my webpage ...)
 
(...) Pawel may well be 'tanned'. However, as he has both a Polish first and second name - I'd expect him no look rather European. I think you have taken too many Kung Fu kicks to the head! (...) Scott A (24 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Big ugly trolls (was Re: New stuff on my webpage ...)
 
(...) Hah! I judge people by their cars. With some heavy ground effects, some nice rims... no, nevermind, not gonna happen. Let the head-stepping commence. C'mon people, think before you post. <<KM>> <I know, I didn't think before this post> (24 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Big ugly trolls (was Re: New stuff on my webpage ...)
 
(...) Richard, a post with this level of brainlessness deserves some serious head- stepping. It's true that a mental image of someone can be very different from the reality. It's amazing that anyone could think that their poorly educated and (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: I've said enough...
 
(...) Me either :^) (...) I think a lot of time is wasted disputing points (eg fossils) rather than more general arguments (eg whether scientific observation of Evolution is based on faith or theory). The misleading distortions of the Creationists (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
 
(...) One of these days I really must read this play, since it is significant to me on many fronts. The play is definitely a commentary on the US, but is also an interesting window into my own faith of Unitarian Universalist as both Thoreau and (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
 
Hey guys, I'm enclosing something I wrote for my English class, just a little food for thought. It was to be based on a play, "The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail", which I actually really liked (which, unfortunately, is a rarity for class reading (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  URLs without trailing slashes
 
(...) counterintuitive relative to most sites is precisely because of the above. (...) "Wrong"? LOL. (...) It's just a different way of naming pages. --Todd (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
 
Sorry, your choices are the counterintuitive ones. 1) I don't know what universe you live in, but in MINE, the bulk of sites on the web translate (URL) to (URL) Member pages are the obvious problem here - you designed them wrong from the start, and (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
 
(...) I don't think it's about being "right" or "wrong." The reason that it's "counterintuitive" relative to the rest of the Internet is that 99.999999% of websites don't let you create non-index webpages that don't use filename extensions. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
 
(...) But as Larry has argued before, whether YOU think you are in the right or not, you are going counterintuitive to the vast majority of the Internet. There ARE times where you should just get off the high horse and do something for the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
 
(...) But why? Is there a load on the server which makes trailing slashless URLs incredibly inefficient? I find that what is in place to stop those slashless URLs from being forwarded is quite a significant irritation (and others have told me that (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Why not Both?
 
(...) I've been thinking along those lines too due to this thread, and recalled a "Raft" by Stephen Baxter in which gravity is much stronger than in our universe. If I remember correctly it was quite a good read, although I'm not a good enough (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
 
(...) You mean there are webservers that don't automatically forward trailing- slashless URLs to trailing-slashed URLs by default, and have a configurable error page? (...) I thought basically all webservers did that automatically. That's why I had (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Why not Both?
 
(...) The Creationist movement is primarily U.S. Protestant driven. Not exclusively, of course. Perhaps it's part of the insular nature of the U.S., especially the interior of the country. Europe has been through this all before. Bruce (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
 
(...) You're right. *Now* I know what I dislike about all of them! Thanks! I have the overweening pride to prefer eternal damnation to groveling to a god that is not worthy of me. (...) It's indeed irrefutable for an all powerful/creator of the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Why not Both?
 
(...) Point taken but to continue splitting this particular hair, I agree with "everything" but not "creation" except inasmuch as the explanation is "god created (the starting point of) the universe", which is fine, since it's no better or worse an (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR