 | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | (...) I in no way, shape, or form was lumping you in with Scott. I would never do that to you, Scott is in a class all by himself. (...) Retract away, Dave! (see, I can pull a ++Lar too!) Scott seems to want to state that a predominantly white male (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Nice! Anyone can use Dave! in a sentence--the real art comes in making it appear that my ! naturally wound up at the end! (...) Well, in that case, you're a big silly doofus-head. See? I can be inflammatory, too! 8^) (I think I've over-stepped (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) That comment was bang on, as they say in the UK. Nicely worded, Dave! (...) Yes, what is it with you today? First the whole stoking a fire under the NEA without regard to which one, then this inflammatory thing? I'm burning to know what is (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Um, that's not a Lar (0) I don't think, as while there ARE Doubting Thomases (1) I don't know of any Retracting Daves (2). 0 - much less a ++Lar 1 - prominent Figures of Speech 2 - and the image there is one I'd just rather not get into, er, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) So where do Dave and I differ on this? How is there a class is difference between our views? (...) Where did I say that? Where? I think they are less likely too. I think any ideas they would have would be treated very sceptically. But I do not (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
