Debate : 13371


Off-Topic / Debate / 13371

Thank you, Britain. —Larry Pieniazek

From: (URL) Blair: "if they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000 does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced?" From: (URL) one of the toughest warnings yet to the Taliban from a Western leader, Blair said there could be no compromise (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Britain. —Ross Crawford

(...) Also: "Science can't make that choice for us, only the moral power of a world acting as a community can." But then from the same article: "This is a battle with only one outcome: our victory, not theirs," A rather naive view of battle. and: (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Britain. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I addressed that in another post (it is deep in the "War" war). Lord Robertson is either fooled by faked evidence, in on the gag, or the evidence does actualy exist. (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Britain. —Scott Arthur

(...) Well, that's good enough for me... lets bomb them! (not). What about the "evidence" NATO had when it bombed the Chinese embassy? Was it not duff? What about the "evidence" the USA had when it bombed Sudan? Was it not duff? See: (URL) A (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Britain. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Thanks for the snide comment but which of those three choices were you going with? Calling him a failed politician isn't an answer either. Pick one of the above or show that I omitted one possibility and let me know what it is? (...) This was (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Britain. —Scott Arthur

(...) Why not? (...) The fact that the evidence which is been presented is all circumstantial, very simplistic in nature and collected by agencies who have failed in the past. When I read the evidence, I have to ask myself why the USA was not on a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Britain. —Scott Arthur

(...) Well can you? Over the weekend that has been used as an example of how things can go wrong. Can you justify your words? (...) Perhaps *I* did not, but *you* did say this: "I would indeed *like* this to be a real war (...) , because I see one (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Can Larry Justify These Ones? Let's see! —Scott Arthur

(...) For the 3rd time : Can you justify this in any way? (...) Well? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Can Larry Justify These Ones? Let's see! —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Justify that I'm not convinced of something? How am I supposed to do that, exactly? Get a grip on yourself and your frothing. (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Can Larry Justify These Ones? Let's see! —Scott Arthur

(...) Tell us what your basis for that opinion is. (...) I have a firm grip on reality. I'm not so sure you do. I'm not the only one who thinks that either. Scott A (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

ScottFroth(tm) answered —Larry Pieniazek

(...) My basis for "not being convinced that we didn't get snookered" is lingering doubt that maybe, just maybe, bin Laden actually *was* the owner or part owner of that plant through some twisted chain, whether or not it was completely harmless or (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Scott Arthur

(...) Nothing tangible then? (...) Don't be a fool. The truth is not about a popularity contest. Scott A (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I reminded readers it was a hunch, then gave my justification for my hunch, but you are still not satisfied. Whatever. Are we going to replay the statistics/hunch argument again but with even less basis? You have more fun bludgeoning than (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Scott Arthur

(...) The fact is Larry a lot of people died because of that action. I have seen so credible report which supports it. But still you pour cold water on it, but yet you are willing to accept the word of a politician on similar issues. Scott A (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Scott Arthur

(...) I appear to have hit a nerve. Does the truth hurt so much? Scott A (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Larry Pieniazek

(...) "hit a nerve"?? Hardly. You get on my nerves, it is true, and your allegations have precipitated a call for action on my part. (...) I can see why you'd ask this question since you have so little acquaintance with it, but I can assure you, the (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Ok, show me where I have lied? —Scott Arthur

(...) Ok, show me where I have lied? Not where I have gotten it wrong. Not where I have overreacted. Show me where I have lied. Scott A (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise. —Scott Arthur

(...) Larry you are going to have to answer this one, or withdraw your comment and apologise unreservedly to me on this forum. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise. —Scott Arthur

(...) *Sigh* Still no answer. Scott A (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

I can't stand not to see my name in lights (was: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise.) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Take the hint. Chris (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: I can't stand not to see my name in lights (was: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise.) —Scott Arthur

(...) hint (INDIRECT STATEMENT) noun [C] a statement or action which expresses indirectly what a person thinks or wants and which allows another person to take no notice of it without causing offence So what is being hinted at? Is he hinting he (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: I can't stand not to see my name in lights (was: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise.) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Maybe I should have said get a clue, but that seemed rude. He has hinted to you (by his silence) (end even directly stated it, for that matter) that he isn't going to be baited into further justifying his assertion that you're a liar. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: I can't stand not to see my name in lights (was: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise.) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Sorry for undercutting your well crafted (and ultimately correct) argument by answering, just now. ++Lar (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: I can't stand not to see my name in lights (was: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise.) —Scott Arthur

(...) Thanks for that Larry. I disagree with you. Chris disagrees with you. Perhaps you can now apologise and this will draw to a close? Scott A (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) The more people that come to that conclusion the better as far as I am concerned. (...) I'm doing it in the rather vain hope that he will sort the mess out. I like to think that if I were in his shoes I would have sorted it either way. Scott (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —David Eaton

(...) Ok, here's what I don't get. Better to what end? What happens when everyone comes to that conclusion? Do you get a prize? Does Larry get to no longer debate? Does the name calling stop? Why is it so phenomenally important that each of you (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

The Truth at Last!!! (re: The Larry P. /Scott A. Show) —Richard Marchetti

Hey Y'all: I know it was wrong to do, and I feel really bad about it (HONESTLY!), but Larry P. and Scott A. are just fake personas I have occasionally been assuming to amuse myself online here in off-topic.debate. By a devilishly intricate means of (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Truth at Last!!! (re: The Larry P. /Scott A. Show) —Matthew Gerber

(...) TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! 8?) Matt (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Truth at Last!!! (re: The Larry P. /Scott A. Show) —Scott Arthur

Richard, Have you been cashing cheques in my name too? Scott A (The real one) (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) Maybe because I think what he has done is wrong? Maybe I think that by not sorting the situation that is worse? Maybe I think he should apoligaise? Maybe he will? Who knows? Who cares? Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —David Eaton

(...) That's not what I asked. I *KNOW* you think he should apoligaise. I *KNOW* why *YOU'RE* doing it. You're way too proud to bother giving it up. You're addicted to the idea that you'll win. But that's not what I asked. I asked why is it better (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Ban one of us. Do the poll I suggested. I have my preference as to which, but would support a democratic outcome either way. I have my honor, too, so would abide without a need for administrative intervention to enforce it. And then, once that (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —David Eaton

(...) As I'm sure you'd expect, I don't think the poll would be done as proposed. I think it's an all-or-nothing type deal. I think given the choices, I'd rank them as: 1. Ban neither of you 2. Ban both of you 3. Ban Scott 4. Ban Larry If I were (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Dave Low

(...) How about 1a. Ban both of them from replying to each other (at least as a trial measure)? Or, at least, a moratorium on the codependent "he's a liar, he's a squirmer" drivel... --DaveL (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) Perhaps there should be a "poll of polls". :) (...) Why not just institute basic formal debating rules? What is there to be lost by doing that? Scott A (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Dave Schuler

(...) The reason, fairly obviously, is that there are only two real offenders whose behavior requires the formal implementation of formal rules. Larry and you both contribute useful points to some debates, but far more often than not, your (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) So, if we had rules how would things get worse? Say we had a rule like: "No name calling permitted" - why would that be bad? Do you feel you have to retain the right to call me a "rhinoceros"{1} from time-to-time? Scott A {1} I rather like the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Dave Schuler

(...) Without calling into question your ability to read, I am obliged to point out that I did not, in fact, call you a rhinoceros. Further, I am indeed entitled to call you anything I wish to call you, barring slander. If you feel slandered by your (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Rhinos —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think it is equally important to point out that Scott did not say you did, in fact, call him one Dave! He merely inquired if you wished to retain that right (if in future you decided you felt you needed to). Seems a reasonable question to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rhinos —Dave Schuler

(...) On further reflection, I see that you are correct, although I further assert that I did not claim that Scott accused me of calling him a rhinoceros; I merely asserted that I had not thus far called him one. Regardless, my apologies to him for (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rhinos —Scott Arthur

(...) Myself and all rhinos graciously accept your apology. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

More Shamelessly Insisting I Get What I Want (was Re: Larry's behaviour) —Richard Marchetti

Say Dave!, could you stop wasting time on this issue and send me that clones.zip, dammit!!! =oP -- Hop-Frog (hopping mad) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More Shamelessly Insisting I Get What I Want (was Re: Larry's behaviour) —Dave Schuler

(...) Uh-oh! I sent you this email on the 22nd: (...) When I didn't get a response, I figured: a) You were snubbing me b) You were rendering a really cool model with the new elements and couldn't be bothered with an email c) Had been abducted by (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) The ones near us had their last calf a year or so ago now (they are now too old to safely have any more). The newborn calves are dream. Their feet are huge, they look like they could never lift them. As the calves get older they tend to (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) No. (...) Good point. (...) The ones near us had their last calf a year or so ago now (they are now too old to safely have any more). The newborn calves are dream. Their feet are huge, they look like they could never lift them. As the calves (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rules —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I don't think formal debating rules will work, here. The set I'm familiar with are too formal (8 minutes for argument, 8 minutes for response, 4 minutes for rebuttal, 4 minutes for rebuttal response) since they're structured for face to face (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: rules —Scott Arthur

(...) Key word "basic". (...) There are more than one version of debating rules. I am sure ones could be made which would suit this forum better than those which you mention. Do you think otherwise? (...) Are there any others which you think won't (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: rules —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes. These are all good rules as far as I am concerned. They're not aimed at you, they're aimed at bad behaviours. Love the sinner, hate the sin. But do go ahead and post some proposed rules too, you can direct them at things you (and others) (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: rules —Scott Arthur

(...) No. It will end in bickering. (...) I don't agree with you on that. Scott A (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: rules —David Eaton

(...) Agreed. Although I don't see any way to enforce such rules, I fully agree that trying to abide by them would make things a bit better. Rule 1: (...) I like that enough. Rule 2: (...) Agree. "Close to it" being hard to define, but in general, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: rules —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No frigging way. You're a great big rhinocerous for even suggesting that these debates are not absolute life and death, and I "mark territory" in your general direction. My second will be contacting your second. Bring your wet noodles. (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: rules —Scott Arthur

(...) I don't. People can (and do) get this wrong. If anyone wants to take an issue to debate, let them move it there. It’s no big deal. People should be able to reply to any message in any *appropriate* group. (...) For rules 2 & 3. I think there (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —David Eaton

(...) That's certainly the option I'd choose, though from a technical standpoint the most difficult to enforce. Plus the fact that I would tack on the addendum "ban each one from talking about the other"; as I've seen both mention the other in (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) Like I said yesterday, I did try that last week: (URL) A (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

A modest proposal —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'll give you a different proposal... I'll forego replying to ANY post of Scott's, relevant or not, if everyone else does too... and I'll hew to that just as long as everyone else can hold out too. As soon as some regular slips up, (we'll (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal —David Eaton

(...) Pencil out the "relevant or not" and change "ANY" to "any irrelevant", and it's a done deal. From my perspective. But just because you abused your privalages doesn't mean we should all suffer for it. The only reason I don't think everyone (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Who judges relevancy? Scott thinks every one of his posts is relevant, presumably. No, this is a better proposal because it removes human error. (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal —David Eaton

(...) The reader, obviously. I don't think you think "what, no answer?" is a particularly relevant post. Unless you're saying you can't judge relevancy for yourself. I think you can, but you choose not to. Maybe I'm wrong? And since your proposal (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm pretty good at ignoring those, actually. YCLIU. (...) Define "reasonably well". How is 7-10%? That's my current track record (in a small enough moving average). I think ignoring 90-93% of irrelevance is a pretty good approximation of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal —Scott Arthur

(...) Did you ever think that getting an answer from you was not the only aim? (...) It is my view that apart from the "what no answer" type posts you only answer the useless ones – i.e. the ones where you can score a cheap point. When I do make a (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

A modest proposal from a modest person —Scott Arthur

(...) I'll give you a different proposal... I'll forego replying to ANY post of Larry's, relevant or not, if everyone else does too... and I'll hew to that just as long as everyone else can hold out too. As soon as some regular slips up, (we'll (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Fair enough. In fact why don't we take turns. Each time someone else slips up it's the other one's turn not to get replied to by the group. (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —Larry Pieniazek

(...) In fact, the more I think about this, the more I like it. It gives a very strong incentive NOT to post irrelevant things, and instead to post things that are so compelling that people want to reply to them. As long as I'm the one "in the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —David Eaton

(...) It's really a rather good idea actually... A good bend on the original proposal, though as usual it's the implimentation that's difficult. As more of an aside, anyone familiar with perlmonks? They've developed quite a good system for behavior (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The person who posted or the person who is ranking? (...) How does this differ from Slashdot ratings (which I admit I have not closely perused the mechanics of)??? It sounds kind of similar. (...) Unless you can find some other Dave, yes. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —David Eaton

(...) Yes. If JimmyBob makes a post and JoeLuke votes the post as bad, JimmyBob's rank has a 1/4 chance to go down, and JoeLuke's rank has a 1/4 chance to go up. If JoeLuke votes JimmyBob's post as good, both their ranks have respective 1/4 chances (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —Ross Crawford

(...) Slashdot uses a system called "karma", and it is described in a little detail here (URL) it seems to work pretty well, but it's a fairly complex system - and the hassle involved in implementation may be more trouble than it's worth for a (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Is off-topic.debate a competition? —Ed Jones

(...) Hmm... the hockey analogy seems to bring the whole issue home. It seems that for Larry, debate is not about discussion, its about WINNING the debate. Its not about learning something new, its about supressing/discrediting the opposing (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is off-topic.debate a competition? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I don't see this comment as useful. Or true either, for that matter. In fact most of your comments lately have seemed to be trying to carry the notion forward that all I want to do is insult others. That's just flat out false and my record (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is off-topic.debate a competition? —Ross Crawford

(...) Where did this come from? Sure, Larry like to win, don't we all? And there's probably an element of that here, too, but I personally think a large percentage of what he posts here (except when personal comments are involved) is *very* (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —Dave Low

(...) I think it's got potential, although as you said here: (URL) dross itself is pretty distracting. Maybe we can keep a record of Debate RhinO Poop Posted In this News Group -- too many DROPPINGs and you spend some extra time in the sin-bin (Aus (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —Scott Arthur

(...) You are starting to sound desperate. Scott A (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) I have "won". The moment Larry called me a liar without basis I "won". (...) I would have thought that was clear. (...) See: (URL)If your opinion is really a worthwhile one, then (...) I do not hate anyone (honest). I do not want anyone to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) *sigh* Still no reading comprehension. You got all the apology you're going to get. However, if it will make you shut up, here's an example of a lie: "the LP is a White Man's Club" If you had retracted that statement after it was shown to be (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Oops. I take back what I just wrote. (...) But Larry, you know it won't. (...) I disagree. (I also disagree with Scott's assertion about the LP.) An organization coule be essentially a "white man's club" and still have a token black lady as a (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise. —Scott Arthur

(...) "the LP is a White Man's Club" was caricature which is now being taken out of context. I know that. Larry knows that. When I used the phrase I was questioned on the race issue. I was able to rapidly find two instances where the LP’s view on (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

One day my name will be in lights! —Scott Arthur

(...) This is what Larry does not get. I could be wrong by calling the LP a WMC (by his interpretation of the meaning of WMC). The way to solve that is show why I am wrong. To say I am a liar, Larry would 1st have to show (by his interpretation of (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No. Had Scott said "the LP is disproportionately skewed demographically to males and caucasians" that would be one thing. It's even something I've said myself in the past, along with other observations about makeup. But to say it is a "White (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise. —Scott Arthur

(...) Or it could mean that it is an organisation which fronted by a "white" guy. You are squirming, and you know it. (...) Did you not say "I count noses"? (...) I think we all have "something to worry about". ;) (...) What should I do then? Start (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise. —Dave Schuler

(...) From WildNet Africa - The Virtual Rhino Park (URL) the dominant male scent marks the territory, spraying his urine along boundaries and paths, and scattering his dung after defecating at middens. Subordinate males bellow and shriek loudly when (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise. —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Dave!, you big oaf, you made me shoot soda out of my nose. Don't DO that without warning me first! ;) best LFB (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Is Larry a liar? —Scott Arthur

Lets take a look at this. My words. (...) Here are your words from a post in .au: ==+== Go ahead. Take it apart. Keep it out of .trains though, please, so maybe Michael can get his question answered. ==+== In your goading, you say "Keep it out of (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise. —Scott Arthur

(...) ie. None. (...) Do you really think that is what I meant? You are a bigger fool than I thought. Much bigger. As I have said before, I think the LP is disproportionately white. I think it is overwhelming white. As I have asked before, do you (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise. —Maggie Cambron

(...) Hey guys! Did'ja happen to notice the makeup of the participants of Lugnet, and in particular those who regularly post to .debate? Gosh, it looks to me as though the demographics are quite similar to those of the LP, age and concomitant (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: LP????? (was: debatably a debate) —Ross Crawford

(...) as (...) LP????? Larry Pieniazek? Loud Party? Long Play(ing record)? ROSCO (Laugh, Please!!!) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise. —Dave Schuler

(...) Yeah! Who let that woman in here in the first place? Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise. —Scott Arthur

(...) I am a libertarian. I can prove it: (URL) A FUT lugnet.off-topic.fun (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Lawrence Wilkes

"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GKzyrx.D4z@lugnet.com... (...) What about a fight to the death? Via webcam of course. Or better still Ban lugnet.off-topic.debate, so we can get back to discussing Lego. regards (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The argument has been made in the past that having .debate as a place to send off topic debates is good for the rest of LUGNET. If you want to discuss LEGO, do so. Nothing is stopping you, nothing is making you post here, and posts here do not (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Dave Schuler

(...) Hear, hear! Bionicle has very little to do with LEGO, but it's granted its own on-topic posting group. OT.Debate need not be read by anyone not wishing to do so. Dave! (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Lawrence Wilkes

"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GL00zG.IEF@lugnet.com... (...) Lighten up. I should have put a smiley on it Oh, and my vote is no one should be banned. No one forces anyone to read or reply to what is posted here. (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Tom Stangl

(...) Yes, and once you add annoying twits to your Kill filter, this group is a much nicer read. I've had a much nicer time in this group since adding someone to my Kill filter last week. (...) Unfortunately, the "entertainment" often sinks to the (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Scott Arthur

(...) Ignorance is bliss. :) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Doubt he'll see that. Or this. I think we *both* made his kill file. (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Scott Arthur

(...) Did I ever tell you a little story I heard about Tom? It goes like this ... :) Scott A (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Scott Arthur

(...) This not true Larry. Where did I say that? I rejected the whole foolish notion - not its outcome. If I did take part, I would "abide by such an outcome". But I am not, so this is not an issue. Perhaps you could run alone: Vote 1) Larry Stays (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

What, no answer? —Scott Arthur

(...) What, no answer? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —David Eaton

(...) I doubt most o-t-debators would choose seriously from any of the above options other than the 3rd, though maybe that's just me. I can't see actually wanting to ban either of you based on your previous content. A poll to the first set of (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Ed "Boxer" Jones

(...) I'd disagree on this one. I'd say his largest fault is his tendency to attack a person's stature rather than defend his position or respond to theirs. The title of this sub-thread is a case in point. He has done the same to others and me. (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —David Eaton

(...) Ah-- a good summary point I'd missed. Perhaps a "Plays Well" category in which Larry gets a rather low score. Each, actually, but perhaps moreso Larry as he's often been the one to bring issues like this into the limelight as actual topics of (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —James Brown

(...) <snip> Nice analysis, Dave. Indeed, I wouldn't want any of the options listed; my preference is for each to ignore the other, but that's beyond my power (and apparantly, their power). Lacking my favorite choice, I have pretty much chosen to (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Pedro Silva

(...) (snipped) (...) (snipped) ROTFL! They were almost reduced to the status of "Pokemon" playing cards! Anyway, I do not know these two guys long enough to make such a deep analysis of their debating skills, so I won't. However, I partially agree (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —David Eaton

(...) You do not know the temptation I resisted in heading that post with something along the lines of "Brand new O-T-Debator cards! Collect them all! Trade 'em with your friends! Or compete head-to-head on your own non-Lego topics! Coming soon, how (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Pedro Silva

(...) ! Now you are giving me ideas... hee hee hee... THAT would be nice. I wonder who would be the best card... OTOH, I am *deep* down the scale! :-P (XFUT off-topic-fun) Pedro (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered —Scott Arthur

I like this. I may get a t-shirt made. :) (...) I live in a tiny little country called Scotland. The time differnce between my lovely little land and you great hulk mass (I'm talking about the USA, not you :) ) means that most of the posting goes (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

voodoo (Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered) —Scott Arthur

Be carful Dave Larry may not like some you comments. I remeber you offer advise to him before: ==+== Larry (...) Scott This sounds almost threatening. You must be pretty thin skinned Larry. Do you keep a little black book of all of those who "no (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Bouhours —Scott Arthur

Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Scott: (...) "Silence is a virtue in those who are deficient in understanding." Scott A (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bouhours —Larry Pieniazek

(...) So why do *you* talk so much, then? :-) Your deficiencies boggle the mind. I believe I've answered this question of yours in other posts. But I will restate it for you since you seem to insist on repeating questions ad nauseum until the answer (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Malcolm Forbes —Scott Arthur

(...) Your mind perhaps. "Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one." (...) If that is the case, feel free to provide the location of your answer. (...) ROFL. This is a SQUIRM. Is this really the best you can do? Have you no (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Britain. —Ross Crawford

(...) I guess I should've put "conclusive" in there somewhere. A couple of excerpts from (URL) (free reg req) --- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in an interview today with The New York Times, said administrationofficials had been briefing (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Britain. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) There is a HUGE difference between "no evidence" ("any evidence") and "no conclusive evidence". That was a very serious omission on your part, I'm afraid. We convict people of crimes based on strong circumstantial evidence all the time... not (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Britain. —Ross Crawford

(...) afraid. No need for fear 8?) The original comment was directed at Mr Blairs assertion that we should "Be in no doubt Bin Laden and his people organised this atrocity,", and I'm afraid (!) I can't just dismiss my doubts because he asks me to. (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Britain. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) That's fine. I'm certainly not from the "government can do no wrong" school, or even the "government is mostly right" camp. (...) I have doubt too. I'm just not sure it's *reasonable* doubt, given the large NUMBER of people (from a lot of (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Britain. —Scott Arthur

(...) So what did you mean when you said this : "I would indeed *like* this to be a real war (...) , because I see one as needful"? (...) That is indeed heartening. Before 11th Sept 4000 tonnes of food was reaching the starving each day and today it (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Mr Blair. —Scott Arthur

(...) Point? (...) What is the point of this post? Do you agree with Tony? Do you think he is wrong? Scott A (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Britain. —Lawrence Wilkes

"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GKLyuC.EK9@lugnet.com... (...) What's new? They have been saying this everyday. And yet everyday is a 'toughest warning yet' Now they seem to be saying everyday they have conclusive (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Britain. —Scott Arthur

(...) Indeed, I can remember the problems the UK had extraditing terrorists from the USA... Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thank you, Britain. —Scott Arthur

(...) I expect they think the Taliban will reject it. That is why this whole thing needs to move away from TV studios and go to the UN. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)