 | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) No. In fact we had a dustup in the past about whether he was or not and I was saying he was. (...) Yes I do dispute that. And even if it does help, which I dispute, it's not necessarily a good idea. We *could* pass a law requiring all airline (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) On what grounds? (...) You are being silly. (...) I'm not saying that. I don't want to speak for Ed, but I don't think he is either. (...) 1. You are lacking logic. If Lego did not list those items but just give some $$ with no fuss, how would (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) On the grounds that it may well be a flawed bill. I haven't found an article that cites which bill it is so it could be any of these: (from (URL) Bills from the 107th Congress ranked by relevance on"money laundering ". 42 bills containing your (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) "may well" is not "is" (...) So you have no basis for *your* mudslinging??? Have you no shame? (...) Why do we want to stop hijackings? To protect life and commerce? Your proposal will not do the latter. (...) You were taking a principle to (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | (...) Why don't you people trim anything? (...) I didn't see this original note...that's not a bad idea actually! I think we need more nudity. :-) (...) Did you read _Diamond Age_? What about the goombah with the gun in his forehead? (...) How's (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Go to Iceland. They have that there. According to _Maxim_ (not the worlds most reliable source) anyway. (...) Implied right to privacy makes it unconstitutional for government to require it, I think. (anyway it's required to make the example (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | (canceled) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | What, no answer? (was a LP span thread) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) What, no answer? Scott A (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | This really is a low form of debate —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Larry, I can't believe you are calling be a liar again. This really is a low form of debate. Give an example of were I have lied. I challenge you. Do it or apologise. If I have lied, I will apologise. Once you have done that, answer these: Re: (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: This really is a low form of debate —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) If lieing includes distorting the truth by omission, deliberately using pejorative terms to leave unfavorable impressions of situations and people, and in general playing fast and loose with the truth as it suits your whim, then I give you no (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | He doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | Larry, You are becoming a parody of yourself. The is typical of you, rather than answer the point you make a lot of noise and sling some mud. I shall ask you again. Give an example of were I have lied. I challenge you. Do it or apologise. If I have (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Reading comprehension problems. —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Satisfied or not, that's all the apology you get. (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | Larry, that was not an apology - that was more insults. More mud. More of your low level of debate. I shall ask you again. Give an example of were I have lied. I challenge you. Do it, or apologise. Put up, or shut up. All I am asking is that you (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong. —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) No, but this isn't the place to ask. Larry's stated very clearly his position. Please sort it out privately with him. If after that Larry sees any reason to apologise, he can do that here, but this is not the place for your private feud. ROSCO (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) I think it is. This is where he made the unsubstantiated allegation. This is where he should substantiate it or apologise. I could call you “pond slime” here publicly, and then e-mail a quick note to say sorry. Would that suffice for you? (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Thank you. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
