Subject:
|
Re: eBay's Auction for America
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:10:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
613 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Scott, you have been asked, twice, to keep this topic in .debate yet you
> repeatedly redirect it back to lego.direct.
>
> How rude.
rude (NOT POLITE)
adjective
not polite; offensive or embarrassing
No doubt calling somebody a liar without justifying it is not rude according
to Larry's ethical code. Then again, he probably thinks "ethics" is the English
county next to Kent.
In the thread Larry mentions, I questioned a company who was apparently
noisily giving a token amount to the WTC charity. I questioned their
motives. Tim and John claim that perhaps I was being insensitive. Perhaps I
was. I welcome both John and Tim's opinion (although not the tone). But I do
not want to be lectured to by Larry on this, as he has already made his
views clear on those seeking to gain from 911:
==+==
Dan:
> I think it's just plain sick! Any person wishing to buy, sell, trade
> and/or somehow turn a profit from debris soaked with the blood of their
> countrymen is worthless scum in my opinion.
Larry:
OK, I think excessive profiteering is a bit despicable, yes. But ponder this.
I would like to have a small piece of the WTC because I want a tangible
reminder of this tragedy, something to spark discussion with my kids or
grandkids, and don't ever want to forget that horrid day.
==+==
No doubt, if one is willing to pay a premium, a blood soaked piece of debris
can be had?
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
