Subject:
|
Re: The Scott and Larry Show: Call for a Series Finale
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:07:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
498 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
>
> > > > Do you seriously think I should let Larry level all sort of spurious
> > > > allegations against me? Really?
> > >
> > > Yes!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > No. Larry was being strange over the weekend. I was genuinely surprised by
> > some of what he was posting. I could not let is slide.
>
> Yes you could have. If it had been out of the clear blue sky, then mixing it
> up in a bit of a brawl would have been appropriate. Due to your special
> relationship with Larry, letting it go would have been.
But for me, it was out of the clear blue sky... that is my point. Like I
said, I was "surprised". I still can't understand why he got uptight about
calling the e-mail "junk mail". Bet let's not go over all that again...
>
> > > Just like Larry should fail to be baited by your antics.
>
> Please note that I really believe this too. It's not all leveled at you.
Noted.
>
> > > We are very familiar with your almost Prussian rules fetish. What Tim is
> > > talking about are subliminal rules of human conduct. The fact that you break
> > > them routinely is why you disgust me.
> >
> > Chris, I try my best to be good.
>
> I find that hard to swallow. I don't try my best, I just try to be good enough
> that I'm reasonably pleasant. You and I and Larry, and just about everyone
> else here could be better. But only certain ones of us get yelled at by
> multiple others.
Did you miss this thread:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=33776&t=i&v=d
>
> > I try not to prod until I am prodded.
>
> That's not how it seems.
It is all a matter of perspective I suppose.
>
> > I'm sorry I disgust
> > you. I'm sorry you think I'm a prick.
>
> Sometimes on both counts. The prick thing was only about the way you reamed LD
> for their charity at a time that we Americans are still sensitive from our
> beating. I didn't even present it as a general opinion.
It is me view that events like 911 challenge our views. Some will change
their views on issues, for others it will reaffirm them. And some people
will be called unpatriotic for asking tough questions. I'm still very
cynical about LD's action. I read the other day that the USA has the worst
child poverty levels in the developed world (UK is 2nd worst). I'm sure it
was just as bad before 911. So why is a toy manufacturer not helping with
that problem, or helping with child poverty in the developing world? Because
it’s not “sexy”?
Personally, I think that if a fire-fighter, soldier, etc gives his/her life
for his country the family left behind should be able to rely on support
from that country – not handouts. I have seen a few studies which show that
those who have lower incomes give a higher proportion to charity than any
other income group. Giving to charity is a great, but charities are not
always the best way of helping people.
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
