 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Or suppress it either. Allowing a club to meet isn't support, but preventing one from meeting is suppression. Unless the school has a policy forbidding all clubs from meeting on school grounds it cannot prevent some clubs (which are otherwise (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I don't really have to: it's you that needs to prove that virtually every single country on the planet is a failure. _ :-O (Edvard Munch) - I said that every country practices socialism to some degree or another. You are stating that socialism (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Sorry, if 99 people out of 100 vote that the sun rises in the west, does that mean it does? No. If 99 people out of 100 vote to expropriate the property of all Tshirt manufacturers does that mean it is morally correct to do so? No. If this (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) And I with him. Didn't work then (his shenanigans prolonged a depression that was caused by other politicians meddling) and doesn't work now. Please provide an example of a country that's socialist that works. If you choose a mixed economy be (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A Message of Peace
|
|
WAR PIGS by Black Sabbath Generals gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses. Evil minds that plot destruction, sorcerers of death's construction. In the fields the bodies burning, as the war machine keeps turning. Death and hatred (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) By US standards, I suppose I would be called that. By European standards, I'd probably be considered centrist. But that isn't the topic currently being discussed. (...) Good. (...) Huh? That's a straw man. The issue is religion, not viewpoint. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Here it is, in terms as simple as I am able to formulate, in the hope that--against all prior evidence--you will be able to formulate a rational conclusion: P1: According to the 1st Amendment, Congress has no right to issue any declaration of (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Since I include any culture, it would seem not to be bigoted, beyond I am bigotted against bigotted people. And since the religious ethno-centricism is usally used to exploit/murder/steal from someone else not so "blessed", "wrong" and (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) America is not most definitly moving willingly to the right--it's being *forced* to the right by the 'chicken littles'--"Oh no! The sky is falling! Remember the good ol' days when kids didn't kill one another in school, when planes weren't (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Sounds pretty bigotted. Why not just say they are wrong or misguided? (...) Disagree. I'll bet you 99 out of 100 people would disagee with you. (...) Christianity has been intimately involved with this nation since its inception. The (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I am merely looking at the actual documents themselves as they would appear to someone who wasn't aware of their author's intentions. Thus, I take "Creator" to be a reference to God, you take it as evolution (how inalienable rights stem from (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) But that's not quite the point, either. If the State has the right to mandate religion (which it does NOT, despite John's wishes to the contrary), then I have no legal recourse if the State throws me in jail for not bowing at the alter of the (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Believing in God, and believing we are a country under God (a theocracy) are two vastly different things. Even if you are accurate in your claim, it would simply indicate that the vast majority of Americans are delusional (50 million Frenchmen (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> in any case you are ONCE AGAIN missing the point. If the State (...) While I agree with you in your point about keeping religion out of state run affairs... I have the freedom to believe what I (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Ok, lets explore this. You say that people tend to want to not want to help, that they would vote to keep the money for themselves, and that only a government can convince them to help others. Well, what is the government made up of? Last I (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Counterfactual, as I said. (...) I'm sure FDR would have a bone to pick with you if he was alive. (...) I'm ashamed of you, Larry! Libertarians is the answer, of course. They stick to their guns - or dogma, depending on your viewpoint - better (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) How can you idolize your interpretation of the "intent" of Thomas Jefferson while one simultaneously ignoring the express "intent" of Eisenhower, who declared that "under God" would be a daily proclamation by children to God the Almighty? That (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You believe incorrectly. That's like saying "One can deny all gods without rejecting any particular religion." And in any case you are ONCE AGAIN missing the point. If the State acknowledges ANY God, then the State is mandating the (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) I'm happy with a claim that anything done to the point of the exclusion of *anything else*, doesn't work. Pure democracy does not work, for it's 'mob rule'--the most voices dictate what happens and the underdogs get (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) That is your interpretation. That's good. Now we both can live with it. (...) How would you know-- you weren't there yet;-) (...) Neither is the pledge. Neither is our currency. (...) It may be *implicitly* Christian, but the actual wording (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) Ooops, fergot the smiley Should've read: (...) Again, IMHO, what Larry said is what I would've if I could've... Though here's a debate... Hypothetically, a teacher askes her grade 3 (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I believe that one can acknowledge God without endorsing any particular religion. The fact is that the vast majority of Americans believe that we are a country under God. The religious background of those same Americans is wildly different. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Yes, but which party staunchy 'misinterprets' the 2nd ammendment so Homer can have his cache of assault weapons "cause 'looky right there--that's what it says in black and white, now git off my porch ya varmit!" while adapting others, "Well, (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) It took Larry to uncloud the muddy waters??? What's the world coming to?? That was perfectly said ++Lar. Dave K. (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) *My* Creator [sic] is a one-word summation of the process of evolution and, more directly, of human biological reproduction. I can point you to various links explaining how my mother and father conceived me, but I expect from your previous (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You are arguing semantics. -John (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Practices... Amen, brother. They all **practice** it, but none of them have gotten it to WORK. (...) Don't confuse using with working. I'm happy with my claim, socialism doesn't **work**. (...) Um... I dunno. :-) What party sacrifices (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I suppose that depends on what level of socialism you are refering to. Virtually every nation on the planet practices some form of socialism, so I'd have to say that your claim that socialism working is counterfactual is...well, (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) As Larry has pointed out already, this isn't exactly correct. The value of a U.S. dollar is statutory in law and has it's origins in Art.I Sect 10 of the Constitution. That the U.S. has the burden of producing Constitutional dollars is without (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Regrettably, your argument is weakened by the fact that it matters a great deal to us all whether the dollar is backed by gold or not, whether you realise it or not. Try another analogy to make your main point, which I feel you are correct (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) OK. But you're a socialist, right? Since belief that a socialist system can actually work is counterfactual, holding such a belief is a kind of religion since it requires faith. (...) Separation of Church and State. A permanent mural (contrast (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
|
|
(...) Actually, as soon as it gets passed, the Supreme Court couldn't rule it unconstitutional. They can't do that until it is an issue in a case they hear. We would have to wait for somebody to be arrested via a law enacted by that bill. Then they (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
I made my own tribute: (URL) America Always Stand Tall (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
|
|
(...) For those of you who, like me, had trouble copying and pasting this link: (URL) William R Ward bill@wards.net (URL) Verbing weirds language. --Calvin (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The value of the dollar was once based on the value of gold. It is now based on absolutely nothing but the will of the people to keep it going. Similarly, our "inalienable rights" were originally based on the commonly-held mythology of a God (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) They didn't say "God." The closest they got was "Creator." I think that's a big difference. --Bill. (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I don't see what relevance this has to anything I said. (...) Why? --Bill. (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) There is nothing in the Constitution about supporting a hobby or game. There is something about supporting a religion. And that's how it should be - religion is a much more controversial topic than chess or cameras. --Bill. (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) But if I want to say the *official* pledge, then by definition I have no choice but to speak the phrase. That's the problem, and, in addition, one's choice not to say the *official* pledge is easily construed as a lack of patriotism, which is (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) but wouldn't that fact that the state "asked" that you say the words bad enough? I will have to say the pledge of allegance when I become a naturalized citizen. Do you think I won't say "under god", when the INS officer asks me to? Of course I (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
John: You are looking at past history and past rhetoric with blinders on. Part of The Enlightenment project was to break with the "divine right of kings." That's why there is language of that type floating around. I am not saying that there weren't (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) First, there is no "requirement". The state will not force you to speak those words (in fact it *allows* you to *not* speak them). A perfect analogy would be if Congress passed that same law but then included, "But if he feels uncomfortable (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No, Richard, it hasn't. I am not arguing that TJ was a Christian or any such thing. What I am saying is that he acknowledged a Creator-- Prime Mover, God, Nature's God-- whatever you want to call it. And it is from this entity that our (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
It has to be said, and both of you have done it with grace, compassion, tolerance and humanity. Hopefully the citizens of the world can do the same. A Canadian sending honours and sympathy, -Gil (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
Any tribute to the heroic efforts displayed that day deserves recognition. A very nice display showing the infamous bucket brigade that helped uncover the debris in an effort to find fallen brothers and sisters in humanity. They did this with (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
|
|
(...) I am curious as to how far along that bill is. I would find it very hard to believe that Congress would pass that. Even if they did, I would find it extremely hard to believe that the Supreme Court would NOT rule it unconstitutional. Blatant (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) So stipulated. But the hypothetical loony[1] who lives down the street from me received no such training, but he nonetheless owns a shack full of guns. (...) Oh sure--*now* you clarify... Seriously though, I've never been to clear on why the (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) fundamental (...) Let (...) The unabriged 2nd amendment is as follows: A well regulated militia being nessesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The whole well regulated (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) PS I don't think able bodied or male are still legitimate requirements, although they may have made sense back then. (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
|
|
(URL) particularly heartening. (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) John! For pity's sake, read what you're writing! The acknowledgement of the existence of God (or even "a" God) is an explicit endorsement of religion! I don't care if you want to pretend that "it could be *any* God," because you're wrong, (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) How do you feel about having a very limited understanding of TJ's beliefs? This has been asked and answered before, John. It's pretty tiresome of you to bring it up again. TJ could have said "prime mover" -- it's just a whole lot less zippy (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I am. I'm able bodied, male, a citizen and have had training on how to use my gun. That's what well regulated militia meant when those words were chosen. (...) Asked and answered, long long ago. Read the federalist papers instead of getting (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Who said this earlier in another debate--and it's something I still smile when I think about it... 'If masturbation be allowed, then it be allowed in the marketplace..." I was being very sarcastic about thw whole separation of church and (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Socialism is thought by some to be a religion (1), are you OK if we ban the teaching of socialism in public schools? Let's stick to things we know are true, after all... I'll support not funding religious schools or religious activities in (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Aren't we a little more mature than this? 'He who carries the biggest stick rules the sandbox...'? I obey the law *because* it's the law, not because the cops have guns. It's the mature, 'evolved', inherently *right* way of doing things, such (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) How do you feel about TJ speaking about a Creator in the DoI? -John (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) That's almost as silly as saying strip clubs can't be within 1000 feet of each other or of other stores or businesses of any kind... oh wait, that's a fairly common law in the US. (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
[snip] (...) I absolutely agree with this. [snip] (...) Well you may call it yapping about the 2nd amendment but that is a fundamental right. Without said right all other fundamental rights are unenforceable. Let me put it this way (again); A (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
Check out our special tribute to the heroes and their families of September 11, 2001. (URL) bless America! ACPin & Sons (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.announce.moc, lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) "Reverse Discrimination": A politically correct term for the right wing meant to really say, "We done stole it fair and square, so no trying to redress the crime." ;-) Actually, I don't see how "reverse discrimination" applies here whatever (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I never suggested otherwise. They acknowledged the existence of God without necessarily endorsing a particular brand of religion's understanding of Him. -John (23 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) And some would call that 'reverse discrimination' Just because a group of students has a student run group and they want to discuss their belief in God, and they can't get school support on par with students who want to have a Camera club, (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The Founding Fathers were deists, not theists. They believed in a Creator, not the xian god. --Bill. (23 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I have no problem with people believing in whatever religion they want. However, when the State, through the public school system, offers *financial* support for an institution of religion, then that crosses the line. The Bible Club should be (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Hooray--we agree! That's been my intended point all along, in both this exchange and in the previous debate a month or so ago! I absolutely, totally, completely, and unequivocally support your right to religious freedom and freedom of speech! (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) My point is that it is okay to protect *all* matters of freedom of religious expression up and until people fly planes into buildings... k, that was a little far--my personal philosophy has *always* been that anyone can believe what they want (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) As long as you understand that "Young Hedonists for Satan" has the same rights of access and same protection under the law... Brucifer Devil's Advocate for the Day :-) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) When you adequately explain from where our government claims our rights originate, then we can talk about the constitutionality of "God language". -John (23 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) If "apples" = "why does the State in one case have the right to endorse or restrict religion" and "oranges" = "why does the State not have the right to endorse or restrict religion," then I am indeed comparing apples and oranges. What's your (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Apples and Oranges... In this one, a bonafide extra-curricular school group deserves the same status as any other extracurricular school group. It'd be like saying--'Hey you in the Chess club--we think you're geeky so you don't get any (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(URL) this the same 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that recently ruled unconstitutional the phrase "under God" in the Congressionally-endorsed Pledge of Allegiance? Are Senators Byrd and Lott and Daschle and all the rest going to bitch about how (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....
|
|
(...) [Big-Snip] (...) The modern educational system has a hundred years of programming to produce people who, like machine parts, are relatively interchangeable. One of the worst things that a school-based authority can have to deal with is a puple (...) (23 years ago, 8-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....
|
|
(...) (Even (...) news: (...) So a logical and 'common sense' statement is grounds for the liberal brain washers to harass you. It really bothers me to hear you say that you do not wish to present a well thought out opinion because of them. That is (...) (23 years ago, 8-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Healthy Alcohol (was: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!)
|
|
(...) I meant to get back to this before now, but here goes: (URL) that for men, up to two "drinks" per day without regard to source of alcohol is a health benefit. They say that the red wine this was once believed, but is no more, and that it's (...) (23 years ago, 6-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cyber Kids 2002
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's one of the central points for me. I'm trying to find an analogy, like the removal of an ugly but non-harmful wart, or perhaps the erasure of an unsightly (and potentially stigmatizing) birthmark, but neither of these is quite (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Guns! (was: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....))
|
|
(...) I would think that if the parents were doing their job, it would be quite the opposite. By doing their job, I mean being responsible. If you have a gun in your home, it is your responsibility as a parent to educate your children in its proper (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....)
|
|
(...) "Want it to be" or "Make it be", I think this may be semantics. Either way, my point is that this is an established (yet evolving) community that currently accepts among its members both people who may dislike certain content and those who may (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Guns! (was: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....))
|
|
(...) who (...) Interesting - and scary. (...) It was my contention that the reported shooting sprees (that I recall) were by teenagers who had access to guns at home (and some experience with them). Not sure of the causal connection, if any, (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Guns! (was: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....))
|
|
(...) Well, I never went on a shooting spree, but as a teen I did behave irresponsibly with guns (by the standards that most people express). And they weren't the .22 rifle that my dad had in his closet. They were used and probably stolen guns that (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cyber Kids 2002
|
|
(...) There are two issues that I see, that can be phrased as two questions: Under what circumstances does a parent/guardian have the right to subject their children to surgery (even if minor outpatient)? Is it a good idea to participate in a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....)
|
|
In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes: [snip] (...) I disagree strongly here. It is what it is. The is no collective decision making about how we 'want to be' - it will be what individuals make it. (...) The community may be a seperate entity, (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cyber Kids 2002
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's bad. But how about an angry frog rifling through your puter looking for clone DATs? I bet that's worse. Probably deletes files as he goes. =) -- Hop-Frog (I am not now, nor have I ever been, a gremlin.) (23 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mass Extinctions
|
|
(...) Actually, the umbrella effect in terms of the ESA is when you protect an endangered species that covers a large bit of habitat in its home range and you end up sheltering the smaller species as well. Sorry for the mistake. Similar concepts (...) (23 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Cyber Kids 2002
|
|
(URL) what do you think? I see the utility of such a move, though on some level I'm a little uncomfortable with it (but I don't know if I'm being rational or simply reactive). On a related note, famed level-head and open-minded orator Mike Gallagher (...) (23 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) As far as I'm aware, businesses in the US are charged for local calls, and in any case many telemarketing firms operate nationwide. But you've hit on the solution to my problem--I just have to move to Holland. Dave! (23 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mass Extinctions
|
|
Curt wrote: > That's frightening. > I have a question to any biologists out there. Is it possible to store the > DNA of males and females of each species, so that if the species goes > extinct, it can be revived? Of course, there is the question of (...) (23 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:H1GEL7.CMw@lugnet.com... (...) Just change 'the electrically-civilized world' bit to 'America' please. I've lived in Ireland for a few years, and in Holland the rest of my life (30+ years) and (...) (23 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> (...) Agreed on all points, but I'll take whatever I can get to begin with. I can only hope that political and non-profit phone solicitations will be brought under the same restrictions at a (...) (23 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
|
(...) Loss of that person's company; the loss of the relationship with that person. (...) Well, I'm not sure that a child does either -- certainly not all of it. But there could be other claimants, like a spouse. I think earlier in the thread we (...) (23 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
|
(...) Setting aside the loss of income issue (because I'm still not sure and don't have anything insightful to say), what does "loss of society" mean? (...) Let's imagine that a kid is part of a rich family until he's ten (way old enough to have (...) (23 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
|
(...) Well, that's a fault of the kind of torts we currently allow. At the same time the destruction of what exists at the time of the loss is what is being protected. It's not that big a leap to assert that someone that has been earning "X" dollars (...) (23 years ago, 2-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
|
(...) lens... I've been thinking about this for quite a while and I think that either I misunderstand your meaning, or you're wrong. The notion of equality under law, I think, is somewhat slippery. Further, it seems some times (this included) that (...) (23 years ago, 2-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Peace" can be dangerous (was: Re: Peruvian Indians [Re: ..)
|
|
(...) lol. I thought you'd say that. I think it is relevant. (...) I thought you'd say that too. But the truth is Mr Edelman probably knows more ablout the subject than either you or I. This is what I read about him a few days ago in the Guardian: (...) (23 years ago, 2-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Supertramp (was supertramp... careful... whatever...)
|
|
(...) OMGoodnesss!!!...!!! Started off with 'School'... Ended off (in the encore) with 'Crime of the Century'.... Rick Davies played 'Downstream' with just him and a piano for the entire song... 7 member band right now, including Siebenburg's son (I (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) We get between zero and four per night. Most commonly, one. And we often get one or more during the day. Chris (23 years ago, 28-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) Long distance carriers almost never phone anymore; I suspect it's because of my "stock answer" for them, which is "I challenge you to get me a better long distance rate than I do right now." This gets them all fired up into their spiel, and I (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) I believe our governor (Illinois) recently vetoed such a bill because it 'wasn't strong enough' and allowed too many exemptions. I think these state-run do not call lists (with penalties) are a good thing (and are long overdue). BUT, I hope (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) Thinking hard - unless you count bubbles in the light sabre as defective, all the parts have been there, they were always the right color, and they always worked. Bruce (yes, I know, it's not off-topic...) Time for a poll? :-) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) Nope, that's about what we get (and yep, it's our two kids that keep mealtime quite lively). I use a twist on what I learned from watching my mom deal with Jehovah's Witnesses who came to the door when I was a kid. She'd just matter of factly (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
