 | | Are we all processes in a simulation
|
|
At the risk of starting too many interesting threads at once, I present a link I found by reading Kung Fool, a rather amusing webcomic. (URL) only STARTED reading this, I haven't read to the end yet but it's fascinating so far! I can say this, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Done and done! I remember a time in my youth when my mom was so into 'dream interpretation'. She and a few of her close friends would get together and discuss their dreams, look up symbols in books about that stuff that were available at the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Scott, that would be truly insane... ...trust the people that put Bush in the White House and have supported him through all the other BS?! Would you trust Blair to rework how your civil liberties work? Not on your life, man. -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Ah, but then you've fallen into the trap already! The whole point of these Myers-Briggs (or Voigt-Kampf, if you prefer) tests is that they're designed to yield apparently "correct" personality assessments, no matter how the answers come out. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You weren't paying attention to earlier messages. The law *as written*. If you want to move onto later claims, that's another story. (...) Is this addressed to me or the board in general? If me, you are barking up the wrong tree. Bruce (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) You just described for yourself exactly what the MBTI means by Introverted. MBTI Introverted doesn't mean "doesn't like being with people" it means something more like "isn't energized by being with people". Your SO is a classic MBTI (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) My dad got called in for jury duty--first question--"Mr Koudys, what's your take on capital punishment?" My dad said "Hang the b***ard" "Thank you Mr. Koudys, you may go home now..." I got a letter saying that I had to fill out a form to be (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) It is silliness. But it's like The Simpsons silliness--is fun! And if you're not careful about it, you may learn something about yourself :) I'm not all that introverted--I like going to parties and such, but by the end of an evening, I'm (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
*if* I were a critical thinker (which I'm so obviously not)... Oh, before I start, thanks Richard for actually taking the respond with proof, instead of just "you're wrong..." with no backup. (...) I wanna score points with the regulars? Anywhere (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
|
|
(...) the evidence has been weighed. Snopes.com and wikipedia.com have both surveyed their experts and as snopes says "come up empty." In the first place, it smelled funny. The quote itself is so narrow-minded and subsitutes emotions for (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Me either. Duty needs to be taken on voluntarily. It may get you extra privs, but it shouldn't be forced. (...) (reins... a reign is just exactly what we want to prevent! :-) all hail Emperor George II and his visier, Dick ) (...) Snipped the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) On a relatined point, has this ever been overturned: If you scroll down to "THESECOND AMENDMENT IN THE COURTS" at (URL) find: ==+== "Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey’s strict (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: neighbors
|
|
(...) Well, you're probably not going for this, but I think that a single representitive from each house in the neighborhood should gather on their lawn at 0500 carrying a lit torch and either a can of gasoline or a shotgun. One of you should ring (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) 1776!! Rip up that scrap of paper and give yourself a constitution which reflects the needs and aspirations of your countrywo/men today - not what may (or may not) have existed 200+ years ago. ;) Scott A (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) OK, I took this silliness. Chris' Type is INFP (44 67 33 33) I am theoretically exactly as introverted as DaveK. Chris (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Yes, but Mike's interpretation is supported by a thousand documents from the time. Why are you folks arguing this? If you don't want guns in America, change the constitution (if we let you :-). But what it means is really clear. Chris (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I always thought you were disingenuously pretending that the questions weren't answered either because you don't like the answer that was given or as a rhetorical technique to convince your readers that your opponent in the debate is a fool. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) militia? Well, I think the duty part is Larry's opinion. One that I vaguely share, but I certainly wouldn't hold people to. It's just that we think more highly of people who fully participate in the way of American governance. There are lots (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Yeah, really! What I find annoying is the refusal of some people to do their own homework (i.e ANY reading at all). I think the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is actually fairly clear, although at this precise moment in time it may be wished (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) As you know, I only ask the same question more than once when someone is avoiding answering it. After all, if the question has been answered, what is the point in asking it again? Scott A (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
(...) I have a SEVERE issue with this statement. If someone borrows your car (with your blessing) and commits a crime with it, how could you possibly say it is the car owner's fault? Unless the owner is sitting next to the driver when the crime was (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: blair's dossier (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) This is the correct link: (URL) A (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) My axe is pro-justice, not anti-US. (...) That is why I stick to fact, not opinion. I suggest you do the same. (...) My original point was why attack Iraq at the same time as supporting the misdeeds of others? (...) See above. (...) There is (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
(...) We don't have "cop cars", we have "police cars", "panda" cars and "jam sandwiches". ;) (...) Road signs (speed and distances) have always been in MPH. I have no idea why that was seen as being worth keeping. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | blair's dossier (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) ... and Blair has just published his "dossier": (URL) A (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
Some questions from down under... In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) ...and do you therefore also have a duty to be part of a well regulated militia? (...) But couldn't they be seen also as a method of regulating the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It says "the security of a free state", not "the maintaining of a free state from internal tyrants" or even "securing a free state". It's a long reach to place your interpretation on the law as written. Bruce (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Didn't we dispose of this red herring already? Really, it's rather tiresome going round and round and round with you, you're displaying the Scott Arthur nature here a bit... and it doesn't score you any points with the regulars, you may want (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Where you looking? I truncated, I didn't remember the *exact* quote, and I didn't want to go looking for it, but my original posting was written as a response to the explicit 2nd, and I paraphrased last time--sorry 'bout that--but now that you (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No, not close, in fact completely wrong. The 2nd says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." [snip] (...) If you bother to read... (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) interest (...) would (...) Kurds (...) (URL) Gee Brain I forgot the link. -Mike Petrucelli (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: neighbors
|
|
(...) I had a similar experience once. Pretty much the same thing, except it was the fourth of july. They were quieter until a 2:30 group sing-a-long of "Proud to be an American" Nothing makes me prouder than 60 drunks singing that song. :) (...) It (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) Ok I mixed up Iraq's gassing of Kurds in the late 80s with Turkey bombing Kurds in Iraq about 2 years ago. Either way the Dictator should go. Do I think Bush Jr. is going about it in the proper way. Heck No! But even Bush Jr.'s self-serving (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
|
|
(...) Of course Caesar spoke latin, so it isn't a direct quote. But how do you know it's false? But in any case, I changed my .signature to not have that quote anymore. --Bill. (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Yup. I have taken the MBTI (as well as others) on multiple occasions, and I don't think I've ever gotten the same result twice. Extrovert vs Introvert is a particularly bad one for me - I exhibit characteristics of both, and different people (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
Very well said. Thanks for providing some background. One point I'd like to add to the punishment/end of punishment (or replace "punishment" with "containment" or whatever if it feels more comfortable): I am comfortable with "punishments" which (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Ah, the light shines... Yes, evidence is a sticky issue. And we did use to have other standards -- the manner in which we arrive at a hopefully objective approximation of the "truth" is ever changing, however slowly. Sometimes the change is (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
I have collected a largish sample (two batches of 30) of these tests before. After a few I noticed there are two types of test-takers: those who are all-or-nothing to whichever side of each scale (almost half the sample), and the rest. I said this (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: neighbors
|
|
(...) Ouch! This past Friday, the house next door played their music so loud (at 8 p.m.) that we couldn't actually hold a conversation in the house I was staying at. Undergrads moved into that house as well. Well, Ann (who doesn't put up with (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | neighbors
|
|
so i am a pretty big fan of living in the city (which is odd since i am an ecologist/conservation biologist). Anyway, the rental property next to us recently had a tenent change and is now occupied by a group of undergraduates who are very loud and (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) Your Type is INFP Introverted Intuitive Feeling Perceiving Strength of the preferences % 44 33 22 56 Dave K. If I were to guess, I would say that Dave! is ESTP, Chris is ISTJ and Larry is (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) I can take that any number of ways. (...) The USA actively supports Israel, yes. So do others. You seem to be grinding an anti-US axe. Axe-grinders opinions are generally speaking, not to be trusted. They present only so much of the story as (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Thanks for the link! I skimmed thru it now, and I'll give it a more throrough read tonite after work. I concur you shouldn't make any life-changing decisions on the basis of these types of tests. I liked them because, well, I was Extrovert, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) (URL) a quick test--it's not definitive, but it did peg me at the same thing the test I took in high school, college and university pegged me at (ENFP), and recently it pegged me at INFP... less the partier I gather ;) Dave K. (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) It was--the problem with typing is that my humour, my flair, my rather gosh darn good looking self just doesn't shine thru. When I go for an understatement, I make it a *large* understatement. I will be clear, abuse=bad. Abuse=CS (Childrens (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) I didn't look at or take the test at this site, so I can't comment on their specific set of questions. The first time I took the indicator, I balked at these binary questions. The trick is to pick the answer which best fits your true feelings. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) **Alert** I used 'your' many times in the following post--they are not directed at Chris at all--just wrapping up, I hope, in one complete posting a bunch of different points made in this thread. If you could read the words, "you" or "your" as (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Oops! Disregard most of that--I looked at the wrong test. The correct one on that site is apparently: (URL) However, aside from the precise questions, the methodology seems equally suspect. The user is asked for a series of bafflingly simple (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) I did feel attacked. I know I am quick to react when I feel attacked (one definite correlation with ENFP), and have probably overreacted here. I'm not sure that we have root-level misunderstandings, but more that we have percieved different (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Thank you for the link; I'd never even heard of "ENFP" before, so it was all news to me. But at a quick run-through, the test seems problematic. Consider these questions: Q: You want a job or a career that offers you the chance to travel and (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Right. But even to Mr. Weaver, the situation might be preferable to spending 15 years in a federal prison with no one knowing about it. I don't know him. (...) In response to the cop and gun thing or long term? He ran away once he defused the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
(...) Forget all that. Can you tell me why, when I see those Police Video shows from the UK, the surveillance cameras in the cop cars always show the speed in MPH? Are you folks finally seeing the light and giving up on that cumbersome, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) *That's* an interesting point! I'm sure Ms. Weaver, his son, and his dog would consider the incident less than "productive," but as an object lesson to the rest of us, your argument has some merit. (...) Ditto in this case, too. I guess it's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) (URL) can find hundreds of descriptions on the web. This was the first which had an extensive description. Frank (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Types of Personality (was: Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?)
|
|
(...) I think type can change, but I would wonder more if the change is happening due to adaptation, not because your fundamental self has changed. I certainly don't always act as an ENFP, but the more I think about it, the more comfortable I am (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Did you feel like I was attacking you? I was kind of perplexed at your response to my response, but to see this actually worries me. I thought that we _were_ working through an issue by sharing our thoughts in a dialog. Maybe we have (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) I hope this was intentional understatement. If your child ends up in the hospital because of your type of punishment, your right to associate with small people should be stripped from you and you should be incarcerated in a psychiatric (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Well, you're just a silly goofball for thinking that in ridiculous way. What's an ENFP? I believe a lot of that "thinking out loud" goes on here, but many times it's clarified as such. I know that I sometimes forget to disclaim, and I wind up (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
|
|
(...) Good luck! I did a Google search for that apocryphal Caesar quote and got 1180 hits! It's a well-established pious fraud, as firmly entrenched as the Sarah Brady's "completely disarmed" false citation or Dan Quayle's "Latin America" fictional (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Types of Personality (was: Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?)
|
|
(...) I was an ENFP every time I was tested until relatively recently. I took the test on the website and it turns out that I'm now an INFP. Can someone's personality change like that? Of course, it could be just my age showing--I'm becoming more (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Well, it all does hinge on how you'd mean "productively." I'd claim that the defenders at Ruby Ridge defended themselves productively. But, I think that even though I think their use of arms probably increased the casualty rate. No one would (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) Now there it is. Frank, run for office and I'm voting for you. We seem to be reacting to things instead of being proactive! Make sure people learn how to drive properly! Maybe we should (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) I was just talking with one of my friends (who happens to be a parent--no so with me) and he makes an astute observation-- Would this incident even be discussed if there was no 'art'? I mean, you take a kid, broken arms, cigarette burns, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
(...) Not in the UK. We always have to maintain a safe stopping distance... which makes sense. As I understand it, the length of the yellow is some kind of (...) Normally the focus is on the "intergreen" period - this will be 5-7 seconds for a (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) Israel is a victim. It is victim of its own history. However, none of that excuses its actions or what it suffers. It is a human rights abuser pure and simple. The USA actively supports it. (...) I'm not; democracy does not exist in Kuwait. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) After a brief thought, and remembering from a class I took yesterday on the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator, I was just thinking of something that might be useful to add here about my debating style. As an ENFP, my way of working through problems (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
(...) Google it. You'll be inundated with a full range from "well-reasoned and documented" to "wacky paranoid government-out-to-get-us". But it's fairly obviously an issue, and there's good information out there on it. If the cameras are "causing" (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) Of course the perception is fact. "Perception" as in there is the perception that Israel is the victim. You misconstrued my answer. (...) Who cares? I was merely pointing out that you were being inconsistent. Or you weren't making your real (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
(...) We have a similar issue with speed camera's in the UK: "The effect of the camera on driver behaviour can create new problems such as erratic braking and acceleration and distract drivers from the traffic flow." See: (URL) (...) Which is just (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
|
|
(...) Was Nostradamus able to predict this? ;) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
Hm, interesting. I have seen reports of fewer accidents, but I wonder how well you can trust them. The incentives sure are wrong, and certainly present a true risk of incorrect reaction (cutting short the yellow light time). Another interesting (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
I'm not sure why I continue debating here. It's hard to see all the sides of a person when the debate draws out like this. My initial reaction to this incident was based on a number of incidents in a very short time. In all likelihood I am (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
(...) See? I've always told you that you can't trust private corporations to run things! Seriously though, I'd be interested to hear more about the truncated yellows. If the cameras are "causing" accidents because people are pushing the existing (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
|
|
have you realized this "Caesar" thing is a made-up quote that has been going around for many months? It's like the amusing but fake Nostradamus saying about the "village idiot." -Erik (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
|
(...) Don't get me started on these cameras... they're bad. It's not the rights violation claim (which is false, unless you report the car stolen because it actually was stolen, you're responsible for what people do with your property), it's the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) Fact. (...) Does Kuwait really have democracy? (...) This is utter hypocrisy. (...) Worse for Afghans or the USA? (...) There may well be. Why not tighten the screws on Musharraf, the Saudi’s or Sharron? These guys rely on support from the USA (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) If I broke into your home and stole your stereo, but you had no other evidence than your in-home video surveillance system, wouldn't you at least want me to be questioned? (...) Okay, what if I broke into your house, stole your stereo, and was (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Would guns truly have made a beneficial difference? Or would it have made the students seem like armed combatants who deserved whatever they got? I expect that it would depend on how the press chose to spin it, but at the very least it would (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) I don't agree. Why not clean up your own neighbourhood first? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) This is news to me. Do you have a reference? Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) There will be a UK parliamentary debate tomorrow. Blair will give MPs 3 hours to read his "dossier" on SH and then expect them to reach an opinion and debate it... crazy. Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Yes, we up here have, as of today anyway, 5 'official' parties-- Progressive Conservative Liberal New Democratic Party Bloc Quebecuois Alliance (a la Reform) And what's going to continue to happen up here in Canada is that the Liberals are (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) And I am in the unique position of agreeing wholeheartedly with Chris. There was a wee bit of a ruckus in LA a while back, and a granny watching the news footage of the looting and pillaging saw her grandson doing said mischief. She reported (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) OK, so did you just use those two as examples of the hundreds, or is that all you've got? I'm not trying to be trite about this, but I think you could find more than two civil rights abuses in a year on any given year since you've been alive. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) The Medical Students in Florida who turned out to: - not be able to be connected in any way to anything nefarious - in fact, didn't run the toll booth as originally reported The Isamic leader arrested in Portland because his luggage showed (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) see also: (URL) article is about forking and revolutionary change within the open source context, but it applies to all systems... high barriers to entry imply more likeliehood of revolution rather than gradual change... and the duopoly of (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Good. Chris (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Wow, wouldn't *that* be interesting? (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) But in this case the girl has no physical wounds. This suggests to me that the other woman may not have felt the girl was in any danger. It seems to me that this case goes further than just a child battery charge and giving aid to a criminal. (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
Agents acting under Ashcroft, as Atty. general, are his responsibility. He's the man in charge -- he's the one that knows or is obligated to know what is going on under his command. -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
(...) statute: TITLE 42, CHAPTER 21, SUBCHAPTER I, Sec. 1983. Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Yeah, really. It's hard to imagine how they could possibly know that the sister knows anything useful. I mean, do they have video footage of her seeing her sister do things? Not likely... Also, I believe in the right to remain silent -- to (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
(...) I didn't get from the article what the specific and direct role played by Ashcroft was. Is he only guilty for setting a cavalier tone within the federal law enforcement machine, or was it something more clear cut? Chris (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
I found this interesting: (URL) see how far it gets. I expect he'll be removed from the suit, after all, can't have our government officials held personally liable for what they do, now can we? (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Really? Do you generally think that aiding criminals should have no penalty? There may be issues surrounding this that I haven't thought through, but on first blush, it doesn't seem like a bad general policy to me. I would certainly intervene (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Like what? Am I missing a bigger trend? (...) Um...what could be more damning than video footage? What on Earth _would_ you consider reasonable evidence? I haven't heard anything inappropriate about the handling of this case from the article (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) He didn't say your opinion was infelicitous. He said it was rooted in ignorance. (...) It's arguable that he was the most powerful, but even that said, there were many many awfully powerful forces aligned against him. He wasn't even supported (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Except for having our chief executive having been appointed by the Supreme Court. IOW, while every executive before has been elected (whether fairly or not) this one has actually _not_ been properly elected. With a minority (and no plurality) (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I'm not going to look back through all the notes you've written in response a note that I've written to find it, but I'm pretty sure that you responded that you would seek to change the law from within "the system" rather than breaking it, if (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) to choose to make your point. I followed the link and found this paragraph: "Police have been searching for Gorman Toogood since September 13, when a surveillance camera in a department store parking lot videotaped her apparently slapping and (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
