 | | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Check. OK, how about a "duty" that it's OK to shirk, but that if you don't shirk, gets you something extra, some privilege (I just can't spell that word!) you'd normally not get. (c.f. _Starship Troopers_ in which only those that served in the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Voluntary duty? I think that's a contradiction by any normal definition of 'duty'. Paraphrasing from Merriam Webster... - conduct due to parents and superiors - obligatory tasks that arise from one's position - a moral or legal obligation (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation
|
|
(...) It runs into the same logical flaws as religious belief - there is no evidence, or way to acquire credible evidence within the context of the simulation, therefore it is on faith. The principle of Occam's Razor applies, and the simplest answer (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) For the first time today, I laughed out loud. Thanks ++Lar FUT to which LEGO on-topic group?? Dave K. (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)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Thanks for calling me on that Larry--it was a litle over the top--we get too close sometimes. And I will recant the other slaps in the face as well. My apologies. (...) Not trying to. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Bzzt. LEGO(r) is off topic for this group. :-) (...) Me too but that's irrelevant. (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)
|
|
(...) Oh if only wishing made it so. Out of context? Where? Not one reply, rebuttal, refute, nada... Everything I laid out followed a very logically made construct, not of *my* making, but of your founding fathers making. I choose to read *all* 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)
|
|
(...) The point I just made to Bruce stands here too. You don't get to use "common, everyday english". The phrase "well regulated militia" does not mean what you think it does. It means what it meant then, with the meanings of the words as they were (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Ok, two questions: 1. Is there any method of understanding personality in a way which allows one to make guarded generalizations that you feel is sufficiently objective to be useful? 2. Do we just not bother trying to understand different (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Let me try... I don't know about Chris, but I personally misunderstood this: (...) I'm taking it to mean that you think we have to use the constitution's exact words only and not any contemporaneous writings by the same authors which expand (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation
|
|
(...) Are you saying you don't buy it? I finished it and I have to admit it's a persuasive argument as written. So either he's right or there is some assumption left out or logic flaw... (certainly possible!) To a certain extent it doesn't matter (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) The question of what is and what is not a crime is determined by (in many cases centuries of) tradition and by societal consensus. The question of what is "INFP" and what is "ENTP" is determined by the whim of Myers-Briggs. For that matter, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Now here's a debate I'm so moveable on is not really funny--my girlfriend, taking the courses at the Institute of Christian Studies, expounds the ideals that come with PM--that there is literally no one "right way" of doing (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that I'd say the test is arbitrary. If we are to discount any subjective things, then there is a lot which totally falls apart (for an example related to the original post in this thread, demonstrate to me that there is no (...) (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)
|
|
(...) Then keep reading starting with the many links I have already provided -- convincing you isn't my job. I keep talking about context and legislative intent and you want to argue about words from specific quotes -- taken out of context! I am (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup
|
|
(...) I'll fall in line with the majority on this one, but is my humble opinion that the thoughts and ideas expressed in o.t-d are for the express purview of o.t-d, and the participants thereof, and anything that goes on here shan't affect (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Deeper and deeper... In an English course a few years ago we discussed that bane of rational thought: Postmodernism. In a clever ploy to make PM seem like the thing to be, the author of one of our texts assembled list that I will paraphrase: (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) And sometimes, when we've been talking about something for sooo long, we get to a pause in the conversation, we look around, and we ask-- "What were we discussing again?" (psst--LEGO and how much fun it is!!!! :) ) Who here loves LEGO? Me! (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) It may be a good start to discuss what people think the differences between Introvert and Extrovert Intuitive and Sensing Feeling and Thinking Perceiving and Judging Though, looking at it now, it probably isn't because even these global ideas (...) (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)
|
|
(...) Well, you could choose to call my opinion 'trolling', however, I know I'm not. (...) And in each and every instance you quoted, I looked at the entire quote, and found that I read it differntly than you. I pointed out it should be interpreted, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) That's too cryptic for me. Guess I'll have to misunderstand you, too. Bruce (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) Inasmuch as your pro-justice axe only seems to be aimed at the U.S., I beg to differ. (...) How's this for a fact: you haven't addressed "They present only so much of the story as is convenient for their cause." Claiming that you stick to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) But that's the whole problem--the so-called "personality types" are as subjective as astrological assessments or phrenological readings. And so are the criteria that make up each "type." (...) Trouble is, you can usually discern when you're (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Well sure, for you. But what about the rest of us? 8^) Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | New newsgroup
|
|
Isn't it time for Lugnet.politics? Duq (23 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Me, I like to read someone else's horoscope and pretend that it was intended for me and me alone! I mean, it was -- right?! =) -- Hop-Frog (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)
|
|
David: I am trying hard to respect your words, but I get the funny idea that this is just one long troll for you. Either that or you have some kind of blinders on over this particular subject. Those quotes were just the tip of the iceberg -- there (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation
|
|
(...) Pat Shepard (posted here a few years ago a few times) worked for me at MU and had dropped out of the PhD program in philosophy to learn Flash and stuff. He seemed to pretty seriously believe in this. But then he was a seminary student for a (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
I guess I misunderstood. But unfortunately, I still do. Chris (...) clear. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation
|
|
Quoting Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com>: (...) hate to tell you, but you wouldn't know if you're running on an RCX - since to simulate each second you experience the RCX would have an infinite amount of time to compute it, it's power is (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) I think we have to understand when subjective measurements are being used, but I don't think we need to reject them. Food preferences are totally subjective, but should someone ignore them because they don't have the objective data on why they (...) (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)
|
|
(...) I was being a little brash, my point was that perhaps it should be updated to reflect the nature of life today. I doubt TJ foresaw the nature of modern weaponry. (...) lol Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: neighbors
|
|
Quoting Christopher Weeks <clweeks@eclipse.net>: (...) don't forget the white gowns and pointy hats! (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)
|
|
(...) Absolutely true. Someone in this thread said a while back that *any* change to the foundational principles of US law would have to follow the *process* that is currently in place to get such a change made. He said that it is the *process* that (...) (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)
|
|
(...) That's not what I said. (...) Blair's OK, he's just a little power mad. If you look close enough, you can see it in his eyes... Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
