 | | Re: Freedom in America (The Chicago 8)
|
|
(...) Wow, I didn't know any of that, thanks for sharing and for providing those spring-board links. (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) Not that ambiguous I'd hoped. I was just being evil. In part, I quoted something from the last day or so of this newsgroup's postings -- I'd not want to call it out in particular beyond what I have done. In the main, I think your purpose and (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | My3ers Briggs chatter (was Re: Is this)
|
|
If you have questions about the test, READ THE BOOK it was originally published in, or one of the others (see note). Go to a library. It's good for you. The terms used in the test are defined in the book. The type indicator is not a general theory (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) Agree. I can see someone looking at the example with the company buying the half-million dollar purchase, commenting on how obviously absurd it was to consider it "reasonable", and then going ahead and making the same mistake without a 2nd (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A bounty on spammers
|
|
(URL) like this idea (without having analysed it very closely, it may have holes). (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) But not always, regrettably. Yes, I agree. It is good to be able to remind people that debate involves reason or it isn't debate. Interesting discussion perhaps but not debate. We have a number of high quality debaters here and I think we all (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
|
(...) Heh. I think that this is the exact crux of the problem. I confess that I am not as well-read on this subject as my peers here, but a lot of what I've read identifies the first clause of the amendment as the vital part. I can't get too deep (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) You know, I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic here, or not. Certainly mocking, but your target is ambiguous. If you honestly feel the link I posted is worse than useless, why not just say so? James (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) What? I don't get it. So, like a chess game, after a certain number of similar moves, it must end. I'm done here. O wait, you mean I wasn't playing chess? It wasn't clever or interesting? It wasn't even a stalemate? I don't even know what I am (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
|
Here is the quote part: "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." This could just as easily read: Because a free state must protect itself (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
