 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) It makes a handy and compelling virtual stick to beat unreasonable people with? And at times, pretty much everyone in here is guilty of unreasoning. Certainly the strong disconnect between reasons and conclusions has been observed here, in (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) Interesting article but I couldn't tell what it was you thought were doing when you cited it. :-) Or why it's a must read. The people that would benefit from reading it won't do so or won't understand the point it makes. :-) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Big things (was Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal))
|
|
The following post of James's is off-topic for debate. :-) But it's neat anyway. XFUT geek Let's see, we have John Deere prototyping walker/spider timber harvesters, and Caterpillar prototyping mechs. What's next? GM showing hovercars? Turboprop (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(URL) there an off-topic curator? This article should be in the .debate sidebar. IMHO, of course. :) James (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) But regulation doesn't mean directing. The militia doesn't need government direction, that's what the army is for (even if it shouldn't be). (...) I expect that a chain of command of some kind would evolve. (...) Each of us. (...) There isn't (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) I don't like the idea of folks just running around with nukes and contagions unchecked. But I'm not willing to say that the 2nd only applies to man-portable arms. If we agree that the point is to enable The People to revolt, then it seems (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Big things (was Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal))
|
|
(...) Interesting note in reference to the Aliens Power Loader - Caterpillar actually built it, and it actually works. Well, sort of. The footage of the loader lifting heavy things and walking around with them is live footage - what they don't show (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) And that means said foreign policy must be analyzed in a vacuum? Nonsense. You are doing so because it suits your purpose and you explanation is just an excuse. (...) What? Not even "facts" this time? (...) You didn't answer it before, and you (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
Pushing the envelope of "acceptable" subject divergence... (...) That makes sense. In terms of fiction, if Joe Author says "what I meant here was this..." then I don't give a hoot; if it's not in the text, then it's not in the text. That's why, for (...) (23 years ago, 25-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> (...) <snip> Bring on the mechs!!! I would love to see a load lifter a la "Aliens" or an ED-209 (under human control, of course) stomping about! Dunno if all that Japanimation mech stuff is (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) I hear you. And if person X says "this is what person Y meant" I tend to discount that. Especially if it's some time later. But if person X says "this is what *I* meant when I wrote this 2 months ago" I tend to give that a lot of credence. And (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Maybe that's my stalling point. As a pseudointellectual dissector of texts (ie, English Lit. major) I have huge problems in applying "intent" to the meanings of works. In fiction, authorial intent is all but irrelevant; it may be different in (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) No, I don't think it can be creditably argued... again, the Federalist Papers are clear on this point, the intent was that arms means the best technology available at the time to armies, or better, if it was commercially available. To me that (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Jocular self-deprecation (Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!)
|
|
Subject line changed in deference to Tom Stangl's request for topic purity! 8^) (...) Hey, give me a break--it was late! 8^0) Dave! FUT OT.fun (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) While I agree with the overall thrust of your argument, I think we need to be cautious with phrases like this one. If we're going to stick rigidly to the "back then" definitions of the language of The Constitution, then it can be credibly (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Medical Marijuana
|
|
From the LP newsletter I get, posted in its entireity... poses an interesting dilemna with respect to states rights and how far a state can go in deviating, and how far a state can go in resisting encroachment on states rights - start - Libertarians (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Freedom in America (The Chicago 8)
|
|
A funny thing happened to some folks on their way to making public their disenfranchisement from the then current political establishment in the year 1968. The police infiltrated their groups (thereby abridging the free exercise of the right to (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup
|
|
(...) lugnet.off-topic.deb...e.politics Would be better. ;) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) What do you expect, this thread is about US foreign policy! (...) Where do you want me to start, Adam and Eve? (...) You have asked me that already. (...) You have misunderstood me. Bush wants to liberate the people of Iraq. While he says (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) In fairness, England must be damned close to total gun control. I know it's not total but lack the details -- perhaps Scott or someone else can supply further details. While seeing what google would cough up on it, I found this: (URL) is from (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) What the...?! Dave!, you have taken part in these discussion about Jury nullification before -- I have to assume you know all about it. Search "Jury nullification" in this newsgroup, both Larry and I have discussed it many times before (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | My3rs-Briggs waste of time (was Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?)
|
|
ENOUGH already! This thread, as usual for many in .debate, no longer has a DAMNED thing to do with the Subject. If you are going to continue this tomfoolery, at least continue it under a new Subject, so people can easily set it on Ignore. I was (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Speaking of faulty notions... Name me one country, past or present, where ONLY the police and armed services were allowed to have guns, that is NOT a dictatorship. -Mike Petrucelli (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Hey, that's neat! Do you know if this has happened in a major case in modern times? Dave! (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) A fine question! Off the top of my head I'd say that too general a framework (as I perceive Myers-Briggs to be) isn't much more useful than no framework at all. As you've correctly stated, the user needs to be aware of the limitations of the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
Much snippage (...) It's in the federalist papers (which I would argue, since they are by the authors of the constitution and which are contemporaneous, ARE valid as a way to gauge meaning and intent) but I forget exactly. I don't think it's any of (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Depends on who you ask. Most judges will tell you it is not your place as a juror to weigh the justness of the law, that your duty is only to the validity and applicability of the facts and that you have no power to judge (nullify) law. (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No - it would seem close and I understand you thinking that, but not really. I merely wish to establish one thing before moving on to the next. If Joe Blow walking down the street suddenly spotted the 2nd Amendment, what would be his (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Fair enough. Duty is not the word I would have chosen, but I would more or less agree with you on this, although I'm not sure that attaching something extra or some privilege is appropriate. (...) I've seen terms defined on LUGNET which are a (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I wonder how this does/would work in practice. Regulation of an armed body by individuals would not appear to be too effective. For instance, do you see, in a time of crisis in the US, a militia sponteneously arising from its citizenry, and, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
