Debate : 17944


Off-Topic / Debate / 17944

John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Larry Pieniazek

I saw his column today in the Grand Rapids Press. So I thought I'd share it with you. But of course to just cut and paste it in here is copyright infringement, not fair use, so if you want to see what he thinks, you'll have to follow a link. Here's (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) I remember a relatively huge controversy amongst the legal profession--"L.A. Law does not show what it's really like in the legal profession." A radio DJ at the time quipped, "WKRP is nothing like how a radio station works either, but I still (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Dave Schuler

(...) I think the point is that Leo perceives that people are distressingly apt to get their political views from fictional programs. No doubt Leo would include such fictions as the 700 Club and Rush Limbaugh's daily spew, as well as the film (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —James Brown

(...) Hmm. I trust you're not claiming that the Dr. Laura Show is fictional as in "written and acted out". She does host a radio show, people do call in, and she does respond to them as presented. The relative merits of said show are of course (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Dave Schuler

(...) I was unclear--my bad. You're 100% correct that there's no real script for her show, so I should have been more precise in my accusation. It's been documented that the Rush Limbaugh radio show, for example, screens its callers, and I believe (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Richard Marchetti

(...) Hmmm, it does make one wonder doesn't it? On a certain level Dr. Laura *recreated* herself a while back as an Xtian nut/therapist. My memory may be faulty here, but I don't think she has ANY of the perceived credentials that one would normally (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) Now there's a question worth pursuing... A local DJ (Derringer in the mornings on Q107--Toronto's Classic Rock station--shameless plug for my favourite radio station) decided to call up Harpo productions after the Emmy's to see if he could get (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —John Neal

(...) It is faulty-- she is Jewish. -John (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Richard Marchetti

(...) Actually I knew this -- but she also appears fairly regularly on the 700 Club so I still think she is an Xtian nutcase. We could certainly say she has enormous right-wing Xtian nutcase sympathies. Without looking it up, because I don't care (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Dave Schuler

(...) Even worse than that--she's a nobody with a radio show and who passes herself off as an educated authority on the subject in which she pretends expertise. Dave! (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —James Brown

(...) Bit of both, actually. 1 parent is Jewish, 1 is Christian. (...) Her Doctorate and masters et al are in Physiology, but her post doc work is in counselling and she is a licensed marriage, child & family counsellor in California. So (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) If I were to pose the hypothesis--"If I were to let go of a hammer, the hammer would fall. I do not have to watch the hammer fall to see that this is true."--what does it matter *where* this hypothesis came from? This line (paraphrased to be (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> My point stands. You're welcome to get your ideas about reality from wherever you like, including from TV shows that force feed bias while pretending to be balanced... Just don't cite them in (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) And my point still stands--whether I'm citing West Wing, the DOI, the Bible or just common sense, what does it matter where the cite came from--if the cite is Just, proper and gosh darn it, makes alotta sense, why does it matter where it came (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Hahaha! Guilty. I'm amused that he seems ("seems": I don't read his posts any more, but I do note what message he is replying to) to be going back and arguing with old posts of mine since I'm not posting new ones to him. I mean, pathetic. (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well you seemed to have figured that out (again?? this time?? (1) ) faster than I used to do.. only what, 40-50 posts in that thread between the two of you? Contrast that with me and he(2), we've managed to spin out hundreds of posts in one (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Please don't call me Shirley. How does one explain the movie "Airplane" to anyone else? It's one of my favourite "funniest of all-time" movies... it comes across like the Stooges, but (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Gosh, was it that many? The amusing thing is that in my very first post I noted that my answers to him were not entirely serious, nor did they particularly represent my own viewpoint. As to the "again?? this time??" I must note that I don't (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Larry Pieniazek

Snipped for effect. (...) "Again" as in; you previously had it figured out, seemed to have gone through a patch just now where you didn't, and now you do have it figured out "again". NOT as in; you got into it with him before... Helps? (...) As far (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Richard Marchetti

(...) Y'know, I've actually thought about Scott's communciation style here a little bit and my general impression is that he, like many of us, tries to read what is here and make reasonably quick responses without getting too bogged down in the (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) Well said Richard. What I would endeavour to change in the above, though, is, well, let me put it this way-- Having a debate where one side says, "This, this, this, this and this proves my point" (of course, all 'this''s are backed up by link (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm not sure I agree here. A bit of logic might help. If I assert: (-> == implies ) A -> B and B -> C and C -> D are all true , and thus A -> D is true and provide facts or evidence FAB in support of A -> B FBC in support of B -> C FCD in (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) Very nicely put, Larry... However, my point was outlined with the second reasoning you made--that given a list of claims, (FEF1 (blood), FEF2 (DNA), FEF3 (motive), FEF4 (whatever)... FEFn) and one of those claims was refuted, it does not mean (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Larry Pieniazek

(...) David please do not mark up my words as you did in the next paragraph. It is confusing to the readership and extremely poor form. (...) Everything in parenthesis was added by David, and is incorrectly associated with the same inference. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) Everything in the *paragraph* was written by me and was *exactly* what I wanted to say with my first post about refuting an arguement by refuting one point--that by disputing one point of the list of evidence does not make *all* points null (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Thank you for the clarification, on rereading I see that they are your words, my apologies. Point still stands though. (...) A list neither IS nor ISN'T a sequence (or chain of inferences, note the difference). Further it neither IS nor ISN'T (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) If the point that still stands is "Everything in parenthesis was added by David", that is correct. If, however, the point that still stands is "and is incorrectly associated with the (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Dave Schuler

(...) Just for reference, I don't think "quoteth" is a word (TIMBW). Are you thinking of "quoth" perhaps? (...) Since you're on a laudable anti-postmodernist kick, I'll throw a PM word at you for your arsenal: Rhizome. In its basic meaning it (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Frank Filz

(...) I would claim that the most correct answer to this problem in a math class is "I can't answer that question because insufficient information is given." A teacher who did give this problem though should award credit to anyone who provides an (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I totally agree with the above two paragraphs, whether they're applied to you, or to someone else, anyone doing these things is doing off-topic.debate a significant disservice in my view, and really ought not to do that. What I would question (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I am one of the people that I think Dave is talking about. And I don't know how to correct it. My perception is that in threads on fairly disparate topics in which both he and I have been involved, he has advanced arguments that look like: (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snip> (...) I love purple--is my favourite colour--coincidental that my high school colours happened to be purple and white! :) If you want to get really confused, I am technically (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Richard Marchetti

(...) Yeah, they botched the case alright... Frankly, I don't know who did this double homicide -- nor does anyone else as aptly pointed out by Larry. O.J. looks good for it, but I can't see why a person of his apparent means would do something like (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) People do lots of weird stuff for sake of amusement. Is amusing yourself (and others) a waste of time? Chris (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) I keep coming back here for the sheer entertainment value. Is better than tv! At least there's "dem dar edumicated talking" going on here... ;) Dave K (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Dave Schuler

(...) A minor digression... You *do* need to make further observations to determine if it's true that the hammer would fall. Either you would need to make your deduction based on your witnessing of the descent of the hammer from your hand to the (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) <snip> intellectual posturor! (...) This is what I meant by Spock phrasing it better--he said something like 'on a planet with positive gravity'--it's ST:TOS--when was the last time I caught one of those episodes? ;) I don't have to witness (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

I don't "believe" in Australia (was Re: John Leo's opinion) —Dave Schuler

(...) Was that from "The Alternative Factor?" I haven't seen much TOS in quite a while, so my memory may be faulty. The problem is that his statement as you quoted it had no boundaries, so we could only assume that it applied to the universe at (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: I don't "believe" in Australia (was Re: John Leo's opinion) —Constantine Hannaher

(...) Actually, the phrase can be Googled and a WAV of it found fairly readily. The episode was "Court Martial" and Spock was comparing his confidence in knowing that if he let go of a hammer on a planet with positive gravity, he would know that it (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

I believe in IDIC (was Re: I don't "believe" in Australia (was Re: John Leo's opinion)) —David Koudys

(...) It was Spocks way of saying human nature is as reliable as the forces of natural law. I thought that idea, though others might disagree, was quite astute. (...) <snip> Yes, also don't miss the "heart filter" that McCoy uses to filter out the (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Frank Filz

(...) I've wondered this in the past also. If the planet were not rotating, I think the answer would be that your analysis is correct. Note that you would be in a zero-G environment (or close to it) at the center assuming the Earth is close to an (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) Never thought about the rotation--there was an H.G. Wells story about a guy that was granted a wish and his was for the earth to stop spinning--turns out that when the wish was mentioned, the earth stopped instantly anad everything that wasn't (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Frank Filz

(...) Ok, that would eliminate the rotation. (...) Since your original problem statement assumed there was no problem with a molten core, I think it's also reasonable to assume the water isn't a problem (you can make a dam from all the earth you (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) Would it be a $#*crash*#$ into the side or more of a 'rubbing' every once in a while to stop the sideways velocity. Considering that gravity is pulling straight down, and the original velocity from the surface spin is moving you east at (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Dan Boger

Quoting David Koudys <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca>: (...) I think it'll feel like you're rolling down a steep hill, constantly crashing against the eastern wall. (...) uh, why? gravity is pulling straight down, your momentum is at 90 degs to the force - (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) Now that I pictured that, I understand it better--the force of gravity is always pointing straight to the center from the object, even if you're a foot to the right from where you were a second ago--my visual image is reprocessed--thanks! (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Tunnel through the center of the Earth (was Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Frank Filz

(...) The terminal velocity will primarily be a function of the density of the air and the surface area of the body. The force being applied will have some effect. Basically what will happen is that near the center of the Earth, the friction from (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Tunnel through the center of the Earth (was Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Frank Filz

(...) Which of course happens as soon as you pass the center... Though the friction of rolling down the side of the tunnel might be enough to stop you at the center. Frank (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: another goofy question from our resident Canadian! 8^) —Dave Schuler

(...) (URL) Dave! (22 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: another goofy question from our resident Canadian! 8^) —David Koudys

(...) Oh my goodness!! I forgot all about that one! Thanks Dave! That's awesome! Dave K (22 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Dave Schuler

(...) (URL) (17 years ago, 10-Jul-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Ed Jones

(...) Geez, you mean it isn't real. Wow a TV show that isn't grounded in reality? You mean Mr. Ed really couldn't talk? Sally Fields really couldn't fly as a nun? All those police, hospital and family shows are fake? Larry, exactly how uninformed do (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Richard Marchetti

(...) Well, that's probably as overstated as Larry's original point. I think Larry's more general point is how information is fed to one subliminally through various media, and how often people do not put the source of the information under much (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) As I may have mentioned before, we have to look at, struggle with, refute, and generally deal with the *issues*, and not the person. Larry's point was that he would never accept ideas and concepts coming from the idiot box, or specifically (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Richard Marchetti

(...) Yeah, that is probably an overly broad statement. About the Caesar quote... The importance of getting the cite and who said it correctly has to do with a rhetorical technique called an appeal to authority. The person making the quote is (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) And I agree with everything you have stated above, and I love to find someone who is 'smarter than me' to cite. I would add, however, if I get the source wrong, and the source is refuted, it in no way diminishes what the point was, it just (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But if we're talking about gun control and you say "in 1780, Jefferson wrote x in a letter to the Virginia assembly about the meaning of militia" and it turns out that the quote was actually written by Sarah Brady in 1989, the quotation is not (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Dave Schuler

(...) That's a *fantastic* example, and it dovetails nicely with my point in an earlier debate. Mike P is now off the hook for using the false Brady quote: "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us are (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Richard Marchetti

(...) Jeez, Dave!... I agree that we can revisit a given question. I agree that the historical meaning of the 2nd and 9th Amendments only get at the legislative intent and do not go to stare decisis or what we may do now or in the future (through (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Dave Schuler

(...) Heehee. I should have picked a more hypothetical example! See, my biggest problem is that I agree with you, but something's not sitting right with me about it. Not with the right itself, which I honestly think is pretty straightforward, but (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Richard Marchetti

(...) Y'know, let's get away from Jefferson. If we are going to discuss legislative intent in the Constitution we can refer to the Federalist Papers and the many debates that were had state by state. Some of the quotes I provided last time were from (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Dave Schuler

(...) I've mentioned before, and I'm happy to reiterate here, that you've done vastly more reading on the subject than I, and I am therefore given to accept much of what you interpret the 2nd amendment to say. But if the issue as cut-and-dried as (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) And, again I agree that appealling to those more intelligent and well versed than ourselves to aid in our defense of a particular point can be a good thing. But if Moe the bartender said something poignant, insightful and relevant to the (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) That's fine. I have nothing against Moe's poignancy. And while Moe may have very valid opinions about the role of firearms in modern society, I value the writings of the people who wrote the constitution, more than I trust Moe's opinion -- (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Ed Jones

(...) to (...) Well, it seems that I did exactly what I was trying to avoid doing, which was coming in in the middle of another thread given a new header. (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) context (...) bartender. (...) Hunh? Chris (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Ed Jones

(...) makes (...) Meaning I thought it was a fresh debate, rather than a carryover of another debate (which it seems to be). (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Which debate, though? The one about West Wing, the one about quotations and their merit, or the one about the second amendment? I expect you could steer the threadlette in the direction you wanted it to go. But you would have to deal with the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Ed Jones

(...) Again, I thought John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" was a totally new debate topic on The West Wing and how the West Wing was not an accurate represenation of the workings of politics and the White House. (...) Probably about once or twice (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —David Koudys

(...) Actually, if I may clarify--this was a new debate about TWW and the validity of using cites from the show--Larry pointed out that in his opinion, any cite from TWW will carry no water with him. That was this particular debate drew in issues (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) "flyby." (...) Well, that's sort of technically true, but at the same time, the thread wouldn't have started without the context that leads to it. In that way, it is a continuation of more than one other thread in which TWW was cited. So I (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Ed Jones

(...) Exactly. (...) So what medium isn't spewing propaganda? (...) It would be interesting to see the ratio of those letters received to viewers. IS it 1%, 10%. I don;t think it would be very high at all. (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) TV (...) silly. (...) I agree. But also believing that what you see on a soap is litterally true...so much so that you write in to the fictional characters is pretty extreme. I'm sure that lots of (all?) people are successfully propagandized (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Ed Jones

(...) I think the bigger question is: What isn't propagandized? Isn't all advertising propaganda? Isn't every book propaganda? Every medium's main purpose is to promote its ideas. Isn't the very promotion of ideas propaganda? (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Certainly advertising is by nature propagandist. There seems like a critical difference between a piece of fiction that is written solely to entertain and one that is written with underlying political/religious/...l/whatever messages that are (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Dave Schuler

(...) These two paragraphs are the crux of the issue, for me. We might add a third permutation and ask: if the author creates a work intended to stir social change, but it doesn't, is it still propaganda? That seems like a suitable opposite of your (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Ed Jones

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: (Deleting a whole lot of things I agree with.) The contradiction with the dictionary (...) Please note that I am only using the names Beavis and Butthead in the next paragraph to differentiate (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —David Koudys

(...) I remember in January '86 when the shuttle blew up--the news preempted all the soaps for the afternoon to cover the terrible accident. Then the tv stations received many nasty letters and phone calls from irate viewers who were angry that they (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Ed Jones

(...) Arguing the validity of the words of a (...) BTW, you didn't ask, but the main reason that I dont't post more to debate is that most of these debates end up spending most of their life argueing over the validity or quotes, sources, statements, (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —David Koudys

(...) There was once, well, a West Wing episode ;) , in which a pollster mentioned a little tale about polls-- " Polls tell us that people are sick and tired of hearing about sexual scandals of politicians, and yet the ratings of any show that (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Dave Schuler

(...) The funk, as I recall, was that we were hearing about the scandal to the exclusion of all else, as though it, more than anything else, actually mattered to the state of the union. Granted, Clinton is no moral giant, but neither is Gingrich, (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> No argument with any of that (you'll never see ME arguing the case that a show "ought to be banned" rather than "just turn the channel on it" so the off button is the completely appropriate (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Ed Jones

(...) Hmm, "misconstrued" and a "drive by". How quickly the name calling starts. If you had read my response down a few threads, you would have seen that I thought this was a fresh debate topic, not a follow-up post with a new heading to a previous (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And later on in a different post... (...) You are absolutely correct. Start by looking in the mirror, Ed. I'll stick with my original assessment. Your first post to this thread was a driveby. (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" —Ed Jones

(...) The difference, Larry, and it is a huge one, is that I did not name call. Read what you have quoted - The first two words - "Your statement..." I responded that your statement "is blatant snobbery, self-serving, judgemental without proof, and (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Ed's opinion of Larry and other trivia (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) That's not exactly fair, Ed. Misconstrue isn't a name at all, it's Larry's assertion that you misunderstood his point (in this case possibly willfully). And if you consider how your note looked, I don't think "drive by" was really (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Cost Of Living (was Re: Ed's opinion of Larry and other trivia) —Tom Stangl

While the schools themselves may not need money (that's debatable for many areas - if a school is falling apart from lack of money for basic maintenance along with much-needed upgrades, it needs money), the teachers do. If a teacher cannot afford to (...) (22 years ago, 9-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cost Of Living (was Re: Ed's opinion of Larry and other trivia) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) There are certainly places where teachers should be making more money. Schools though, waste huge sums of money in an attempt to educate. There are (private) schools that do a better job for less money without depriving the teachers. Maybe the (...) (22 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)