 | | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) Armed rebellion...at least for a little while yet. Chris (23 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) So, I'll be able to walk the dog, the cat, the bird, AND the ferret?!? Oh no..... Bruce (23 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) You're right, Dave! We should stick to pertinent topics propounded by the Libertarians. I mean, what Californian could forget candidate for Lt. Gov. Pat Wright's pet issue? (URL) C. (23 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) Well after reading that enlightening (for lack of a more suitable description) article, I now see that my previous opinion of; "liberating the Iraqi people would be a good idea," was nothing more than delusional idealism. Idealism truly is a (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) Now, now! I'm far from a Libertarian apologist, but even I recognize the folly of judging a group by the silliness of one (or a few) of its members (though it may be a lot of fun!). It's much more rhetorically sound to address the tenets of a (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) I'm sorely tempted to make a wisecrack about what this says about the intelligence of libertarians, but I will refrain. Colloidal silver, indeed. --Bill. (23 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Cost Of Living (was Re: Ed's opinion of Larry and other trivia)
|
|
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 (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) It's going to take a while to digest all this info, may take more than one reading to get the full scope, but ditto to what Dave! just said. Welcome to the American Empire, where the liberties and freedoms of individuals anywhere in the world (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) This is, sadly, the exact kind of helplessness and futility that Scott and I were discussing in the other thread. I can read all of this, and it certainly seems consistent with what we know of Bush (eg: stolen elections and questionable (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Former Iraqi General
|
|
(...) (URL) Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 9-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) ... and it appears Bush's geography is little better. The other night he said: ==+== We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) "Care enough" is hard to quantify, but I really don't know what the average citizen can do. Even organizing a rally or a letter-writing campaign seems unworkable in the timeframe available, and we've already seen that Bush is happy to detain (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) There were moments in Dubya's speech where he was downright eloquent, but for the most bit, I found he just grated on my nerves. There was once or twice when he almost said word for word stuff from Bartlett's speech from this years season (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) apathetic (adjective): lacking interest or energy; unwilling to take action esp. over a matter of importance Perhaps (the collective) you just does not care enough? 32% of my countrymen support an attack on Iraq. I’d bet half of them could not (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) Not at all! I'm quite upset about it, but I still recognize the futility. I suspect that many of My Fellow Americans feel the same. "Apathy" suggests that we don't care, when in fact we do (some, very strongly). I know you're semi-kidding (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) If true, I would view that as a rather apathetic outlook. ;) (...) Indeed, the need to conform is strong. ;) (...) I prefer to let the UN vote on it. After all, your servicemen are old enough to decide what is right or wrong. (...) People who (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) Actually, I would say that it stems from an awareness that someone has already made up Bush's mind to attack Iraq, as well as an awareness of the futility of trying to prevent it. Anyone who even suggests that we should wait before rushing in (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) A combination of a need to conform and political apathy. Scott A (23 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
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 (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) I think that it _is_ becoming common knowledge. That's why he's grasping at straws. Chris (23 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) If you see this, and you're slowly convincing me that your interpretation of what's going on is true, so now I see it, how come this isn't common knowledge to the rest of the masses? What's going on? How can the first ammendment be "taking a (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
(...) Participation in a conspiracy is dangerous stuff. There are always loose ends that you can't tie up. That's why big awful conspiracies that require lots of secrecy and participation are silly. Acting President Bush is, I believe, worried that (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) THere was a report on my local NPR (NW Ohio) this morning that some company is marketing a similar cure for West Nile Virus as well. Maybe mosquitos can't see you in that spectrum? -c (23 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason Spears writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Thanks for the heads up! Much appreciated. And your p.s.--first rate! Dave K. (23 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) Well here is what WebMD has to say about argyria: (URL) appears that the silver posioned him, causing a condition where his pigment is different, not just an alteration to a couple layers of skin. (...) -Jason PS - I am not a Doctor, nor do I (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) OMGoodness!! Oh I want to be blue!! Say I'm an Andorian with my antennae lopped off! If there is anyone who knows something about medicine and hte human body--if someone drank this silver solution to the point where their skin turned blue, (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
|
Not to boil it down to the lowest possible common denominator... (URL) denies having weapons of mass destruction, and its U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, suggested Sunday his country could allow inspectors access even to the presidential sites (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) Wouldn't that be a great way to seperate the real medicine from the Dr. Schlob's Instant Cure? Fake cure-all's do some sort of permanent change, like turning your skin blue, or stamping "sucker" on your forehead. If *I* was in charge of the (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Star Wars 2003
|
|
John & All, (...) That's all well and fine, John, but regardless of you being a history major, etc. it is not on topic for Star Wars, and I for one do not want to see this kind of thing where it doesn't belong, because of the possiblity of having (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Star Wars 2003
|
|
Chris & All, (...) Because it did not belong in Star Wars. If this thread continues, I hope it would be in it's appropriate group, because of the political / historical aspect to it. If people want tot alk about this, feel free to do so here, but (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Not the Green party...
|
|
What the?! (URL) like a candidate who knows a nostrum when he sees it! If Browne can't do it, maybe blue can! Dave! (23 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) 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? (23 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) 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, (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) 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. (23 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) "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 (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 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")
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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. (23 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) makes (...) Meaning I thought it was a fresh debate, rather than a carryover of another debate (which it seems to be). (23 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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: (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Star Wars 2003
|
|
(...) Probably so, but it's not really a debate. There's historical fact and then there's popular misconception. It's a weakness I have as a history major. (23 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Star Wars 2003
|
|
(...) So...why did this come to o-t.debate? There's nothing with which to argue. Chris (23 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) context (...) bartender. (...) Hunh? Chris (23 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Star Wars 2003
|
|
(...) He did because he had magic powers. He also had weapons. He hides them in his beard. Much like Marge hides the x-mas money jar in her hair. Also his hat responds to his commands and produces items that are useful for fighting injustices. Much (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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. (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 -- (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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, (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) People do lots of weird stuff for sake of amusement. Is amusing yourself (and others) a waste of time? Chris (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iraqi official suggests Bush, Saddam duel (Oh, please!)
|
|
(...) This is actually a victory for Bush. His sabre rattling has led to SH saying he will allow inspectors back in. Bush's bluster has made him look like he has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. (...) As I understand it, the only limitation (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 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")
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 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")
|
|
(...) 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 (23 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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! (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iraqi official suggests Bush, Saddam duel (Oh, please!)
|
|
(...) Reading thru this article, as well as watching and reading a variety of media sources, is Bush just looking for a fight? Bush demands the inspectors be let in, they said the inspectors could come in, and now Bush is trying to change the rules. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
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 - (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Iraqi official suggests Bush, Saddam duel (Oh, please!)
|
|
Pistols. Better chance of them both fatally wounding each other. So who is the challenged and has the choice of weapons? :-) (URL) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
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 (...) (23 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))
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I don't "believe" in Australia (was Re: John Leo's opinion)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Still a "Funny Girl"
|
|
(...) -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Still a "Funny Girl"
|
|
(...) Scott, I think, has accepted that this is a bogus quote, if he ever even believe it in the first place. Sadly, some celebrities are less eager to check their sources: (URL) Dave! (23 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | I don't "believe" in Australia (was Re: John Leo's opinion)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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! (23 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
