Debate : 18405


Off-Topic / Debate / 18405

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you mean *cheek* turning christians. Unless, of course, you're referring to the Irish Americans who apparently keep turning checks over to the IRA that someone keeps trying to use as an argument... (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

American-Christians fund the IRA? —Scott Arthur

(...) If you mean me, I don’t think I have ever made any link between the IRA and American-Christians or even Irish-Americans [whatever they are] specifically? Call me on that if I’m wrong, otherwise I’d appreciate some clarification. Further, the (...) (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: American-Christians fund the IRA? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Breaking my usual practice of ignoring you and your nonsense, I decided to see how hard it was to clarify this for you. It wasn't hard at all. Using the search string "fund terrorist ireland arthur" it's not too hard to dig up lots of examples (...) (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: American-Christians fund the IRA? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Ooooh, one of my favourite words that is rarely used in this day and age. I shan't deny... :) Thanks for brightening up my otherwise dreary and depressing day at work, (...) (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: American-Christians fund the IRA? —Ross Crawford

(...) Lar++ Careful Dave - the postfix operator is definitely *not* equivalent to the prefix operator, and using Lar++ may produce unpredictable results... ROSCO (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: American-Christians fund the IRA? —David Koudys

(...) D'oh!! I was typing so quickly (as usual) that it went right by me! Apologies Larry! Still, thanks for the word usage! I shan't mistype your name again, ++Lar! Dave K (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: British-Christians fuel the IRA? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Hey, what's wrong with trying to throw out a foreign occupying force? Rather see them do it Gandhi/King style, though. Blowing up baby carriages just hurts their own cause (kinda like the Palestinians). -->Bruce<-- (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: British-Christians fuel the IRA? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Nothing, if that's what it is. What actually happened here? The conventional answer is that England took Ireland by force, right? Isn't it a lot more complicated than that? I dunno, haven't done research in depth but aren't we in some cases (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: British-Christians fuel the IRA? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Not really. England took Ireland by force. Not much else to say. (...) The evidence certainly seems to suggest that that is not the case in Northern Ireland. (...) There is no easy answer, especially when such a high level of animosity has (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: British-Christians fuel the IRA? —John Neal

(...) I'm going to jump on your parenthetical comment, Bruce, to make a point. The Palestinians have an agenda-- self-determination, Statehood, and peace. The Israelis have an agenda-- the recognition of their right to exist, and peace. Muslim (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: British-Christians fuel the IRA? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) The Palestinian and Isrealis, and the Irish and the English need to try and realize that their best course of action is negotiation and compromise. Effectively, though, this means that Isrealis need to give up some land, and the English need (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT view fuel the IRA? —Scott Arthur

(...) *sigh* Even the PA recognises their right to exist. The Israeli agenda is land theft. Anyone who really believes in freedom [as opposed to self interest] would understand that. (...) What about the war criminals in Israel? What should happen (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT view fuel the IRA? —Dan Boger

Quoting Scott A <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com>: (...) So how is this different than Israel, Scott? The Israelies already gave up some land. It is extremists in the PA (both elected and unelected) who are currently dragging their heels, and fanning the (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) I don't agree with your view. The Israelis gave up a very small part of the land they stole a few decades ago - its legal owners want all of it back. In order to keep it, the Israelis [in the form of the rather heroic IDF] oppress all manner (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —John Neal

(...) Really? I suggest you take your tape measure and head over to the Sinai Pennisula and start taking measurements... (...) Then explain the Camp David Agreement. Israel *can* be reasonable, *does* want peace, and have *proven* this. The PA is (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) I have already! (...) Who wrecked Oslo / Oslo II? Why? Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —John Neal

(...) Back already? (...) Don't be obtuse-- explain it in light of your above accusation. (...) Who indeed. It merely exemplifies the need for Israel to be negogiating with those who actually desire peace instead of seeking more step in the (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree that Sinai is a large lump of land. However, it was [reluctantly] handed back to *Egypt* - not the *Palestinians*. (...) Barak's offer was empty (it had to be ratified in a referendum). He knew Arafat could not accept it. Even so, what (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter yesterday: "At Camp David in 1978 and in Oslo in 1993, Israelis, Egyptians, and Palestinians have endorsed the only reasonable prescription for peace: United Nations Resolution 242... It condemns the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

(...) I propose an OT-D Resolution 001-- In which all party(s) concerned, concurrently and without delay withdraw from specifically discussing the Israel/Palestine issue for a term of at least, but not limited to, one (1) month. This resolution is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Ceetain parties don't want it to end (e.g. said certain party answered his own message to get it back up at the top of the queu). Just ignore said person and there won't be a debate. -->Bruce<-- And for a demonstration of such, said certain (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

(...) I was hopefully going for a stop on the debate instead of a censure of the person. One *should* cause debates on other topics to continue unfettered, the other could be, imho, perceived as an attack on the person. Whereas I agree with the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Spectacular sentence construction there! That's what you get for writing half a sentence and then coming back to it a half hour later to 'wrap it up'. I think folks can read (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I agree with your disagreement. Ignoring certain individuals often achieves a great deal, and done properly, does not result in animosity from anyone else except the miscreant, who merely need reform (or go away). (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) No doubt you would propose yourself as a role model? Scott A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —John Neal

(...) Okay, it now seems official, to me at least, that Bruce has now found himself a cool new sig. So, along with "Dave!" and "++Lar", we now have "-->Bruce<--". Well, *I* want in on the action! So from now on, I am promoting the last three letters (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

(...) Oooh, now JOHN has one, too! Rats, all the good ones are taken! Here I am, still the same, Dave K. (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Help John find his mojo-logo —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I've used that on and off for some time now. I guess I've been more religious in using it of late. Actually, I'd like the Dave! better if it could be italicized - a Tolkienian word of power! Githoniel A Elbereth! JOHN. Hmmm (walking about it (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Help John find his mojo-logo —John Neal

(...) Oh, I like that image! I see what you mean; looks like print from a Greek or Hebrew Bible. Perhaps I should add a "<><" after my name as well.... (...) "too" Apple? Can *anything* be "too Apple"? The world needs *more* Apple:-) (...) Well, I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Aldous Huxley: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." I do not need people to reply to my posts to make a point. Rather than urging people to ignore me, perhaps it would be easier for you to counter my argument [as Larry (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Two comments 1. what's the "scope of the Israel/Palestine issue"... if some party(1) says that something(2) is related, is it? If someone says something isn't, is it? (3) 2. what is the enforcement mechanism? Sent to bed without dessert? (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Model UN's/rants/ideas--was Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

(...) How did that model UN work with you as Pakistan's ambassador? The resolution was not necessarily set up to be humourous, nor was it to be perfectly serious--it was to raise a concern of mine in which, if the majority concurs, we could quash a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Model UN's/rants/ideas--was Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Larry Pieniazek

I gotta run, only have time for one throwaway comment. (...) Pretty well I think. We were told to study the real positions and try to play true to form and policy rather than how we personally felt. One example: There was a resolution that came up (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Actions often speak louder than words. Have you read this [posted by you]: (URL) A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Eaton

(...) Lots of 'em do. But certain people are just gonna get angry at others regardless of the debate topic. And I don't think waiting a month would help much... (...) I don't really think the point of a debate thread is necessarily to reach a mutual (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Why is that a bad thing given the amount of disinformation that surrounds this issue? Scott A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

(...) If the sides of an issue get so polarized (there, I got to use it!) that all there is left is "I'm right, you're wrong!" "No, I'm right and you're wrong!", there is nothing left but to end the thread. I think it's a far better solution to end (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) I don't agree with that overview. (...) David, I have no problem with people ignoring me, or even users urging others to ignore me. However, I suggest you think wider than the Israel thing. Take a closer look at what is causing the "fuss" (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

(...) Well, here we are, sitting at 171 posts in this thread. I'll be the first to note that not all 171 posts directly relate to the P/I issue, but 171 posts... How would you sum up the current state of the P/I debate here in OT-D, where the sides (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Many people have polarised views on this issue. They see it in rather simplistic “Bushian” terms; good versus evil or even jews versus muslims. The most commonly asserted views here are that Israel or [very much less commonly] the Palestinians (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) I've read (most of) the thread. And again, without actually debating what's going on in I/P, the point of this little tangent on the debate is to get to a point where we're not banning (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) My view is not extreme. I hold no animosity for anyone. I'm not ignoring anyone. (...) I expect you must have. Many arguments have a weakness. Readers may respond where "think they sense weakness". This may not be where the weakness actually (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

(...) Didn't say *you* did any of these things. *We* here in ot-d have a problem. We have to come up with a working solution to said problem. In my opinion, this solution should not entail 'Playground Politics'--'Lets just ignore him and he'll go (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Good. (...) Letting go is good. I don't see the need to compromise on every issue. (...) I think I have been. (...) [snip] (...) You'll have to show how you reached that conclusion. [snip] (...) OK. (...) I do not ignore Larry. I very much (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

There was once a "Home Improvement" episode, with special guest star Tom Wopat (from "Dukes of Hazzard" fame...). In this episode, right at the very end, Tom comes up to the door and talks to Tim. The scene went something like this: <Ding dong> goes (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Clarification: I do not think what you claim. I accept that my statement could be interpreted in that way. However, it is not the only way it may be interpreted and it is not the way I meant it to be interpreted. (...) Now you are not being (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) This is not clarification. You concede that my interpretation could be one way of reading what you said, i.e. "You think that others are ignoring you because you believe your point is (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) I said: ==+== Many arguments have a weakness. Readers may respond where "think they sense weakness". This may not be where the weakness actually lies.” ==+== Do you need an example? (...) off-topic. (...) I have no idea. But why go to the (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) Thanks for the clarification. I read your above comment as a different issue than the comment posted below-- (...) Your first comment--in a general sense, arguements have strengths and (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Perhaps you can explain why? BTW, I prefer John, 8:7. (...) But how do we deem when that line in the sand has been crossed? Can it not be abused if a poster is simply posting an unpopular [but valid] view? In this group [without any (...) (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT view fuel the IRA? —Scott Arthur

Re: IGNORANT view fuel the IRA? —John Neal

(...) *Everyone* in the PA??? (...) I don't deny that there are extremist Israelis who hold this view, but the overwhelming majority *DO NOT*, and thus your statement is patently false and egregiously provocative. Anyone who really believes in (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT view fuel the IRA? —Scott Arthur

(...) Does everyone in Isreal support the occupation of the West Bank? Does the majority even do so? (...) When Shamir ended his term as PM this is what he had to say: "It pains me greatly that in the coming four years I will not be able to expand (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: British-Christians fuel the IRA? —Scott Arthur

(...) I've no problem with that. The problem is that over half of the population of NI are unionists. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

"I am told that" "it is probable that" "at least some" American-Christians "seem" to fund the IRA? —Scott Arthur

(...) I find that comment a little disingenuous. To be honest, I wish you would just ignore me. (...) As I said, "I don’t think I have ever made any link between the IRA and American-Christians or even Irish-Americans [whatever they are] (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "I am told that" "it is probable that" "at least some" American-Christians "seem" to fund the IRA? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) To be honest I wish you wouldn't post on LUGNET(tm) at all, you're somewhere between extremely low value add, and significant negative value add. Once in a while you come up with an outside cite of some limited value but by and large your own (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "I am told that" "it is probable that" "at least some" American-Christians "seem" to fund the I —Scott Arthur

(...) Give it rest. It's rather ironic that you don't see the irony in what you are saying. This sort stuff should be taken to e-mail. (...) Synopsis: You've admitted I was correct, and you were wrong. Furthermore; you're not happy about it. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "I am told that" "it is probable that" "at least some" American-Christians "seem" to fund the I —David Koudys

(...) And it was so nice in here lately--things were debated, discussions happened, and there was almost a zen-like, albeit debatable discussions, in the land. Oh well, c'est la vie! Dave K. (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

I agree. —Scott Arthur

We all need to respond to the issues raised, rather that insult each other. How come it's so busy here, I thought it was Thanksgiving yesterday? Scott A (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "I am told that" "it is probable that" "at least some" American-Christians "seem" to fund the IRA? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Heck, I ignore Scott, but judging by the flurry of responses, he won't do me the same favor. He wants and craves attention. Ignoring him is still the best option. He'll even pick up on long-distance, unstated twitting of his hypocritical (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "I am told that" "it is probable that" "at least some" American-Christians "seem" to fund the I —Scott Arthur

(...) Thanks for your rather disruptive input, but I've no intention of joining in your mudslinging. [BTW: I'm not anti-American, I'm pro-justice - understand the difference]. (...) How ironic; I note you have chosen to sling mud rather than address (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Dealing with the problem —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Good analysis, Bruce, but it's not enough that just you ignore him, or that just I ignore him. For off-topic.debate to truly be enjoyable, it's necessary that EVERYONE ignore him, and manage to do so consistently. This is necessary because if (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dealing with the problem —Scott Arthur

Larry, Take a look at the current fuss. Look at what started it. You should hang your head in shame rather that cause more fuss. It may be a cultural thing, but personally I think sniggering and name-calling is far more “anti-social” than my alleged (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)