Debate : 19034


Off-Topic / Debate / 19034

Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva

(...) Neither worries me. If the first happens, it would take a lot more than a loony dictator to fire the missiles (and I have not yet heard of collective insanity in such a degree); The second is clearly not the case in Iraq, which is largely (...) (21 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —John Neal

(...) Pedro, you are missing the point. Even if SH isn't crazy enough to fire off a nuke at an enemy (which is in and of itself debatable), he's smart enough and perfectly willing to give one to a looney like OBL who IS looney enough to denotate one (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur

(...) SH does not have a nuke. If he did, do you think he'd trust OBL with it??? (...) Is Bush not a "religious fanatic". Does he not support terrorism? Why else would he have "pardoned" Orlando Bosch? See: (URL) to the justice department in George (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —David Koudys

(...) Well, if this is the motivation behind the war, then go beat up yourselves. That controversial commercial about that guy filling up his SUV is dead on--the truth hurts and you Yankees don't want to hear it. Come up with a coherent foreign (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) There ain't nothing you can say about Steinbrenner that can upset me. Unless of course, if you refer to this Dodger fan as a "Yankee". :-) (...) It shouldn't be too hard to guess where France's oil comes from, that's for sure. :-) (...) Which (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —David Koudys

(...) Canadians aren't hell-bent on going to war, and we at least try to have a cohesive and responsible foreign policy, without the pretension that we do. (...) I have said elsewhere that Saddam is a bad man--a very very very bad man (waggles (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Good for them, but that doesn't answer my question. :-) (...) But this was not the point you were making. How can you castigate the United States for its policy in regards to Iraq on the basis of the US trying to portray everyone as a bad man? (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —David Koudys

(...) Again, I think it did--take a fine example of Cuba--name one spot where Canadians can go on vacations that Americans, by law, cannot? Guess which cigar Canadians can smoke that Americans, by law, cannot. Now I'll connect the dots-- We try to (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —John Neal

(...) Arrgg. This kind of moral equivalency is probably the most aggravating characteristic of the Left. To be unable to distinguish between being morally good and evil is *basic*! Dave, you sound silly when you call Bush or Blair "bad", but call (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) "Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone." Fredrik (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur

(...) "Eh... All right. Two points, ah, two flats, and a packet of gravel." ;-) Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —John Neal

(...) So what are you trying to argue here? That *nobody* is worthy to confront evil? That *nobody* has the moral authority to rise up against tyrants, depots, or dictators? That *nobody* has the right to judge anyone else? I don't understand your (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur

(...) I think he is simply asking for a little humility to be shown. Scott A (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —John Neal

(...) But what does that mean? Humility is irrelevant. Your obfuscation is a dodge. JOHN (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) When someone observed to Winston Churchill that his predecessor as prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, was a humble man, Churchill is reported to have replied, "And he has so much to be humble about." Ditto for some current European leaders (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva

(...) I agree. You can count my PM in the list :-/ Pedro (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) And Bush! ;-) -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —John Neal

(...) I'm surprised, ->Bruce<-, that you'd even recognize humility in a leader, given whom you recently voted into office;-) JOHN (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Paper Tigers [Re: What about the first?] —Scott Arthur

(...) I feared that quote may have been erroneous. I did some checking. It turns up only in one place on the web: (URL) someone observed to Winston Churchill that his predecessor as prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, was a humble man, Churchill is (...) (21 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It turns out that if you leave a few words out of the search (URL) get a lot of sites with cites, most of which say that Churchill was talking about Clement Atlee, not Chamberlain, and most of which have a different wording. My memory of the (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Don Heyse

(...) Hey! That's way better than the lame excuse for an apology I got when you accidentally censored me! I demand an apology! ;^) Don (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Appy polly logies (was Re: What about the first? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I sent you 3 or 4 already, and that exhausted my stock. Sorry, I'm fresh out now. :-) XFUT .fun because I hope this was in fun... (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Appy polly logies (was Re: What about the first? —John Neal

(...) Lar, perhaps (URL) this> might help. All I do is give, JOHN (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)

Re: Appy polly logies (was Re: What about the first? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Thanks. but that actually seems to cost actual money. After buying 5 Maersks (even at US prices) I'm fresh out of that too. (...) ... or take, as the case may be. Are you getting a cut? Also, did you print the inscription on the shirt the nice (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)

Re: Appy polly logies (was Re: What about the first? —John Neal

(...) I feel your pain and raise you 20 metroliners...;-) (...) I wish! ;-) (who even goes to that site??? I just punched in "imsorry" into Google and found it. About as lame as you can get IMO. I mean, "Epology"??? They don't even check for (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)

Re: Appy polly logies (was Re: What about the first? —Ross Crawford

(...) Oh and I apologise for censoring you Larry, it was totally accidental, I promise... ROSCO (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Appy polly logies (was Re: What about the first? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you mean censure, because: 1. There *is* no censorship practiced on LUGNET. Even accidentally. 2. AFAIK you don't have cancel privs anyway even if there was.(a) a - unless I missed a memo here somewhere... (rummages) nope. (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur

(...) Is this really the best explanation you can come up with after 15 months? That is not how it (URL) looks>. It looks like you tried to pass someone else's words off as your own (plagiarism) and infringed their IP rights in the process. Read (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: What about the first? —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote: (snip) I explained what happened, I admitted fault, and I apologised for it. If it doesn't fit the format of the apology you want, or doesn't fit the facts as you imagine them to be, tough. Take it or (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)

Re: What about the first? —Don Heyse

(...) I use google, and you're right, I did need to look up the first biggie. Unfortunately the top link from google didn't help much: (URL) of assidious> Or maybe that was sneaky debator's trick for calling someone an insidious @$$ and passing it (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: What about the first? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) are you an assiduous and malintentioned nitpicker? If not, I wasn't talking to you Scott, apologies if you think I was, but therefore I wasn't insulting you. If you are, then, by your own admission, identifying you as such isn't an insult, (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: **snip** (...) **snip** (URL) On a related note...> 8^) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: What about the first? —John Neal

(...) Which reminds me of (URL) this> (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

our local rhino —Scott Arthur

(...) Sadly, our local rhino died just a few days ago. We are RZSS members pretty much because of Kruger; so the zoo was rather empty without him last weekend ;-( His mate, Umfolozi (AKA (URL) "Floozy">), looked pretty sad. Scott A (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur

Can anyone tell me exactly what this is achieving? Is there any sort of aim to these attacks on me? Is this “constructive” Don? Should I just ignore him? Is his behavior acceptable? Is he obsessed by me? Should I be flattered by the attention? (URL) (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)

Re: What about the first? —Don Heyse

(...) Wow, you folks are sensitive. I thought the typo and the bizare link from google were kinda funny. I even added a smiley to go with the winky, but lugnet squashed my attempt to set FUT to .fun. Gotta figure out how to do that. Anyhow, the only (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: What about the first? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "I take it then, that Canadians aren't buying SUVs?" If you are going to castigate Americans for something that Canadians are doing (wasting oil through self-indulgence), you aren't going to garner a lot of respect for whatever point you are (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva

(...) Even though I can easily agree with you on that (oil for US consumption which is not from the GoM or Alaska comes primarily either from Venezuela or West African countries), I think I must point out one does not need to *use* the oil to (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Wrong in the sense that I never said that U.S. companies do not benefit from Middle Eastern oil in any way. Dave is saying we want their oil because we are sucking up so much Middle Eastern oil (and specifically Iraqi oil) with our SUVs. My (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva

(...) You are correct, you did not say that at any time. I also did not say you did say it... :-) I just call your attention to the fact that it would be wrong *if* you had that in mind. Therefere I chose the words "as you said it" to be highlighted (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

"US buys up Iraqi oil to stave off crisis" [was Re: What about the first?] —Scott Arthur

(...) Really? Read this: US buys up Iraqi oil to stave off crisis (URL) its most chronic shortage in oil stocks for 27 years, the US has this month turned to an unlikely source of help - Iraq. Weeks before a prospective invasion of Iraq, the (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva

(sorry about the double-post... my bad) :-$ Pedro (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —David Koudys

(...) I love analogies... If I know someone who has an alcohol problem, do I have to have an alcohol problem? If I know someone who hates Islam and wants to kill anyone who believes in that religion, do I have to carry a gun and start shooting as (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) No, but if you do, then perhaps you should attend to yourself before lecturing others. (major snip) (...) I read where you were running on about someone hating Islam, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand, so I simply deleted it as (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) What I want you to realize is that writing off valid points as 'straw man arguments' and 'wiggling and changing the tune', and deleting examples that are completely valid and true (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva

(...) You can turn that the other way around: even Saddam is clever enough to know he cannot rely in such a lunatic as OBL. Saddam has managed to keep power for so long due to a careful choice of allies; he is well aware OBL cannot be controlled! (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —John Neal

(...) <snip> (...) It's not that I have a problem with religious fanatics, it's what those fanatics *do*. I would venture that 90% of the world's terrorism is perpetrated by Muslim fanatics. (...) The US has *no* intention of destroying Iraq, but (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) or 10 years and he'll die of natural causes--no war needed. <snip> (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —John Neal

(...) The problem is what he will do in the mean time. If he just kept to himself the problem would be moot. JOHN (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva

(...) Historical circumstance. In the past others undertook the majority of what can now be called terrorist actions; in the future, others (non-muslim, that is) will; it's a never ending and unavoidable cycle. More: it is not dependent on religions (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur

(...) I'd "venture" 99% of the terrorism the UK has suffered has been perpetrated people who'd call themselves "Christians". However, Christianity is not what drives them. – it’s greed, nationalism and to a lesser extent some form of political (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —John Neal

(...) The difference is that 99.5% of *Christians* would condemn their actions. How many in the Arab world condemn Extremist Muslims' actions? The silence is deafening. (...) So why bring Christianity into the discussion in the first place? (...) (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —David Koudys

(...) Oh my goodness--I actually agree with John! Eep! (1) Dave K (1) all except the attack on 9-11. Whereas I don't think that American foreign policy is the *only* reason for 9-11, the slip-shod American foreign policy has negatively impacted (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva

(...) How do you know that? Christianity never impeded war or terrorist actions in the past; they happen despite it, sometimes because of it. It's void to say 99.5% of Christians condemn such violence. Why didn't you write 99.5% of the people in (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —John Neal

(...) I'll make my point below. (...) I don't watch CNN-- heck, I don't watch network news either because as you correctly point out, they are agenda-driven. (...) I agree, and here is my point. *Sensible*, rational Arabs need to SPEAK OUT against (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: Why bring Islam? (...) Problem is, you're not going to. Not saying there aren't lots of repressive regimes in the non Muslim world, mind you, but there sure aren't very many NON repressive ones in the (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva

(...) Hard to argue with that. Yet I call you attention to the fact that the Algerian dicatorship is on the anti-islamist side, making it a whole more complicated matter. (...) If you were getting paid, wouldn't it be "tribute" to the ruling empire? (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur

(...) Buying allegiance is not restricted to the "Muslim world". Right now I expect Bush is horse-trading all over. His case is that strong. (...) Part of the problem is that the USA did not pay what it said it would last time around. Bush should (...) (21 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva

(...) Worse: even when the agenda is not there visibly, all we get is a snapshot of a detail and not the panoramic view. (...) And again I pick my comparison: what happened to dissidents in the 1500's? they went to the stake. The modern day (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —John Neal

(...) Agreed. <snip> (...) Okay, but what about the vast Muslim population in free societies such as the US, or even, say, France? (...) Okay, I see your point. But realize that even within Christianity itself there are *vast* differences, to the (...) (21 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur

(...) Have you even looked? From Aug '98 [ie before the USA woke up to terrorism]: Fight terrorism, but not through Draconian laws (URL) Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said the British Muslim community has no sympathy whatsoever for any act of (...) (21 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva

(...) Regarding the US, I have no insight. Regarding France, two things take place: a) the vast majority of the muslim citizens has a feeling of distance towards politics (to which a number of explanations concurr); b) the extremists who do exist (...) (21 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes: <snip> (...) Now this is a serious thought-- Is the best solution to have the American Flag flying over the streets in Bagdad? In Israel? Have the U.S. take over these countries and say, "Well, now (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva

(...) Every single foreign power that has taken over the Middle Eastern countries has left without glory... ever since the Assyrians at least, ending in the British so far. So no, I don't think the US should do that. What would anyone gain? The (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)