 | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch —David Koudys
|
| | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes: <snip> (...) Ahh, there it is. If it isn't USA, it's no way. Got it. Perhaps you wish to reconsider? Dave K (...) (22 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) Crazy world, eh David? Nobody over here seems to understand that truth dealing is the way to make the U.S. a better place -- it's always some nonsense about patriotism, or national security, or counter-terrorism. And here I thought the truth (...) (22 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch —Scott Costello
|
| | | | (...) I realize that you have some internal connect between politics and religion, but for me I tend to keep those two worlds completely separate. My political views have little to do with my religious views, please try to stay focused. (...) My (...) (22 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Nevertheless, your mistrust is not at all misplaced. The BBC, despite being government funded, isn't exactly hewing to reality, much less hewing to the Labour party line, at least according to some observers. Your mileage may vary, of course. (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Are you saying it can't be trusted? Shame on you sir! (...) Nonsense! It is funded by the public through a licence fee [~UKP100 / US$160] for every viewing household & through sales of its products. Fantastic value when you think about it. (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch —David Koudys
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) And not made up like the NY Times... Ooops--US news sources are fallible! Did I say that out loud? If you want to keep your head in the sand, then that's your choice. Don't admonish those (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | <reinserted a few quotes that David snipped, but I think i've got the attributions right, apologies if I flubbed> (...) Sorry, how is a license fee that one *must* pay (or be in violation of law), and which is collected *by the government*, and then (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) *WRONG* there is no "must". One only has to pay if the household has a TV. (...) It is collected by the BBC [well actually their appointed agent]. (...) You are squirming. (...) *sigh* I see your point Larry… but its pretty tenuous. The fact (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch —David Koudys
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Well, I'd start with a variety of sources, instead of just one or two that tell us what we want to hear, or worse, tell us what they want us to hear and filter out that which may (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Excellent advice. But you'd agree that some sources are more credible than others, right? Or would you tend to view all sources with equal credulity? I would think not, and further, I would think that a source that tends to be factually (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | Fix a small typo... capitalized area of repair for emphasis (...) SHOULD read Or would you tend to view all sources with equal credulity? I would think not, and further, I would think that a source that tends to be factually correct, even if their (...) (22 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) I find arguing about these distinctions in a thread about the way fiction as reality is being foisted upon us by the current administration increasingly laughable. Where are the WMD? When precisely are we pulling out of Iraq? Why were the (...) (22 years ago, 18-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch —David Koudys
|
| | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Well, I don't treat my life like it's made up of binary management--if we remove certain criteria, then we allow *everyting*. I thought it would be inferred by my slam towards the Nat. (...) (22 years ago, 20-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Are you saying plagiarism is ~OK~. I think that is the wrong sort of signal to send. (...) Ah! So it's Larry who is the plagiarist; I wondered whom he was talking about! ;) Scott A (22 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | plagarism [Re: "Saving" Private Lynch] —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) In what way is the Guardian not "reliable"? You may not find it "reliable", but you do cite it when the text is right [eg]: (URL)The NYT in particular, lies (...) If all that is true, let the market damn them both and FoxNews can prevail! (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
