 | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) I had a pain in my chest, and I was sick of all the usual doctors telling me that it was lung cancer, so I went with my instinct and consulted a wealthy actor rather than someone with experience in treating my ailment. I just wanted to try (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You? —Adrian Egli
|
| | | | (...) I'll just take that as another sacarasm. (...) Again, I'm going to note Hardball on MSNBC. Arnorld has something no one else up there showed- charasima! If there is one thing I have seen all so often in this life (I was one of those teens who (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) You've misinterpreted my intent, so I'll restate it: I find your choice "to try someone else" to be insufficient cause for an informed citizen to cast a ballot for one canditate in preference to another. Would you care to elaborate on your (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You? —Adrian Egli
|
| | | | (...) "Absolute unknown" can take on a lot of possibilities. If you mean unknown to the public in general then Arnold not an "absolute unknown". I have my sample ballot in front of me right now and am going down the list to see which names I (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Absolute political unknown. I had presumed that you would be able to identify the term within the context of the discussion, but I see that I am in error. You dismissed a range of other candidates just because you didn't know their names. This (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Honestly, I dismissed most of them for pretty much the same reason - I didn't know their name simply because they were not seriously running for governor. And let's add to that I dismissed the names that were similiar to better known people (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: Once again, you're forgetting my prohibition against posting except when you agree with me. I just don't understand you sometimes. (...) There's a difference, I think, between ignoring anonymous (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) We are the chorus, and we agree, we agree, we agree, we agree - Bored of the Rings (...) No, we dismiss the anonymous simply because they are anonymous. I don't have a clue as to who they are. I at least knew beforehand who Arnold was, I could (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
