 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) Oh, come now! I think everyone knows I was being facetious. If anyone feels disenfranchised by my jest, please let me know, and I'll make amends. Dave! (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) I resent the fact that you're painting with such a broad brush. Just because I agree with you on this issue, doesn't make me sane. :-) Chris (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Nor, for that matter, does it necessarily follow that sanity is possessed by Dave! (that was a tough one to get to come out correctly(1) in under 90 seconds of thought) 1 - ... having the phrase or sentence end in Dave! (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Question for the sane out there —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | (...) And your insistence on the distinction implies that there is some doubt as to Dave!'s sanity. I am prepared to vouch Dave!'s sanity. (Mwa ha ha ha. MWA HA Ha ha.) Then again, I think pretty much everyone is sane. Even the folks John habitually (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question for the sane out there —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) It was a clever, logical twist on the assertion of Dave! (a joke) (...) Well, from your statement below, that's not saying much. (...) ??? Except those who aren't? (...) "Consummate sense"? Explain and cite please. Are you saying that the (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Consummate sense? I think not! —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) Richard is a nice guy; I'm sure he did no mean that. Personally, I don’t draw a huge distinction between the “deliberate killing of innocent people” and the indiscriminate/disproportionate use of force which results in the “killing of innocent (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question for the sane out there —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | | (...) Of course it was a joke silly. In the same way as Dave!'s assertion was a joke. But in Lar's special way, its also a jab. And I happenned to be feeling a bit anti-establishment, defender of the oppressed at the time. Its all this reading about (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question for the sane out there —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) I'll say that. When "one's will" is the pursuit of basic human rights and every other avenue of approach has been reasonably exploited to no avail. It's not like they just want extra chocolates or something. (...) The right to worship is a (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Oops! Good point. My sincere apologies also to any people whom I've libeled with false allegations of sanity. 8^) Dave! (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
