 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
