 | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) (snip) (...) I think your analogy is faulty. The group is specifically concerned about TV commercial time. (...) I can't remember where I heard this, and my attempts to locate the info were unsuccessful. Let me get back to you on that if I (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: One world order is a pipe dream (was Re: UN Gets It Right!)
|
|
(...) Your command of the obvious is impressive. Sorry I didn't snip the "or pay our dues" part; glad you found the "imprecision" amusing. Pettifogging makes boring conversation IMO. For instance if I were to rejoin by saying that your use of "its" (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | One world order is a pipe dream (was Re: UN Gets It Right!)
|
|
(...) I love the imprecision of this :-) Perhaps 'it is not possible for the US to pay its dues' - and its not like the US doesn't have buckets of money, so presumably its debt to the world (personified in many ways by the UN) is overwhelmingly (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
|
(...) The evidence has been presented here in the past and I'm not inclined to dig it up again. (...) Cites please? I'm not pro-corporate by any stretch of the imagination, unless you're anti-capitalist and don't see the distinction between (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) Two points 1) Some of the stuff that's one link away from that website talks about conspiracies of Illuminati and Zionists and etc to impose a New World Order. I'm not sure how seriously that site's going to be taken based on that particular (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
