Debate : 3254


Off-Topic / Debate / 3254

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And thank goodness he WASN'T state funded. Free money spoils people. If you don't want to suffer a bit for your art, you're not much of an artist, now are you? Note, that's a utilitarian argument against state funding... the art it produces is (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Kevin Salm

(...) Hear, Hear!!! Time to vote. Who is in favor of un-funding all federal art subsidies?? It sure gets my vote. I prefer starving artists who have to work a little bit at their trade and thus, create much better art. If private individuals wish to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Mine as well! (...) Amen, brother! :) Scott S. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Larry Pieniazek

Although I agree with Kevin (how could I not, he's agreeing with me) I am honor bound to point out: (...) that the starving artists I see on TV (you know, on those 1/2 hour ads and such) seem to produce mostly Elvis on velvet... :-) Not that there's (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Interestingly, that's a case of your almighty market defining what art is meritorious. When we get a black-velvet Rembrandt analogue, I'll concede it as a good development--until then, I'm firmly in the corner of mixed-source funding. The (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I certainly question it. Fortunately it's not what I've been saying. What I have an issue with is rather the artist who is not willing to suffer, but instead feels the world owes him funding as his due, for deigning to have decided to be an (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Steven Vore

I'm sure to regret getting into this at all, but... (...) why stop at art? -S (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Richard Franks

(...) I disagree with the sentiment that suffering creates better art, or that worthy art can only be created by those willing to suffer a bit for it. Are some of the amazing LEGO creations and sculptures on LUGNET not examples of worthy art created (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) I think this is a pointless argument, simply because a national defense was FOUNDED in the Constitution. The NEA was not. Artists have somehow survived since the beginning of time, and somehow, we seem to be in a notion that the federal (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz

One thing I'd like to toss in here is the possibility that it is ok for local government to spend money on social programs (including art and schools). This is subject to the limitation that state and national governments don't control the local (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Good. So do I. Fortunately, that wasn't what I said. What I said was that if you are not willing to suffer for your art, you are not a worthy ARTIST, not that your art isn't worthy. I would say that to be true for any endeavour. If you expect (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Dave Schuler

(...) Aw, Larry, you had me right along with you up till this bit. Well, I'm still mostly with you, but a considerable problem with art today--and this isn't just confined to our fine nation--is the predominant aesthetic trend as much as any dubious (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz

(...) You have a point, however, I think we are on the verge (if not already over the cliff) of having a market which will again support good art. This is due to the internet. With the minimal cost of distribution, who cares what the mass market (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen

(...) B&N is a better online bookseller than amazon, IMHO. Especially their OOP/secondhand books. As far as online publishing by the author is concerned, I refer you to the messages posted to rec.arts.sf.composition by Gene Steinberg. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Dave Schuler

(...) That makes a lot of sense. My concern, at present--and forgive me for lapsing into my own pet crusade for a moment--is that the scourge of Postmodernism, among others, has yielded an unprecedented load of manure, and many (not here, (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz

(...) People who write worthwhile material will be supported irrespective of ability to copy protect their work. In fact, ultimately, the consumers will protect the works (why should I let you read my copy of XYZ, when you can download it yourself, (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Dave Schuler

(...) Where and when is this magical land? And how does one get there, because clearly this philosophy has little to do with the state of the market today, or of any time in the past four centuries, since the concept of authorship came to the fore. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Dave Schuler

(...) Ooops! No, it doesn't, but I sure thought it did. Did it previously? Dave! (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen

(...) I didn't think there was a non-profit status, as such? More a sort of "not profitable right now" status, the last time this came up. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz

<FnxK4w.Gt1@lugnet.com> <3874FDA7.2043@mindspring.com> <FnxMM8.6Av@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) My assertion is that the mass market stores are going to be pushing such drek, that (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Dave Schuler

(...) I understand your assertion, and I still assert that it has little reference to reality. Your analogy with Lugnet is likewise still flawed. (...) Okay, then, how much money has Todd made on Lugnet? Enough to support himself with no other (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller

(...) It's interesting though. A lot of us here certainly would have the technical ability to copy and redistribute lugnet -- it's not that much harder than copying an electronic novel would be. But, there are other things that might be better (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Dave Schuler

(...) Another reason no one's done it is that there's no point--Lugnet's value isn't as static repository of ideas but as a living forum for exchange of those ideas. A novel is different, since it's written once and then it's done--downloading the (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller

(...) It varies. Probably the most interesting open source/free software license is the GPL (GNU General Public License), which states (in as watertight manner as a bunch of lawyers could make it) that the software is free to use and modify as long (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen

(...) No, we wouldn't, and yes, it would be. Only a snapshot is easy to make. Copying the entire underlying structure of dynamical pages would not be trivial, but not hard either (since Todd speaks of it fairly freely, and much material is (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller

(...) I disagree technically. It's almost impossible to make something available to the general public yet block copying it. But I conceed that there _is_ an essential difference between LUGnet and a book -- the dynamic interaction you mention, plus (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen

(...) Yes. But doing so without Todd's knowledge, _while keeping it up tom date_, is next to impossible. I suspect somebody who downloaded the entire site would show up a significant blip in traffic, also. Then there is the fact that by far not (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller

(...) Wouldn't be without his knowledge. He'd just be powerless to stop it without blocking large numbers of legitimate users. Not that I'm advocating such a thing in any way. (...) Yes that's again true. (...) This is a different topic entirely of (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen

(...) IPblocking such a thing would not block very many legitimate users. Unless you start doing things like spoofing IPs (which can be detected at a firewall level), morphing ISP accounts, etc.etc. Come to think of it, IPblocking of spoofed packets (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller

(...) Not so at all. I'd just use a dialup account (plenty of bandwidth to deal with the discussion traffic) at one or several major ISPs. I don't think Todd wants to break Earthlink or AOL access for all of Boston. (...) Spoofing IPs probably (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen

(...) If one must. I also think you'd have the lawyers sicced on you. Things like this are blatantly illegal. As added protection, Todd could make the NNTP connections password-protected (fairly easily, even, technically). In which case you'd need (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller

(...) Oh, definitely. That wasn't the point at all. If I still remember the original point of this. :) (...) For the record, I totally agree and sympathize with Todd's decision to run things the way he currently is. There are clear and definite (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen

(...) I don't think our current usage is enough to support a dedicated backup server, yet. I mean, we have, what, 1000 messages/day and 30k users? Still peanuts ;) By the time it gets up to 10-25k msgs/day, I'd be looking for a physical backup, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Lindsay Frederick Braun

<FnxK4w.Gt1@lugnet.com> <3874FDA7.2043@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Just an aside: The computer "revolution" and the much-touted paperless office in fact led to the paper (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen

(...) However, the machines that can print and bind a one-off book from typeset files and do it quickly are getting there. In a few decades at most, physical distribution of books will be gone, except fro the mass-market things. Those can probably (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller

(...) I believe barnesandnoble.com is doing that now. (Or is it just that they've got it in development for deployment soon.) Either way. (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller

(...) But that doesn't exactly reduce paper consumption. :) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen

(...) Uh, no. The paperless office is a big myth. The ease with which paper is created id one of the biggest problems of our times, IMHO. Let printer ink and toner be taxed at an additional $2.50 per page, I say. _THEN_ we'll see a paperless office. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Ah yes... slap a tax on it instead of trying to set things up to get at the root costs, eh? Typical tax and spend thinking. Why not go after lumber companies for causing erosion when they clear cut, and charge the proper amount to dispose of (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen

(...) Uh, Larry? I _was_ kidding. (...) So how do you figure the costs of erosion? TIhe lumber companies own their land, usually, after all. Or they have permission from the owners. And if the use that land to deposit the waste on, why shouldn't (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Larry Pieniazek

(...) How did you arrive at that number? That's my point. (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Richard Franks

(...) Fair enough, but I still disagree :) I would say that a worthy artist is one who produces worthy art. I would also suggest that the requirement of any form of suffering or willingness to suffer, on behalf of the artist, is an intellectual one (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) has (...) Ooh, even before I got better, I would never have supported this... (...) otherwise (...) sponsered (...) any (...) I used to have this opinion. My feeling now is that anything worthwhile that the (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Political Poll Was (Art Debate, among others....] —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Ahh! I just got a Libertarian rating! Larry is changing my views, AHHHH!!! :) Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller

(...) A community I lived in for a while didn't have access to a public library, because the majority (but not an overwhelming majority -- something like 60%) of the people who lived there didn't want to pay the few cents in taxes to join the (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz

Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) that (...) That (...) taxes (...) So move to a community which does have a library. (...) If it's worth the cost, it will happen. If it isn't worth the cost, then it isn't worth the cost. Another thought, I (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) That's fine for the people who can afford to do so. Wouldn't this create a set of uber communities that had all the services, and lower class communities that had no services and people couldn't afford to move out of? Seriously, why not just (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Presumably, if a society as a whole gets richer from educating the poor, companies will donate enough to make it possible. The big fallacy is that the vast majority of companies don't look further ahead than next quarter, up to a year or maybe (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

weird problem.. (...) that (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller

(...) The house I lived in there was built by my dad on property given my parents by my grandparents. I grew up there and have lots of important memories of it. Many people are attached to where they live by stronger things than that; should they (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen

(...) You too? Smack-dab in the middle of left-liberal.. Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller

(...) Hey look, me too. (Anyone surprised?) Interesting the web version of this quiz is slightly different from the one I got off of Freshmeat (ported to Unix by Eric Raymond...). That version makes some of the questions be very loaded (to the point (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen

(...) Subsidies have a place if you are of the opinion that it is in the National Interest to be selfsufficient to a degree in food. In a sense, farming subsidies are a part of National Defense. Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) library, (...) were (...) set (...) that (...) not (...) I don't think so. My feeling is that the reason we have so much crime is that there are so many people who have little or nothing to lose, so the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) So you would agree that education and poverty are areas which could do a lot more than they do now if they were more efficient with the money they recieve? Reorganise away, but remember that the Market isn't neccessarily the best optimiser, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

(...) Sounds that way to me. It's Better than a one-vote-per-person system, because this way those who are wealthy (and therefore more qualified to decide what is good for society) get more say. Bill Gates [1] obviously shoud have 25 million times (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Only inasfar as Bill Gates is a nazi. And despite my intense dislike for the man, who definitely shouldn't have 25 million times more say than anyone else, I doubt he is _that_. Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz

Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) So just because your dad happened to build a house somewhere, you think the whole world should bow down and provide all the "niceties" of life, regarless of whether the location your dad built his house on (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller

(...) It's a very sensible location. It's land that has been in the family for a while and has unmeasurably high personal value. In fact, there are lots of equally valuable connections to places and people in the surrounding community, despite the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Larry Pieniazek

<Fo04xr.MoE@lugnet.com> <slrn87djsf.fag.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Not at all. Not all value can be as easily judged as the operating budget of a library. But if your property (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller

(...) [snip] (...) But the point to which I'm replying is that libraries _would_ get built! (...) Universal access to libraries is something that can obviously benefit society. As I've seen you say: take that as a given for this argument. Again, the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Larry Pieniazek

<3876E1AE.144F396A@voyager.net> <slrn87dqa8.j61.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You're right, I jumped in the middle and didn't check assumptions first. Fuggedaboutit. Frank's doing fine (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <3877B741.22DBA4E0@v...er.net>... (...) And in fact my assertion, which may not have been perfectly stated is not "every community will have a library", but that if the value of a community library is sufficient, (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) millions of (...) But if production is made more efficient, this means that those doing the production will get more money, and when you dig all the way down, ultimately the only way to actually spend the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) This is precisely why Ford decided to pay his workers 5 bucks a day when people were making 1 and 2 dollars a day. He wanted them to be rich, relatively speaking, and be able to afford his products (and those of his friends). And it worked. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff —Dave Schuler

(...) One minor point I'd add regarding the occasional need for government: the Securities Exchange Commission was established to prevent the same cataclysmic market crash from happening again. Among other things, the SEC requires that brokers be (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Christopher L. Weeks

<Fo1y8z.Mr9@lugnet.com> <38781DD3.4545ED6B@voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Wait. Wouldn't that make you status quo guys happy? Our government is a dollar-electable government. Chris (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Well, yes, but they're not *our* dollars at the moment. ;) The important part at the moment is that we strive for it *not* to be dollar-electable--I wonder what would happen if cash-motivation were allowed to come out into the open? Just a (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

<Fo1y8z.Mr9@lugnet.com> <38781DD3.4545ED6B@voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Fostered by government? If so, only fostered by the government's complicity with the banking/savings and loan (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Are you _sure_ you're talking about the 1929 crash, and not the 2002 crash? Jasper (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Could be either, but there are SEC restrictions on speculation now that would prevent the free-fall of 1929. 1997/8 in Indonesia/East Asia could have done the same thing as 1929, except that the response was very different--in part because we (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) with (...) Wait, are you saying that the S&L problem wasn't directly caused and directly made worse by Government? Let's review, the FSLIC is a GOVERNMENT agency that charges each and every S&L the SAME premium no matter what the risk profile (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Sorry, this got long, and you probably won't like it, but there is plenty to argue with. Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) a (...) of? (...) lot (...) recieve? (...) tax (...) up (...) millions of (...) it (...) Very likely, depending on (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) What I'd really like to see is some sort of.. visualised plan. Like - stage 1, remove some taxes, implement dollar for dollar tax credit charity.. this is what we expect to happen, what has happened? If different then replan. Stage 2, abolish (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Long and boring, yet plenty controversial... Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) library, (...) were (...) set (...) that (...) not (...) Why not? Those who can climb out of the "mines" will. Those who can't are a monkey on the world's back (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian splurf (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) Gosh. The point that is that if you are uneducated, and can't afford to educate your children, then they won't be able to educate theirs.. and you're condemning generations to poverty.. that truely is only liberty for the rich, which is (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —John DiRienzo

Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) the (...) sensible (...) more (...) I posted a message to RTL that said, WTB 4558, 4536, 4547, 4549, 4554, 2150 in boxes or sealed. Unfortunately, I can't afford them all right now. Will you buy them for me? (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller

(...) If having access to Lego provides a better [1] society, than it's probably something we want to work towards. (Having Lego in schools might be a good way.) Since I think that universal education is very beneficial, it's something I think (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Richard Franks

(...) To provide any clarification - I agree with this as well.. I just want to find the *best* path to utopia. Richard (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

<Fo8LLM.K4F@lugnet.com> <Fo8q9s.8p7@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Well, stage 0 is get enough people on the boat so that a reasonable plan can be worked out that won't be immediately (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) I think you already have enough people btw :) Looking at (URL) I see lots of research into the types of action they want to affect, but not too much research into the actual consequences that it could have. IMO it would be a good thing, as it (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Not bloody likely--I can't tell you how many times I've hurt myself separating large plates. (...) When conditions are relatively good, we go after that which unsettles us. It's natural, and art funding believes in a certain amount of liberal (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen

(...) In other words, "neener neener, I can't hear you?" Whatever. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, in other words, you're not moving this discussion forward because you're not doing what you committed to do, accept my premise and try to refute this particular point using it. We have a fundamental disagreement about rights. I happen to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen

(...) For one thing, I did not commit to refuting this particular point within your basic premise. That was another thread. For another, I said there that I would accept your basic premise that "all rights are property rights" You're trying to turn (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)