Debate : 3490


Off-Topic / Debate / 3490

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

(...) You can get shot in any country, thank you very much, whether or not they have guns, illegal or otherwise. Did you hear of Bosnia, maybe. Chechnya (SP?) etc. Destroy what? (...) Ah, we have communities over here, Richard, whether you believe (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Using a country in the middle of ethnic cleansing as a comparison is hardly flattering. You can get shot in any country, but it's more likely to happen if you live in the US than say the UK. (...) I find it easy to believe, however I would (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) It's also hard to compare even the US and the UK, much less Chechnya, Bosnia-Herzegovina or Kosova. But I'd argue that any of those three places in 1990--a better analogue of time--would have been *much* safer than the urban United States. (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Well, I was just showing that people get shot in many ways. I don't think I know of anyone ever getting shot, in my family, friends, co-workers, etc. It's not like you hear gunshots every where you go or something. (...) That is the funniest (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Depends where you live in the US! Where I lived in Elkhart, Indiana [1] as a child, it was fairly routine to hear gunshots. Not in the "nicer" parts of town, or in the suburban areas, of course, but certainly where I was. I remember finding a (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) That is true, especially places like Washington, DC, etc. (...) < sarcasm > Isn't there a law against fire arms being within 500 feet of a school? How could such a thing happen? < /sarcasm > I have heard gunshots in Flint, MI, every now and (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) And a _lot_ of people live in those places. For those people, that _is_ America. (...) No one should be calling anyone stupid here. And I don't think he meant that. I disagree with you about a great many things, but I don't think it's because (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) And that is very sad. How should we approach it? Different opinions can swell here, but another debate, yet again... (...) Hmm... it sounded like that. But I digress, I have been called stupid, naive, so many times by leftist elitists that it (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Yes, how to construct a good society is an important issue. I think that the property rights discussion may eventually get there in a few months. *grin* You're welcome to join in or follow along. (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) "Leftist elitist"? Bit of a contradiction-in-terms, don't you think? Here's an idea, drop all the gratuitous namecalling and actually _reason_. Jasper (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Ugh, I have had enough of debate for awhile, I have been following it. i am trying to lessen my standpoints every now and then. Scott S. (...) ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) That's not what I'm saying at all, my statement above could easily have read "I believe that most people aren't part of such a community". (...) I believe that they get to spend their leave as they wish - some weeks before, some after.. go to (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Yeah, actually, I thought the reason they do stuff like mandatory leaves and long vacations was to keep the unemployment rate low. I think we have to agree on higher taxes though (not like they're low here in the US). (...) For those of us who (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Living in Scotland and all.. you'd think I'd be the one with that message ;) I have a lot (maybe total) sympathy with that viewpoint though. (...) Because I spent my mid-to-latter teenage years doing so before deciding that it was a wrong and (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) In terms of total taxes raised vs GNP, NL comes out at around 25%, whereas the US comes in at just over 30%. That good enough? (...) Not really -- preaching too hard is more likely to turn people away from you than towards you, 9in this day (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Good enough for what? What if you look at it differently? What % of your income do you pay as income tax? What would it be if you were in the US doing the same kind of work? What about other forms of taxation? What's your sales tax like? How (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) I gave you totals. The total is what matters, not the composition. Jasper (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm interested in breakdowns... as I've said here before, some kinds of taxes have a more pernicious distorting effect and therefore are worse than others. ++Lar (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Which would those be? The site is at (URL) . You're probably slightly more up on what you want to know than I am. Jasper (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Any tax, across the board, incents some behaviours and disincents others. Broadly, there seem to be at least three classes of taxation, although there may be others. These are: Income - a tax on the production of wealth Sales - a tax on the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) VAT in practice, though, is more of a sales tax except that companies don't pay it. What happens is that everybody charges VAT on everything, which is to be transferred through to the government, but companies get any VAT they have paid back. (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Left out an assumption, thank you, as usual, for not letting me get away with one atom's worth of implicitness. Sigh. Assume the same total revenue take. 40% across the board is surely more distortive than 5% on everything except food (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) And I wasn't thinking straight, or I'd have known what you meant. (...) Yes. And...? (...) When there is production that is going unbought because money that would have been used for consumption (in addition to there being larger production), (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Actually, no. See, for example, any first year Macroeconomics text, for example Samuelson. Excess production (that is, more goods than wages) causes deflation. Excess consumption (that is, more wages than goods) causes inflation. Now, it so (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) I disagree :) As just because Marx described a system that involved 100% tax, it doesn't mean that 100% tax is Marxist. Leaving aside questions of how, if a sustainable Utopia was created that had 100% tax, then why not? In principle I'm (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Minority as in a small part. Sorry, I thought you were saying minority as in African American, etc. My mistake. (...) Interesting, but I disagree with it, simply because the government enforces it. (...) That would contradict the entire world (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) I've been avoiding this debate, since there seem to be a lot of personal stuff flying about, but The above is one of the principle things that I can't quite fathom about libertarian thinking. Why is it that "government will take advantage of (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) It would just be something new, something unthought of, not contradictory. (...) I said that there are people who find less money makes them feel freer. Whether or not they are delusional is a different matter. Anyway - that isn't even almost (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Bzzt. Wrong! No, both of my parents were registered Democrats. I looked at what the parties stood for, looked at my religious beliefs, and concluded the Republican party is more to what I believe in. Though I am definitely more to the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Exactly! So you chose the opposite party. (...) Sure. I'm not saying that those things have nothing to do with it. You obviously give these issues some thought, but I still say that people have more hidden baggage behind these kinds of (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

James, (...) Can you please give me examples on how corporations can take away your freedom, your liberty, your rights, etc.? The government can and does. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) I think what you mean to say is that the government is not accountable at present, whereas corperations would be directly accountable to the people who buy their products, and shareholders. It's still not a solid argument IMO, but it's the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Government is vastly more accountable than corporations[1] at present. In both cases, virtually the only way something "bad" ever comes into the public view is through inquisitive reporters. When a governemnt is so affected, the people (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) Corporations can take away anything we allow them to take away, in the same way that government can take away anything we allow them to. Examples? I don't see why they're necessary since we're so far into the realm of theoretical, but ok. Coal (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Richard, (...) Well, I think money (Which is a form of trading) has been around since the beginning of mankind. If man has nothing to trade with, which is 100% tax, I don't think it would work. I would that would happen, but we will see. (...) Well, (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) IMO, shareholders and the purchacing power of a few knowledgable consumers isn't enough to control corperations. What are the evils that corperations *could* do, if they were allowed? * Education - biased or limited, creating clones to work in (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Scott E. Sanburn wrote in message <387E3BDD.6A5F8473@c...eb.net>... (...) I doubt thats it, but funny if it was. Lets spend a collossal amount of finite public resources on the Anti Nestle, Advertising-Tax Campaign (ANATC) (1). (...) I agree, I (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Oh - I thought everyone knew! Basically Nestle heavily promote their processed baby milk in third world countries. Parents there, wanting the best for their children *believe* the adverts - it comes from the West - it must be great right? As a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) No, this tone that corporations have some unwieldy power of the masses is a joke. Tell me what power they have! Does GM go to your house, burst through your door, place you under arrest, and take your possessions? Does AOL pull you over for no (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Government vs Corporations - Was: (Re: Art Debate) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Yes, I know about this, and have read about it in history class. I was talking about present day examples. I think this century has been instrumental in cleaning up the abuses of corporations in the early days, such as above. Compare a GM (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Government vs Corporations - Was: (Re: Art Debate) —James Brown

(...) You are wrong. In my case, at least, I don't think that. What I *do* think is that corporations will take whatever advantages they are allowed to take, just as governments will. Libertarian theory does not account for this, to my satisfaction. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Government vs Corporations - Was: (Re: Art Debate) —Frank Filz

<387E402C.5DDB2400@c...anweb.net> <FoAMsH.xF@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Libertarianism expects that companies will be held liable for the damages they do. Unfortuanately, government (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Government vs Corporations - Was: (Re: Art Debate) —James Brown

(...) How do you hold a company's officers liable? If company X spills toxic goo into a river, who is responsible? The worker who didn't close the valve? The supervisor who didn't make sure it got closed? The process engineer who put the valve near (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) Try the Federalist Papers, there should be links in past posts from this group. (...) care (...) It's (...) Then buy generic. Perhaps those companies that use advertising, and charge 1000% more for their (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) living (...) picture (...) one a (...) there (...) other is (...) which (...) My POV, the person who has more freedom has a greater ability to have more knowledge concerning freedom. He also has more (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) I agree - the person who takes freedom for granted has different knowledge or opinions, as to how valuable it is, than someone who craves freedom. Richard (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Powell

(...) "Freedom is something you assume...you wait for someone to try to take it away from you, and the degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free" (U. Utah Phillips/Ani Difranco "Fellow Workers") James Powell (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) processed (...) their (...) them (...) Thanks. Thats reason enough for me to boycott Nestle. There are other chocolatiers, at least there are in America. As it bothers you (and me) that others are being (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Christopher Weeks wrote in message <3880E975.C4916B4E@e...se.net>... (...) world (...) Baggage, hindrance... Yeah, your right, Chris. (...) While there is the similarity of the desire for a small central government with a limited amount of power in (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Government vs Corporations - Was: (Re: Art Debate) —Frank Filz

James Brown wrote in message ... (...) The (...) put (...) valve (...) place? (...) impossible (...) event. From a civil suit point of view, it may be sufficient to sue the corporation. Ultimately, the board of directors is responsible. The (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) What my parents did have nothing to do what I believed in, thank you very much. I chose for what I think is best. My mom never cared too much for politics, and I have not seen my dad in many years. (...) Well, since you know so much about me, (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

You know Scott, I really don't get you sometimes. My post was mildly derogatory to a faceless group - not to you - and you completely took it as an attack. (...) You're welcome to believe what you want. That's fine. I don't happen to believe the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

<387CF961.42F012A7@c...anweb.net> <FoAIpx.I2u@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) HI James, Governments, corporations, charities, people, etc. will all (in general) take and use as much power (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) Yes, but in my understanding (which I'm willing to admit may be flawed) a Libertarian system would grant corporations much more power than they currently experience. James (URL) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Jasper, (...) Can you name one corporation that has the power to burst into your home, arrest you and your family, take away your possessions, etc. I would love to know? Until then, the government has more power than *any* corporation. Oh yes, the (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) You're harbouring the misconception that if it is illegal it won't happen. Jasper (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) No, I think you give corporations too much credit in terms of their power, and you don't seem to care how much power the government has. I don't have to look to far in terms of "it is illegal it won't happen." The Clinton Administration has (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

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

(...) Stop putting words into my mouth. (...) You mean it wasn't rhetorical? Besides, I did answer. Any big corporation has the power to do so. Just not legally. Jasper (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) You do then, as well. (...) I asked how many companies do you know that did break into your house, etc. You said they have the power to, to which I disagree. You never answered the first question anyway, which is which companies do so? I know (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Well, there is the occaisional landlord. There are also the bail bondsmen, but they are in a way an agent of the government. (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Government Power vs. Corporate Power [Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]] —Scott Edward Sanburn

Frank & All, (...) I don't know how simple I can make this. Overall, if you compare the power of the government that can dramatically effect your life, which there are examples, and the power of any corporation (If they do illegal things, that is a (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jeff Thompson

(...) The Kerr McGee corp running Karen Silkwood off the road and killing her for blowing the whistle on safety problems at their nuclear plant ... perhaps an example of, um, excessive liberties being taken by a company. -- jthompson@esker.com (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) I hope whoever is responsible for that, in that company, gets tried for breaking the law. Breaking the law is never a excessive liberty, the exception being the Clinton administration, of course. Scott S. (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Two things: First, I think that there is a miscommunication here. You are saying that companies have little power compared to the government if they don't break the laws. Others are saying that by breaking the laws, companies have the power to (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) I find this an exceedingly callous statement, on the surface. Explain further. (...) The disposable income of the US government isn't that high. (...) You are. The law just happens to be unconstitutional. Jasper (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Oh, I didn't mean it like that, I meant it like this: Where are we going from there? As a member (sort of) of the side (sort of) opposite (sort of) yours, I'm willing to accept that corporations have the power to hurt people inappropriately. (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Ugh. Yes, if corporations break the law, they do hurt people. They should be prosecuted. The government prosecutes corporations, right? I agree with you that the US government has a tremendous amount of power because of money, etc. The (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) We don't? Seems to me we're well on the way there. Corporations are the "slightly clean" version of the Family, after all. Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

<387CF961.42F012A7@c...anweb.net> <FoAIpx.I2u@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I would tend to say both are equally valid. However governments have monopoly on the initiation of the use of (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) Yup, one would - and that is the current set-up. But I believe(1) that I was responding to an impression that governments are evil because they'll do this, but corporations aren't, because they won't. James (URL) hunting through the thread for (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Which is why you need said government fairly strong to be able to make sure those corporations _don't_ start doing things like that. Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) As you're so fond of saying, that's not the only solution. I'd posit: not even close to the best one. (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

<388320C1.F3E0E6D1@eclipse.net> <FoHr3F.Isu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) In some ways that might be true. In others, and I think these are more important, corporations would be (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Does that responsibility follow them from job to job too? What about when they've retired? If the answer is 'no' to either of them, then I don't think that will work. Richard (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) In the interests of not repeating myself: (URL) I don't think individuals have (in the general case) enough resources for personal liability to be feasable/sufficient. An example of this occured recently in Alberta - a number of people were (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) As another example, look at the people that AIDS from blood transfusions, while there were already good indications that HIV was transmitted through blood-contact ("it hasn't been proven yet that HIV causes AIDS!" (which is still true)), and (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) think (...) For things done while they were in power, sure. Although I'm not sure how statute of limitations should play in, though the only things which should have a statute of limitations are things for (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Ack! I don't like that. I'm a strong supporter of the idea of personal liability, but that ranks as an accident, if I understand you. We believe (don't we?) that the herb, rosemary is safe, so we dispose of it willy nilly. Twenty years from (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Why should they be responsible if there were no way company X could reasonably have known chemical X was lethal? That's just random killing.[1] Jasper [1] Of careers, and possibly the people affected as well, as a direct consequence. (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Perhaps they shouldn't have dumped stuff, which they didn't know what its effects might be, in an unsecured area. Think about how we handle radioactive waste. Some of it, we don't really know what effect it will have, so be bundle it up to (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Oh come now. You're acting like it never happens that a previously-thought-unharmful stuff is later considered extremely harmful. cf Asbestos. Greatest thing since sliced bread, right up until the fourties when the studies came out. I really (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) I agree with you. I don't think that's the argument, though. I would expect that a defense of "we truly believed this was a good insulator, our research aligned with everyone elses" ought to carry some weight. Not get the company off scot (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

<3884AEDA.9C6DA48F@eclipse.net> <FoJMsz.K0p@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I think that if the answer is no, then it will still help, but not as much. Or maybe cause a industry ceo cycle (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

<3884AEDA.9C6DA48F@eclipse.net> <FoJnnJ.2xu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) -- How do you hold a company's officers liable? If company X spills toxic goo -- into a river, who is (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) <snipped example - I could counter it, but that would lead to wheel-spinning> (...) Hmm. That's not quite what I was getting at - I'm in favor of personal responsibility and liability, in a general sense. However, in a large organization, I (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Which is exactly what is already happening with the increased threat of litigation and the _very_real_ possibility, nay certainty, of getting fired if someone can prove, or even intimate, that you were the cause of such an incident. Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Christopher Weeks wrote in message <3884B49F.7877B548@e...se.net>... (...) You (...) designated (...) Democratic). (...) Hmm. Most people who I disagree with in real life would not score as Libertarians on that test. In fact I have talked a few into (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) I've talked people into it who did answer the questions honestly, were placed by the test as libertarians, and who were similarly not tricked into believing that they were libertarians. It is my opinion that the questions on the test are (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Yup. There are very good reasons not to let economic refugees cross into your country freely. Most especially if you are richer than your neighbours. (...) The problem isn't that the market wouldn't provide food. It's that the market would not (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Jasper "I didn't invent Libertarianism, I just laugh at" Janssen wrote in message... <38b4684b.609370836@...et.com>... (...) Weeks (...) <Mega snip> Jasper's post is evidence of my case. Even though Jasper is from a country currently more to the (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) My stance on this is surely colored by the history of the US, but I feel that the primary reason that I live in the greatest nation in the world is the melting pot effect. I would be completely open to allowing anyone who wanted a fair shake (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Maybe it'd be a good thing for the country or the world -- but not necessarily for the individual voter. Anyway, we currently get enough non-economic refugees here in .nl that it severely skews the population count -- and in some cases we're (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3889b27e.4370108@lu...et.com>... (...) One problem with this is that in the US, minimum wage for 40 hrs/week isn't really a minimum sufficient wage (for most parts of the country). I do think that companies have to (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Right, but you've set yourselves up for that. By having all those friendly social programs, you paint a great big target on your chest. My grandfather expatriated to (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Yes, I know. I really do. But it's not just the dole. It's also generally the better economic climate. (...) If the government stopped feeding them, they would be fed by charities. Maybe. At least, that's what the libertarians keep telling me. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Some would, and some wouldn't. Obviously if your culture feels that it's appropriate to feed them via the government, they would still feel that way if the government disappeared right? But they might make them work a little for it, which (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Just a quite note on gasoline: One of the engineers here at AEI has a husband who is an electrical engineer for a certain car manufacturer (I won't divulge too much) They have been working on hydrogen fuel cell cars. It has been so successful (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) FUp-to: geek. There are two kinds of car that seem to be surging ahead right now. There is the fuel-cell type, and the hydrogen type (which may also be fuelcell, but whatever.) Fuel-cells typically use hydrocarbons (ie, gasoline (but cleaned (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And if you give government assistance to those who are in need. Absent that, there is no good reason. (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Yeah, they can starve here just as well as anywhere else. But who buries them? That costs money and presents health problems if not done. Bruce (This wasn't meant seriously, but I suppose it does apply) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right you are. But why were they starving where they were? Were they starving enroute? And why would they starve once they *got* to libertopia, if they wanted to work? (and, since there's no public assistance, why would they want to come to (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

(...) Soylent green is people. Dave! (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) You tell me. It could equally be war, persecution, bad weather as crop failure. (...) As long as they were still physically capable of work, what does it matter? (...) You are confusing wanting to and actually getting work swiftly enough or (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <388E2BFD.FB5B993@vo...er.net>... (...) Interesting, I guess either of two cases would apply: 1. They're trespassers. I guess the property owner is responsible for dealing with the bodies (though his community (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) They were on the toll walkway (no public sidewalks) and fell there as they died. Smugglers aren't involved because they weren't restricted at the border. Actually, they died on your neighbor's property, but he dragged the corpses over to yours (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

<Fowt5K.s1@lugnet.com> <388E2BFD.FB5B993@voyager.net> <FoynLG.JGJ@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Fair enough, why not me, I'm as good an example as any, and better than most. Posit for (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) <FoynLG.JGJ@lugnet.com> (...) You seem to be taking this as a personal insult, Larry. What's with this perjorative labeling? If it's flippant, it isn't really worthy of response. If it isn't, then aren't you just taking a cheap shot? I (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) even (...) Yep, and we collectively agreed that the more successful people would do the major part in paying these taxes. Against their will (and rights) of course. (...) can't (...) People who are on (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) funds (...) perhaps (...) border. (...) Well, you are responsible. Now if you can ever prove that your neighbor dragged the body onto your property, you might be able to sue him for damages. He's also (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Hey, no way! I left the country! It's on YOUR property. :-) Further, for the example, it is important that it happens on your property. Now if you can ever prove that your neighbor (...) Already addressed: You can't prove it. And it happened (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) neighbor (...) because (...) Good for you. I am sure you found a much better place to go. I'm really glad you left. Where will you be when the people you are punishing decide to vote with their feet? (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

Heavily snipped for dramatic effect, because I'm grandstanding. (...) On the bright side, at least Libertopia will let you leave if you want to go, and aren't currently wanted for a crime or judgement, unlike those socialist worker paradises that (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —John DiRienzo

Political Parodies Music - Was:[ Art Debate, etc.] —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) That reminds me of another great Parody was a Paul Shanklin remake of the Coolio song, AlGore Paradise. Hilarious! :) I also heard of a great parody off the Beatles "Yellow Submarine", entitled "We All Live in a Mellow Apathy." I love Paul (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38951CB8.C009E530@v...er.net>... (...) No need to explain! I'm just as guilty... (...) You hit the nail on the head, Lar. When their stock hits 666 its a clear sign of the end times. (...) All right! Now you're (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Indeed. They are. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) See the smiley face next to my comment? It's only for the purposes of a hypothetical situation. Since the Libertarians (okay, some, Frank is always a pleasure to read) here are getting downright hostile, I'll drop out of this conversation (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) I'm not one for using ROTFL or even LOL. But this really did make me laugh out loud. Bruce, you're great! Pot | Kettle == Black Chris (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

<388F65A5.9AD75FB2@voyager.net> <Foyr5w.Fo2@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) You yourself said it was an example intended to amuse at the start of the sub thread... I'm just playing along. (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) No, I said it wasn't intended to be taken seriously. I was refering to my example only. But after thinking about it, I decided it may have legitimate repurcussions. My point really is that there can be a cost to a society by having an open (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Larry Pieniazek

I decided to go back and see what the actual story here was, that is, what it was I actually said that started this thread. Every one has been making assumptions about it, even me. In a post which I otherwise heavily trimmed, Bruce said the (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) For one, the electorate has to agree to go to libertopia in the first place. (...) Personal liability now includes not only things you might possibly be indirectly responsible for, which already is very insidious, but also things you are not (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

<Foyq1t.BEt@lugnet.com> <FoysHv.tu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Mostly, I just can't FOLLOW it. (...) Yes. Toll walkways may well exist. And, property owners may choose to provide free (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) centralized (...) Why in the world are you running on about it? I don't understand. It was just the shortest-to-explain-example that the guy was walking on some public area. Mountain out of a molehill. (...) Mountain. Molehill. (...) I can't (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Larry Pieniazek

<388F7A61.E86A728A@voyager.net> <Foyv25.HE6@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm just completely lost, Bruce, as to what point you're trying to make and what assumptions you've made in making (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I take it you don't read your own messages. You have outwiggled me the whole way. (...) For someone who doesn't understand, you summed it up pretty accurately. You basically said if their is no public assistance then there can be no objection (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Richard Franks

(...) Maybe in the example of the toppling stiff, the responsibility is an assumed or implied responsibility that comes with owning land or property? As opposed to a direct responsibility such as that of your children etc. (...) Bruce, I know that (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) or (...) Toppling stiff? I don't know why, but that phrase gives me the giggles. I love it. "Dear, there's another toppling stiff out by the jacaranda. Do you think you could pop out and clean things up a bit before the Burgess's arrive? (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I agree there's a cost to someone. I just don't see it as a cost to "society". Some one entity or group of entities is going to be, bad luck for them, stuck with it. If this is what the entire anti immigration argument boils down to, I (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I should hate myself when I am right??? Whatever. Bruce (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, you just need to get a little better at saying "you are right" than you currently are, that's all. There's no need for you to hate yourself about it. (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Larry, you cut the attrib to Richard, so you make it look like I was saying that to you (wiggle). Further, you cut the part that prompted my response (wiggle). The part was more critical of the person I was responding to (wiggle). That person (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Larry Pieniazek

Yes, I cut some stuff away, but my point stands. You need to be able to admit you're wrong when you are, and you need to admit that a point is proven when it is. I have no issues with my own record on that score, my honesty and integrity are pretty (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I did. It was right there. I admitted it. *You quoted me*. All you were trying to do is get in a cheap shot. (...) You asked me about where I thought you were wiggling. I answered. Note that you accused me FIRST. Sorry you didn't like the (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry isn't amusing —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) The preceeding line did not appear in Larry's original message, and the way it appears it seems to be written by him. This is not the case. I'm not quite sure how it got there, but I have double-checked, and he did not say it. I wish to (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

This whole thread isn't amusing any more... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Thank you. (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Jasper Janssen

(...) Larry, attributions are never, _NEVER_ "some stuff". Snipping attributions is not a good debating tactic, it's not clever, and in fact, it makes you look like an ass, which I know you aren't. If some notices you snipped attributions, the (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes, you're right. I should have been more careful in snipping attributions, when doing so might have left the wrong impression. I've apologised for that. I'll do it again. I hereby apologise for snipping attributions. Although I certainly (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Jasper Janssen

(...) Absolutely, I agree. It's a good habit to leav all the attributions in until the lat moment, so you know how many to leave in. An advice i'd do well to follow myself, of course... ;-) Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Keeping the record straight (Was Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Larry Pieniazek

(...) To set the record straight, since it seems to be a sticking point, this was said in response to Richard, not to me. Trimming the thread the way I did might leave readers with the impression that Bruce admitted I was right about something, (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Jasper Janssen

(...) I don't know exactly what you're smoking, but I think I'd like you to keep it away from me. How, pray tell, could we prevent lightning from ever striking? Note, _ever_ means _one_hundred_percent_ effective. Jasper (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Note carefully that there is no claim that the following is *practical* or a good idea. Merely that it is doable. In fact it is hugely impractical and a terrible idea. Lightning is a good thing, actually, despite the fact that sometimes it (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Jeremy Spin

(URL) Larry, Is this a new on-line store? & another questions. I it any good? Thanks -J.W.Hummer (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Larry Pieniazek

FUT .market.shopping as this is a shopping-ish question (...) No, it's not a store. Rather, it's a way to get rebates. Many e-commerce websites have so called "affinity programs" where they pay a rebate/kickback (1) to the site that gave them the (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.shopping)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Richard Franks

(...) When you put it that way it gives me the giggles too :) (...) Me too, and one day I might actually be right, and then where will we be? (1) Richard 1 - Fear. (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Please elaborate. We each seem to have a perception that the other is wiggling. Why is that? (...) Not exactly. I'd state it as, responsible for some bad occurance on my property that was an accident, not as, responsible for the immigrant (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Keeping Larry Amused —Jasper Janssen

(...) Because you're both right. The one does not exclude the other. (you a bit less than bruce, to be fair, but still..) Jasper (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

<38850672.B6A753EE@eclipse.net> <FoK7Jv.LHr@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I think I'm willing to largely agree that those things will increase also. Paperwork for sure...and that's a (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snipped muchly> (...) Ok, looks like this is our sticking point. I think that erring on the side of inclusion is bad. IMHO, if responsibility can't be traced fairly directly, then assigning (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Right. Guilty until proven innocent. Don't do this, please. Jasper (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn

1) Disclaimer: I think Chris and I do agree on most things, I think our trains of thought have crashed or whatever, maybe missed the station? 2) I had to type this twice, as Netscape crashed. Tom S, were are you? (...) Well, I get attacked so much, (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

<FoJtsn.C9w@lugnet.com> <38850984.18212589@eclipse.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Mostly that this sort of thing is hard to talk about in the abstract. I think the longer something goes, the (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) OK. I can dance with that. But, the courts have done some pretty silly stuff. (Like McDonald's coffee.) how do we as a society regulate them? Just fire judges? There should be some mechanism for helping the courts be reasonable. Chris (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) No, by making them hired for life, or at the very least not hired on the basis of the Great Unwashed Masses. Makes for a much better judicial system if you don't have those pesky jury things, either. Crawl out of the judicial sixteenth (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

<38850672.B6A753EE@eclipse.net> <FoK7Jv.LHr@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) One thing - at the point where a liability issue is at hand, the internal processes of the company become (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) Granted. (...) Back up a sec. I never implied that liability shouldn't exist. The company would be liable for the bulk of any settlements, and any company that operated as you suggest above would get hit with lawsuits so often that it would (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

<3885F82B.31DF@mindspring.com> <FoLIpw.MEu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) But if you don't ultimately hold the company officers liable, then there is no way to enforce any decision (you (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

<3885C764.F1AF855@eclipse.net> <FoLCpu.CzB@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) In many (but not all) cases - yes. (...) OK, I'm in your scenario now. People dying as a result of _anything_ is (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) Yup, I agree, but you missed the phrase "might have lead". If there's no clear indicator as to where the responsibility lies, how can it be arbitrarily assigned? That just screams "WRONG" to me. <snipped bits about the Pinto> Yes, I agree with (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

<3885F82B.31DF@mindspring.com> <FoLIpw.MEu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Until August, I managed ~140 employees in a technical customer service setting. If one of them was rude to a (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) can (...) What if the guy who's rude isn't rude because of poor training, or anything that *you* did/should have done/could have done? What if he's rude because he just had a huge fight with his ex-wife, and took that baggage to work? If (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

<3885F5ED.ABD@mindspring.com> <388625A1.F24912E7@eclipse.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Of course I see the McDonald's coffee issue as one where the system actually for the most part worked. A (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Irrelevent to the appropriate punishment. I personally know several people who prefered it when the coffee was (to my judgement) assininely hot. McDonalds was supplying a niche product - ultra hot coffee - and people were buying it. They (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) You know what _really_ bugs me about US lawsuits? Punitive damages. The whole _concept_ is just utterly asinine. Fines, if any are necessary, should be _fines_, and therefore payable to the government, not J Random Victim. Jasper (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

<3884AEDA.9C6DA48F@eclipse.net> <FoJMsz.K0p@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I'd say the answer is yes to both. You don't get to commit a crime, then just change jobs and use that as a (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

<3884AC5E.6720F61@voyager.net> <FoJsx8.7Dw@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Oh. Well, I'd say then that most governments today ARE evil. Further, many corporations of today are as well. (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

<FoKHoG.F5A@lugnet.com> <3885D04A.C01401FD@eclipse.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In response to the quiz analysis. Chris is right, to a certain extent it's a marketing tool. It's designed to produce (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

<3885F82B.31DF@mindspring.com> <FoLIpw.MEu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wasn't a 100% fan of Truman but he did have one thing on his desk that pretty much summed it up for me... A sign (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) I understand the sentiment, but I don't understand the position. You(the collective you) appear to say that the officers of a company are liable for the actions of that company REGARDLESS of whether or not they are personally responsible, or (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

James Brown wrote in message ... (...) are (...) Boiled (...) contrary, (...) in (...) direction - (...) First off, the CEO is only responsible for the activities of his employees which are reasonably related to their job. If one of your employees (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Just to clarify - I'm assuming that responsibility goes up the management tree in a serious case? Ie, the employee, his boss, his bosses boss.. the CEO. In a lot of cases, managers would claim that sub-managers hadn't informed them of a (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) I didn't mention that aspect, I took it as a given. Sorry. (...) Yoiks! So if I go to my boss' house, tanked to the gills but very good at hiding it, he's responsible when I kill someone on the way home? Maybe I'm reading this completely (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

<388E2A0B.67DF7930@voyager.net> <Fowz19.44A@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (...) Because person X _took_ that responsibility freely. I agree that it wouldn't be fair the law just decided (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) No he didn't. Not while the laws are not in place yet, certainly. And what makes you think there will still be people willing to take that responsibility should you pass this? This way leads to either huge CEO salaries, to cope with insurance (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) OK, I was talking about once we were at the fully implemented system. Transition is always a problem, but those problems are not enough of a reason to look at a better system and opt not to strive for it. If we adopted a gradual aproach to the (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) It's not a better system, so that's entirely irrelevant. (...) I was in fact suggesting that the situation does not currently exist to the extent that it would. (...) Yah. Right. Big companies will always spend a dollar to save a cent (and not (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The managers that I've known were typically not forced into management at gunpoint. Maybe things work differently in NL, but I wouldn't have guess in that way. (...) But that doesn't make the company feel fear or pain. It might - if the sums (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Christopher Weeks wrote in message <38959983.1F02FD9F@e...se.net>... (...) janitor. Its not at all ludicrous. Every nuclear generator, even the portable ones, have a meltdown button. You know, just in case. (...) Sure does... if your a CEO you want (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38ac87e0.517825005@...et.com>... (...) Because you can't put a company in jail if it refuses to pay the judgement. This is why a PERSON MUST have ultimate responsibility. If they don't, the corporation can just (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) I think you're doing fine. We seem to be getting forced into an invalid either-or trap. Your opposition is taking the "Either the CEO is personally liable for everything or no one is" tack, it seems to me. And that's just not so. Companies (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Good/Bad/Neutral (Was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) :) This is another either-or trap. I don't believe that people are inherently good, neither do I believe that people are inherently bad. Rather, I believe that peoples actions and thoughts are moulded by the environmental and social structures (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Good/Bad/Neutral (Was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) inherently (...) believe (...) social (...) One problem is that those who believe in the inherent goodness of people sometimes shortcut things. What we really believe is that everyone has the inherent (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Good/Bad/Neutral (Was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) Agreed! (...) Fence suggests a dichotomy, besides which, birthing atop a fence could be dangerous! I am curious as to why you think we are born 'good'. Not arguing, just curious - my reasoning would initially follow the evolutionary model, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) No, actually. Try "Either the CEO is personally liable for everything or the company is." I have no problems with the concept of a group of people being responsible, as a group, for what they do. (...) And I would say that if you are dealing (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

James Brown wrote in message ... (...) corporate (...) Well, you may ultimately have to jail more that the CEO. I wish I could remember more. I seem to remember a recent case where a company officer was jailed because the company wouldn't do what (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Try "either the CEO is personally liable for everything his subordinates do, or those people actually committing the mistakes are". (...) What if "some damages" comes out to more than they can pay? In the majhority of cases, this is in fact (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <389abd55.92129852@l...et.com>... (...) That sure isn't what I'm arguing. First off, the people making the mistakes are ALWAYS responsible. However, the CEO can be held responsible if there is some flaw in the way (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) No you're not. There's just such a vast conceptual gulf between those that think that man is innately evil and those that think that he is innately good, that you may never be able to bridge it, distracting and disingenious accusations of (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) Agreed, as someone who's often on the other side(1), you're both doing a good job (generally) of getting your points across. Where the communication breaks down is at base level assumptions, and the fact that the medium is slightly awkward for (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) I also happen to disagree that Christian belief necessitates "man is innately evil." That's because my religion descends from a Christian belief that believes that man is innately good (though most people in my religion do not consider (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) Well, I'd disagree there, as well. Well, ok, sort of. I would suggest that many mainstream Christians have this belief, but that it is a misinterpretation of what mainstream Christian churches(1) are teaching - namely that man is inherently (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <389abd55.92129852@l...et.com>... (...) Oh yeah, that really worries me. (...) But its easy to get away with not doing it. (...) Move to China for ten years, and come back to this then. Better yet, just unlearn (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) You can sell all its assets, quite effectively reducing it to rubble. (...) If the CEO takes all the corporate assets when there is a fine outstanding against those assets, something criminal is happening that has _nothing_ to do with general (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

I wonder if I stopped beating my head against the proverbial brick wall whether my ear problems would go away???? Oh, well, I'll keep beating, maybe I'll break through... Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3899b9ff.91276137@l...et.com>... (...) (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Then it's gone, also quite effectively reducing it to zero. My point is that it's not a good thing to punish mismanagement as if it's the same thing as whatever things the mismanaged underlings get up to. (...) If your manager is a floor or a (...) (25 years ago, 6-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

<Fox8H5.9D4@lugnet.com> <FoxrLq.Cn8@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) That's basically what I was getting ready to say. (...) No, the courts have the power to try and fine/punish them. I (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Ah.. so after the second time they spill nuclear goo in a kiddies playground(1), things will change? Unless they've got a new CEO who does exactly what the old one did? My point is that having to wait for a company to violate rights a second (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Except that the fines from the first time would be sufficient incentive. And would also be sufficient incentive to prevent all the other companies in that industry from following their example. Perhaps I'm not following you. (...) I don't (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Christopher Weeks wrote in message <389057B0.D972D535@e...se.net>... (...) Two comments. First, what do you propose to do with the (few) people who absolutely refuse to follow the rules of the society they participate in? At some point, putting (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) As clearly stated above, I don't know. If someone were hell-bent on murder, I suppose they should be put down and parted out to pay for the whole affair - or their assets given to the kin of the victims. I suppose there should be some method (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) and (...) The marketplace has the power (or would have the power under Libertopia). (...) I'm not sure if there's a need to directly fine the stockholders. If you whack the company hard enough, the (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) It does in theory, but in reality the market isn't educated to the level this requires - everyone would have to research which toothpaste, which dye-companies contributed to which t-shirts, which rainforest their toothpicks came from etc etc. (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) this (...) toothpicks (...) to (...) It seems like opponents of these ideas always try to make things more complicated... If all of the above is important to consumers, they will do the research, or they (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Short answer: You want to fly, don't you? Long answer: insurance premiums, high, plane tickets at 10-100 times current cost. Jasper (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38ad8949.518186155@...et.com>... (...) Actually, the short answer is that international treaty sets a ridiculously low limit for baggage loss/damage on international flights. On domestic flights, the limits are (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Hah! (...) Friends who travel regularly suggest the percentage is around 10-20%. And yes, they need better baggage-handling. But who is going to pay for that? Oh, and one tip: Never Ever leave old routing-tags on your bags if you want them to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) I'd dispute this... but Frank's question wasn't framed very well. So I'll just provide some anecdotal evidence. Now, this anecdotal evidence is applicable to domestic flights only, and to the carriers I fly most, but I have checked well over (...) (25 years ago, 6-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

<FoyED8.8A8@lugnet.com> <FoyJxA.Kqw@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) You raise a good point, one which is often raised, and one to which considerable thought has been given. The stock (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

James Brown wrote in message ... (...) the (...) after (...) would (...) I didn't say "is responsible", I said "is probably responsible." In this case, perhaps not, however, anyone having the opportunity to observe that someone is drunk does carry (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown

(...) Any CEO that keeps that much distance between himself and the company he's running won't be running it for long, and I wonder how he got there in the first place. If bad things happen while he's using his unique "hands off" approach to (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I agree. And children and underlings are examples of extra responsibilities freely taken on. Chris (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) Wars don't count. Have you heard the statistics recently on shootings in .uk or .nl? (...) You are sadly misinformed (Actually, "prejudiced" would be the word I'd use. Ever lived in Europe?). The countries that have these policies usually have (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)