 | | Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur
|
| | | "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G5oqA2.9qK@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) freedom. (1) (...) you (...) I'm not going to do your homework for you again. If you are interested in my point - go find it. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) You have never done it for me in the past, so "again" is an incorrect usage. The US has a constitution, which trumps individual laws. Laws have to theoretically be voted on separately, not just put in place by ministers subject to votes of (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G5pyGI.Dss@lugnet.com... (...) my (...) usage. Well, there was that time you were curious about my doctortate. (...) fiat (...) Not my point Larry. However, you are still wrong. Much (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Which you never did answer, really. A one line answer was all that was required, but after about 5 tries, I finally dragged out of you that you're some kind of Civil, but not what kind. See, when I refuse to do homework for you, it's avoiding (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | You are wasting my time Larry. Go back and reply to my full text - do not conveniently delete text to suite _your_ point. This discussion is about a point I raised - do me the decency of answering it, rather than raising issues of your own - or (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) To have this charge come from you, the premier time waster of the entire .debate group, as everyone knows, is so laughable as to be beneath any further response. (...) We've had this discussion before, I am not going to reply to every snipe (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | <topped> (...) <tailed> Indeed. If you can not answer my points... there is no point. If you ever manage to get a response together, I'll re-enter this discussion with you. If you need me to explain myself further, perhaps I can draw you a picture - (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) When you actually manage to coherently make a point that hasn't already been answered in depth, do let us all know, won't you? I won't be holding my breath. All the points I could glean from your ramblings have been answered. Pity you can't (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) OK Larry. I'll play your game again. Let's revist this message: (URL) this text: =+= The point I was making about rights concerned political freedoms. For example - here in the UK one could always choose to be, say, a communist. Can you say (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm not going to play yours though, or at least I'm going to try very hard not to. Too disruptive. If someone else wants to try, they are free to give it a go if they like, but I see it as a waste of effort. Me, I've got better uses for my (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) OK. That is, I think, the 3rd time you have abjectly failed to answer that point. I would have thought more of you if you had just not replied - rather than adopt this "holier than thou" attitude. I can't say I'm surprised though. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I haven't failed to answer your point, I merely refuse to play your game. Think about the difference. (...) By the way, in order for me to be concerned about what a person thinks of me (in a particular area), I have to have respect for that (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | respect... (was Re: Polyamory) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | True to form Larry, you have resorted to personal insults. I think one of your countrymen once said: "When people do not respect us we are sharply offended; yet deep down in his private heart no man much respects himself." I largely agree with that (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | All of what I say below is plowed ground, stuff I and others have said before, so those that pay attention are invited to skip this entire post. They already know this stuff. Scott, though, might want to pay attention, for once. I won't hold my (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | (...) Balance snipped. Out of curiousity, Larry, do you think anyone other than you or Scott really cares about any of this? If it is all plowed ground, why post it all again? Is it so necessary for you to feel good about your debating technique (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) As he enjoys playing to the crowd. (...) I _feel_ the contrary. I have promised many times to leave LP alone - if he does the same with me. However, I feel he just can't resist taking a shot at me. Look at this thread – the message he just (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Is it necessary to make this a conditional promise? Can't each involved party rise to the moral high ground and ignore the other? (...) That comes from driving on the wrong side of the road and using that crazy metric system of yours. 8^) (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Call it MAD (mutually assured destruction). (...) Ah Dave – very topical. Thirt years on, some of us Brits have still not went metric: Grocer trial told of 'metric threat' (URL) the US, you have your gun debate – we have this! Scott A (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) After Scott beat me up for not answering it. Not just once or twice, either. Make up your mind, Scott, did you want it answered or not? ++Lar (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) What are your thoughts on this? Are you willing to set aside your snide remarks? (...) Larry, It goes without saying that there many questions which on which I’d like to hear you opinions. Such as: (URL) I re-stated again the question to you (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Wrong again. See: (URL) (...) Very interesting, but none of that answered my point: "In many ways, our rights are stronger than your own" I note that I was talking about actuality - not theory. But, again, you chose to squirm. Despite that, (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
