Debate : 8153


Off-Topic / Debate / 8153

Uselessness of .debate —Frank Filz

Well, after another few weeks of .debate, I'm really really thinking I'm just going to abandon it, and honestly, more and more, I'm feeling it's a waste of Lugnet resources to have it. There are two constantly recurring shouting matches: - Scott vs (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Tom Stangl

While I think many of the posts have been somewhat useless (not even entertaining!), there are still many posts that either make me think, or entertain me, so I'm all for keeping the group around. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Eric Joslin

(...) I agree with some of the philosophies about needing a place for off-topic things to spill, and needing a seperate place for them, etc, but I have to admit that I'm starting to wonder if there might not be a need to somehow restrict the posting (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'll take some culpability here, I'm a sucker for trying to show up the clueless, and no matter how many times I swear it off, it's just too tempting... he's just so cluelessly annoying when he wants to be. (but he CAN be a good contributor (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Eric Joslin

(...) Hey, that's a good idea- if you pay to become a Lugnet member, you're allowed to voice your opinions. Sorry, Larry, I can't agree with that. (...) ...giving an automatic "last word" to the person who squeaks in under the post limit. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

I *said* they had flaws and were thought starters... so you'll see a smiley behind every one of my responses, I'm trying to be funny in them. I suggest you post some ideas of your own, I'm trying to get some brainstorming going... (...) Why not? (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:>>Hey, that's a good idea- if you pay to become a Lugnet member, you're allowed (...) I'm not yet a member (mainly because most of my posting has been to OT rather than LEGO-specific contributions), (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Eric Joslin

(...) Actually, those two are great ideas, IMHO. I wonder how many people that aren't members post updates about their LEGO eBay auctions on Lugnet, and never give back to the upkeep of Lugnet... I hadn't ever thought of that before. And the admin (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Dave Schuler

(...) That's a good point. It hadn't occurred to me because I don't usually get ensnared by a debate until it's already in .debate! Maybe we should have off-topic.debate.pure and off-topic.debate.spill. 8^) Dave! (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

Call me elitist... (and I don't think I'm 100% disagreeing) (...) I'm not. That is, I'm not for enabling *everyone* to be a member. There are certain people I would be happy to see not join, heck, not even participate here. There are only a handful (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Eric Joslin

(...) they (...) Mmm. That'll teach me to go around not qualifying my statements. Clearly, I don't think that the rules should be mutated too much to encourage everyone (coughMatthewMoultoncough) to join up- on the other hand, if subtle changes to (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Thanks for the restate. Yes, coughcough was just who I was referring to. Restated that way, I agree 100%. ++Lar (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Frank Filz

(...) Well that could be handled by having two groups. One for conducting auction business (soliciting bids) and one for asking questions about auctions. Then you just TOS quickly anyone who regularly manages to "announce" their auction in the Q&A (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Eric Joslin

(...) Well, as soon as I can come up with an idea that I myself can't pick apart on 1000 levels, I will. Unfortunately, thus far I've been unsuccessful... (...) Yeah, but that's the default way of "winning" an argument or flamewar on Usenet. :D (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) <puts facilitator hat on> No no... post your ideas, no matter how wacky, as long as they haven't been posted yet. That's brainstorming. Even if you know there is a flaw in idea E1 and E2 of yours, and in L1 and L2 of mine, someone may come up (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Frank Filz

(...) The recent history of .debate is certainly that the types of shouting matches have little chance of being productive, however, I will point out that back some time ago, the "Libertarian" debate DID have real productivity. It DID change (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Dave Schuler

(...) Hear, hear! Though I don't expect that I'll switch to Libertarianism or Christianity any time soon, I have learned a good deal about those two views. That, for me, is the primary reason for participating in .debate (that, and getting the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Tom Stangl

(...) Only post via the web interface? NO THANKS. I've posted maybe a total of 5 times via the web interface (and only because I was in a training class, not on any of my computers). Broken. (...) Then people would just watch the branches to make (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I wasn't clear enough. I was looking for some brainstorming on possible solutions first before we trotted out the sharpened knives to rip holes in the ideas. All the ones i posted were dreamt up in about 5 minutes total to act as thought (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Dave Low

(...) How about the following? (to be added to the TOS?) *Only members can start new threads in .debate, or .market. No new tech stuff required, just include your Lugnet member number in your sig. If you forget, someone will remind you. If you try (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Todd Lehman

(...) Ya, the default is to omit .off-topic and .admin noise: (URL) and limiting .debate posts from showing in any search (except explicitly (...) That would be a bit trickier but might come almost for free since it already filters out groups not in (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —James Brown

(...) Hmm. Something that I've noticed for a while not, but not cared enough to mention before this is... The skip filter only works on the highest level, and goes away as soon as I drill down into a sup-group. (ie: I have .debate filtered out, but (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Anders Isaksson

You forgot one moderating method: Use the password checker, and only accept messages which passes a certain limit of security (or a modified version of the checker, with a specialized dictionary). Seriously, if you have a group with 'free speech', (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Arthur

(...) Larry, you really are a conceited. I'm happy for you to refer to me however you want - as I am pretty thick skinned. The positions I adopt are, often, more about educating myself than spamming this group with my philosophy on life, the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Todd Lehman

(...) Can the two of you please take all of this offline to private email? --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Scott is free to email me whatever he likes, but I feel it is important that I and others continue to use .debate to discuss the larger topic of what makes a good .debate and a good .debater as and when appropriate. I think it's an important (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Todd Lehman

(...) What I meant was the personal jabs that keep going back and forth. --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Arthur

(...) Another day. Another contradictorily ironic post from Larry. Another conceitedly snide remark from Larry. What will tomorrow bring? Christmas!! (...) I really am trying: (URL) A (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —David Eaton

(...) Personally, I come and go. I lose interest in some debates, and gain interest in others. Occasionally I'll see something that really does peak my interest, and other times, I just feel like debating. As to whether it's actually a waste of (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Frank Filz

(...) I agree, I'd be sad to see it go. But what I'm really sad is that as far as I'm concerned, it's gone now. A year ago I really enjoyed .debate. The past few months, the time for a thread to deteriorate into one of the two recurring shouting (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —James Brown

(...) (nitpick) Some christians. I'm not preaching, and I can't be the only christian who's stearing clear. (...) I'm not sure if I'm one of the folks you're talking about, but I've certainly dropped .debate from my reading. It's gone way downhill (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Frank Filz

(...) I agree. I think it is possible to involve Christianity in the debates without the thread quickly heading for the gutter. But the reality is that the way threads go in .debate, the visibility of Christianity is what I'm complaining about. The (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Edward Sanburn

To all, I might as well thorw a comment into the fray here..... (...) I gave up on debate about a year ago now, simply because Icould not stand it anymore. There is a lot of hostile people around, that seem to thrive in debate, and not anywhere else (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) What is the added value to those of you who want .debate gone? I can completely understand not valuing the presense of debate, even I duck out now and then when I'm busy. But I don't get the motive behind the suggestion that it should be gone. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Frank Filz

(...) I think there is some overflow from .debate into other groups. I can't absolutely put my finger on it (in part because I realize that in part the Larry vs. Scott shouting match may have started outside of .debate, but I certainly see linkage (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate) —Paul Baulch

Frank Filz wrote in message <3A3F972C.2F1C@minds...ng.com>... (...) Having followed a great many debates here, on Usenet and in my workplace SPAM forum[1], I have watched some of the greats[2] at work such as the legendary Derek Smart, and our own (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate) —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes: <snip> I snipped the whole thing rather than responding point by point. I'll summarise my stance as follows: Great post. I'm disappointed that no one else commmented yet. Is it because everyone agrees (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate) —Paul Baulch

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) Well, Larry, surely you spend a lot more time reading these newsgroups than most, so perhaps only a few have ventured down to this part of the discussion tree. If you like, you could refer to the post in (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate) —Dave Schuler

(...) I read your other post, and you made some groovy assertions. I suppose I'm as guilty of "point-scoring" as anyone else, but I wasn't consciously doing it to amass points. Sometimes it seems to me simply polite to address each point in turn, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate) —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> Whoops. Forgot to trim lugnet.admin.general from followups, please, if you respond, do trim your followups even though I forgot to. ++Lar (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) now (...) that (...) What is the added value of having it? People getting mad at each other? People insulting each other? People ridiculing ones faith / politics etc.? I think it is useless. If you want to debate, go somewhere else. That's my (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm not sure that you're actually wanting an answer to this, since you go on to sarcastically point out things that we all consider negatives, not positives, but I think it's worth exploring. The value to _me_ of .debate is a place to civilly (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree with you to an extent, but surely if one wanted discuss, say, God should one not have a more fruitful discussion at alt.god? All lot of the posts in .debate really belong in a .opinion. (...) Fustrated - yes. Mad - No. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think this is a specific instance of a more general principle, one we've stumbled over repeatedly on vastly different topics. A says "I tolerate/enjoy X" B says "I don't tolerate/enjoy X" So far so good. As long as X doesn't intrude on B, B (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Agreed. (...) Out of curiosity, how does one show that and to whom does one make such an appeal? Use the example of strategic nuclear holdings. (And as an aside, do you feel differently about tactical nuclear weapons?) (...) I think that this (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Not sure of the answers to either of those, at least not in an idealised society. (...) I think my threshold is somewhere around large tanks and fighter jets. Any sort of nukes just sort of "feel wrong" to me. It's a fuzzy argument. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Arthur

(...) <tummy tuck> (...) Chris, The paranoid part of me makes me think that Larry’s text above is, at least in part, aimed at me. The irony is, off course, that Larry’s well chosen words are nothing but contradictory subjective prattle themselves. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) rights, (...) valid, (...) What does that mean? :-) (...) to (...) then (...) Scott, I think that Larry meant you specifically, and others who behave similarly. I think that's clear. But at least his insult to you was thinly veiled. It would (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Arthur

(...) We British are a subtle bunch Chris. (...) I really do not think I do "insult as a debate tactic". (...) It is pertinent to highlight that an individual may not have a belief on an issue, but may still question that of others. Or do you (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Dave Schuler

(...) As evidence, see the works of Benny Hill, Monty Python, and the gentle-yet-poignant understatement of The Young Ones. Dave! (GDnR) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Benny Hill... the greatest milkman in the west? (Re: Uselessness of .debate) —Scott Arthur

(...) What have the Romans ever done for us!? Poor old Benny Hill. He was huge here, and then overnight he was considered not to be PC, and unceremoniously ditched from prime time TV to nowhere. These days, he is seldom even mentioned in the media. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Benny Hill... the greatest milkman in the west? (Re: Uselessness of .debate) —Steve Bliss

(...) Just how long did it take y'all to figure out that Benny wasn't PC? I think I had that pegged about two minutes into my first viewing. Steve (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I do not. I think it is potentially very valuable. But that depends on the way in which it conducted, like all issues of debate style. If you throw out questions that seem disingenuous, people think that you're sniping. (...) so. (...) I agree (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Arthur

(...) "theft"? (...) If others have opinions which are based on emotion, rather than reason, it does not assist understanding. One should have a reasoned argument, not just gut feelings. To call taxation “theft” is not helpful. (...) Oh yes. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Kevin Wilson

Scott and Chris, this has surely got to the point where it no longer belongs in admin.general. Kevin (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Frank Filz

(...) Or in this thread, unless one is trying to prove that people can't keep .debate topics in the right place. (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Arthur

(...) In an abstract sense, do we agree on this? Scott A (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) If "we" includes "me", then no. More generally, I'd like to see a cite of a .debate post where you admitted you changed your mind about something that you had been exposed to here. I may have missed it. You need to be a bit crisper sometimes, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Arthur

(...) A well reasoned response. (...) Go back an read my reply to Chris. (...) Which assertion was this? Can you at least give the date Chris posted it? (...) Why, does he suggest I not ask a staight question - which is just what the post you (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) My default in interpreting your words is to assume sarcastic intent. If you actually were complimenting me, sorry... but otherwise: What is the issue? Seems a pretty clear cut answer to a question. Was it that you didn't want anyone to answer (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry —Dave Low

(...) I know I'm not much of anybody here, but I'd like to request a moratorium on Scott and Larry replying to each other's posts. Please? --DaveL (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry —Kevin Wilson

Dave Low wrote in message ... (...) on (...) Seconded. How about Scott and Larry only reply to each other in email :-) then the rest of us don't have to watch. Kevin (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry —Scott Arthur

(...) Thirded "The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions." Scott A (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) No, I think they should remain public. But for the next fourteen days, any snide comment (as judged by at least four of we who have posted >100 notes to .debate) should be assessed a fine of $10 paid to LUGNET. Chris :-) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry —Frank Filz

(...) This brings back a memory of a movie which I forget the title but it involves a family relocating across the country and all the mis-adventures of the move and the new house, and then I think they wound up moving back. In any case, in this (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry —Scott Arthur

(...) For the record, I made my mind up to leave Larry alone a while ago - unless he made a snide comment directed at me. I'm sticking to it the best I can. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I can't agree to this request, it's too blanket. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Arthur

(...) Sure, you gave an answer. It is not reasoned though. Despite that, I do see a contradiction in your response - not a big one. I'd still be interested in Chris's reply. (...) It was my reply to the question _you_ quoted. Did you even read my (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Frank Filz

(...) I see the potential value in .debate, but the way it has started to go recently, I find I am getting frustrated and angry more and more frequently, to the point that I'm not getting anything out of it. One problem is that potentially each time (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Todd Lehman

(...) About what? --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The way it's written one could almost read it as he hopes that you two have a lot of fights with each other, rather a mean thing to wish so close to Winter Solstice festival, don't you think? :-) So I'm doubting *that* is what he meant. (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Sanburn

(...) Ah, Larry, always throwing a few snipes in to Christianity, huh? I expected nothing less, that's all right. (...) Folks, all I responded to was Frank Filz (SP?) discussion about debate, and according to what he thought, I agreed with him. I (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Frank Filz

(...) Well, for my own part, I think the debate has turned a corner. Perhaps we've convinced Larry and Scott A to back off a bit, and I think the current dicsussion is actually bringing up some interesting points, and doesn't seem as much to be (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

I trimmed admin.general off... (...) Scott, where in the above is there a snipe at christianity? I'm honestly puzzled by that. (our holiday cards this year, as usual, wish people a happy Winter Solstice, because that's what we celebrate). (...) And (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Peter White

(...) ...and a happy Summer Solstice to those in the Southern Hemisphere. pete.w (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Indeed. Pardon me for neglecting those who stand on their heads on a regular basis... (funny, I didn't see any signs of that when I was in Oz earlier this year, but perhaps it was because I was standing on my head myself!) I'd say throw a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Tom Stangl

(...) Why is it a snipe to call this "holiday season" Winter Solstice festival? Are you so arrogant as to believe that ONLY Christians own the celebrations this time of year? Hanukah, Kwanza (double a?), Winter Solstice, and MANY other celebrations (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Arthur

(...) You are 100% correct. That is why Jehovah’s Witness still do not celebrate it. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Mike Stanley

(...) Well, I'm writing this on December 25th in a hotel room before we go spend the day with family and I don't take what Larry said as a snipe on Christianity. The celebration of the Winter Solstice predates the celebration of Christmas by a good (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I agree, but on the other hand, calling today the solstice is incorrect. Why not celibrate the solstice on the 21st? Out of curiosity, Larry, do you celibrate the WS today, or on 21 December? Why not Newtonmass? Chris (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) the 24th is our big day, lesser activity today. That's because that's when the holidays fall on the calendar (similar to Washington's birthday being on a monday, but not really)... on the 21st I was still on the road. It's also because we have (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Happy holidays (was: Uselessness of .debate) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Uh oh. Now I need more info. Uh, basically, Newton was born on the 25th of December in 1642 and when I was deeply extropian in the early 90s, people on the list were celebrating Newtonmass instead of Xmas. It stuck with me. I just found this (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Sanburn

To All, I was just kidding around about the sniping part folks. I do know there are other things that are celebrated, Tom S., and the like, I was just ruffling Larry P. a little bit. We have talked about this a little offline. I swear this group in (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Frank Filz

(...) Which means the rest of us can get the last word? :-) I think it is extremely important to be carefull when making mun of something in the middle of a heated debate that it is clear that you are making fun. That was not at all clear (and there (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) What Larry said. Just that the two of you opt to keep .debate around. Chris (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Well, I just went through the 24 posts that make up this thread at the time that I noticed it. Hmmm. I've been disappointed with the debates of late too, and maybe I'm partly to blame, but I think it's really only the past couple months that (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I assume you mean "informally" in that for example, Frank sends me a note telling me to cool it... or vice versa. (because if you mean formally we're back to a moderator/council/review thingie) I think that's a good idea. More... I think it (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Frank Filz

(...) Well, my post seems to have shut down some of the pointless shouting, and there seems to be some interesting debate starting to creep from under the rocks it dove for cover behind... I'm still going to let it chill for a while and see if this (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Todd Lehman

(...) Ask Suz why -- she was the one who put them there. --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Uselessness of .debate —Paul Baulch

Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) in (...) Ah, of course! Todd never struck me as being one who liked a debate. :-) Cheers, Paul LUGNET member 164 (URL) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)