Debate : 8190


Off-Topic / Debate / 8190

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)