 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) <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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) "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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: Benny Hill... the greatest milkman in the west? (Re: Uselessness of .debate)
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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" between Scott and Larry
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) I can't agree to this request, it's too blanket. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
