|
|
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
|
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
|
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Yah, you see there. You are asking the questions that the government does not want answered. I learned a little bit of government thinking in that job, and they don't address issues like that. Yes, now that this has been publicized it is (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
|
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
| | ( (Good SF authors) != (young SF authors) ) ??
|
| (...) Not without doing some digging(0). Plus it varies according to taste. Lately I like the "killer B's"...(1) they all are within a "few" years of that mark, as compared to the grand masters you name (whether I'd put Chalker up there is a (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Two things -- One, it said Bush administration, not Dubbya himself. And two, it is quite common to have various novels of fiction and non-fiction pertaining to national monuments in the book stores at the visiting centers. They are probably (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) No we won't! How dare you accuse us of that! :) (...) You may certainly buy a new one. However, if you're looking to return your Lucky Jackalope Foot, you'll have to demonstrate that it had, and then lost its powers. Or you might just need to (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Why's that a good question? I thought the govt. was supposed to be workin for us, not just to perpetuate itself. (...) Wow, you guys'll argue over just about anything. On a relative scale this seems about as vital as wrangling over whether you (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Because geologic theory is based in testable science rather than non-testable religion, and the Fed's choice to endorse an article of religious faith is manifestly unconstitutional. Even the claim made elsewhere that Dubya himself didn't (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
|
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Honestly, that's a great question! Creationists have never actually submitted anything for peer review, so if the book were indeed written using scientific methods of inquiry, then it would be greatly beneficial to them to put it up for (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
|
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
| | Re: Clark County, Ohio
|
| (...) Judging by the mob which followed him on his last visit and the way he is almost universally derided here: not very many. (...) That's actually an argument against all political campagning. When I posted the message I was actually more (...) (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
|
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
|
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
|
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
|
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
| | Re: Clark County, Ohio
|
| (...) I think the question is more accurately stated "how many Guardian readers would go for Bush?"... and I think we have our answer, (3) thanks to the cite provided by Dave! It would really be a shame if this clueless stunt (by a paper I have (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
| all (score: 0.333) |
|
|
| all (score: 0.333) |