On 5/8/05, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can get a cup of DDT from an environmental
laboratory near here - wanna
drink? Want to feed it to the neighborhood birds?
Noisy critters anyway.
That whole Mother Nature stuff is just so gay.
On 14 Apr 2005, at 3:08 am, Dan Minette wrote:
Well, some people do that, but I always lower my respect a notch
for folks
who will not accept that they are sometimes wrongunless they are
Feynman and the subject is physics. Lord knows I argue tooth and
nail.
But, I work at precision in my
On 4/7/05, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Gautam
Mukunda wrote
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that Warren been trying to
prevent
democracy in Iraq?
On 4/6/05, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bottom line, you
denegate rich white liberals for no particular
reason other than to create your
usual demons.
Bob, what is it about you that makes you _unable_ to
credit people who disagree with you
On Sun, 8 May 2005 10:46:57 -0500, Gary Denton wrote
In the days that have passed since we all talked about our options with regard
to Iraq, I realized that I left out one of the most important ones. And since
Gary brought it up again, I'll take this opportunity.
The idea that we must restrict
--- Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can get a cup of DDT from an environmental
laboratory near here - wanna
drink? Want to feed it to the neighborhood birds?
Noisy critters anyway.
That whole Mother Nature stuff is just so gay.
--
Gary Denton
And that whole knowing even a tiny
At 10:53 PM Wednesday 4/20/2005, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Warren Ockrassa
On Apr 19, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You completely missed the point of what I wrote. I'm not saying
anything at all about people who accept occasional correction (BTW
there are several others on this very list who refuse to admit to
being
in
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 19, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: Warren
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
(quoting Warren, whose post I still haven't got):
That's just the empty cant of ideologically and
morally bereft leftist
extremists
To be fair, I should not have said this. I was
tired
and frustrated when I wrote it. It's just that I've
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:08 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and
comments)
I don't know what the literary
equivalent to this would be - someone telling you
On Apr 20, 2005, at 7:08 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
(quoting Warren, whose post I still haven't got):
Well, you need to take me out of your trash filter, man.
(Yes, that was meant to be wry.)
That's just the empty cant of ideologically and
morally bereft
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:08 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and
comments)
I don't know what the literary
equivalent to this would
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 20, 2005, at 8:44 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Let this be a warning to you. _Never_ mix metaphors with alcohol.
Dan M.
Also, never mix calculus with alcohol. Don't drink and derive.
Clearly the best thing to be when doing calculus is stoned.
You deserve a prize for
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 20, 2005, at 8:44 PM, Julia
On Apr 20, 2005, at 3:36 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To be fair I don't always make the distinction when I comment on
something, which surely doesn't help anyone else decide whether I
think
I'm right or I'm just blowing hot gas. ;)
I wouldn't mind having to ask
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
You completely missed the point of what I wrote. I'm not saying
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Yet, I weigh this consensus opinion much heavier than arguements
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
I'm not sure I've ever seen you do
At 10:34 PM Tuesday 4/19/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
For example,
the statement that human emmissions are now and will cause significant
changes in the earth's temperature is not a fact. It is a consensus
opinion. It is not a proven theory. There are still too many unknowns.
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Warren
On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote:
This thing is invalid differs from I cannot see the validity in this
thing in important respects having to do with rhetorical intent.
I don't believe I ever disputed that.
With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and
throws down
Warren,
On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote:
With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and
throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is
valid
believers.
That's correct. That could maybe be why I called the attack on Iraq
unjustifiable, eh? Maybe
On Apr 18, 2005, at 11:57 AM, Dave Land wrote:
Warren,
On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote:
With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand
and
throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is
valid
believers.
That's correct. That could maybe be why I
At 11:21 AM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Nick Arnett wrote:
That would be, um, difficult, since 12-step programs are spiritual in nature.
For many, I suspect, a big part of such a program is the replacement of bad
theology with better, if not good, theology.
Oh. If that's all it is, I can refer you to
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:21 AM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Nick Arnett wrote:
That would be, um, difficult, since 12-step programs are spiritual in
nature.
For many, I suspect, a big part of such a program is the replacement
of bad
theology with better, if not good, theology.
Oh. If that's all
At 06:11 PM Saturday 4/16/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:21 AM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Nick Arnett wrote:
That would be, um, difficult, since 12-step programs are spiritual in
nature.
For many, I suspect, a big part of such a program is the replacement of bad
theology with
Also, Hampden-Turner made the point that the most likely people
to make such a shift in the US culture of the time were people
whose background was one or other form of Christian puritanism.
That is because people in other US cultures tended to be more
forgiving.
Of
At 06:49 PM Thursday 4/14/2005, John DeBudge wrote:
Not having been a reader of this list for long though (and having only
started contributing in the last couple of days)
Welcome!
I could very well be
missing some old arguments or personality conflicts.
None that you (or any long-time members,
* Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Welcome!
Ronn's our welcome wagon for gmail trolls. Good job, Ronn.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 08:04 AM Friday 4/15/2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Welcome!
Ronn's our welcome wagon for gmail trolls. Good job, Ronn.
Thank you!
-- Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 07:23 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 13, 2005, at 3:12 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 12:06 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
I don't see a difference, at least not a functional one, between the
statements The Iraq war is unjustifiable and the *debate-style*
At 06:51 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
2. Many times it seems to me that 12-step programs really substitute one
addiction (to [substance]) for another (to the program).
This doesn't really solve the problem. It doesn't strike at the root, the
source of the
At 09:44 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
Well, if you honestly feel that you are capable enough to set the standards
to know that a Soro's fellow working in international relations is making
unreasonable arguements that are impossible to support, I guess you need
On Apr 14, 2005, at 6:02 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Okay, how about the shorter version: I could be wrong, but I think
the war in Iraq is unjustifiable because . . .
Of course, since it seems that the whole point of 99+% of such
discussions on any topic, whether OL or in RL, is for the
On Apr 13, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote way too much on the
topic of disclaimers:
Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? In my opinion,
this
thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to
discussion on the topic ... kind of wordy if we can *presume*
At 05:58 PM Thursday 4/14/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On Apr 13, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote way too much on the
topic of disclaimers:
Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? In my opinion, this
thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to
discussion on the
Dave,
I also understand what you are saying and I would like to add my
agreement to it as well.
I can relate to the comments that Warren was making with respect to
ones beliefs always being right from ones own point of view. I
myself have gotten into many discussions with friends about that very
On 5 Apr 2005, at 2:59 pm, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:48:50 +0100, William T Goodall wrote
But the fundamentalists are the fastest growing Christian sects.
I see this as part of a trend that goes far beyond Christianity and
far beyond
religion. Fundamentalism of all sorts is on the
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:59:15 +0100, William T Goodall wrote
I think there is room for a twelve-step theology that weans people
off religion and helps them fend off its malign and pernicious
influence thereafter.
That would be, um, difficult, since 12-step programs are spiritual in nature.
On Apr 12, 2005, at 1:57 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But, the words actually do mean different things. Let me make two
statements I consider true about Iraq and one that I consider false.
true
The actions of Hussein against his own people were unjustifiable
On Apr 13, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:59:15 +0100, William T Goodall wrote
I think there is room for a twelve-step theology that weans people
off religion and helps them fend off its malign and pernicious
influence thereafter.
That would be, um, difficult, since
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:29:04 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
Often, yeah. Higher Power and all that. IIRC the AA programs end
with The Lord's Prayer too.
Typically, but there are many meetings that use the Serenity Prayer to
accomodate people who are uncomfortable with one particular religion's
At 12:06 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
I don't see a difference, at least not a functional one, between the
statements The Iraq war is unjustifiable and the *debate-style*
Resolved: The Iraq war is unjustifiable. Discuss.
How about, In my personal opinion, the Iraq war is
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
2. Many times it seems to me that 12-step programs really substitute one
addiction (to [substance]) for another (to the program).
This doesn't really solve the problem. It doesn't strike at the root,
the source of the addiction. It simply replaces one behavior with
If the Iraqi government had waited until it had nuclear weapons,
Iraq might well have become the first country since 1945 to
annex all of another country successfully (country as recognized
by the UN as a 1648 `Treaty of Westfalia' type of country, not
as a `protocol
On Apr 13, 2005, at 3:12 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 12:06 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
I don't see a difference, at least not a functional one, between the
statements The Iraq war is unjustifiable and the *debate-style*
Resolved: The Iraq war is unjustifiable. Discuss.
How
The trouble I have with 12-step programs is twofold. ...
1. The Admit you are powerless clause, particularly in
conjunction with the Higher Power idea.
30 or 40 years ago, Charles Hampden-Turner (in, I think, The Delancy
Street Asylum) said, if I remember rightly, that many people
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
But, they are very different opinionsone claims
Dan Minette wrote:
Well, if you honestly feel that you are capable enough to set the standards
to know that a Soro's fellow working in international relations is making
unreasonable arguements that are impossible to support, I guess you need to
say that. But, I guess I am not as convinced by my
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Dan Minette wrote:
Well, if you honestly feel that you
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Dan Minette wrote:
Well, if you honestly feel
On Apr 13, 2005, at 7:08 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But, they are very different opinionsone claims that the people
one is
differing with are ignorant, unable or unwilling to use reason, or of
ill
will; while the other is a statement about one's own best
On Apr 13, 2005, at 4:51 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
2. Many times it seems to me that 12-step programs really substitute
one addiction (to [substance]) for another (to the program).
This doesn't really solve the problem. It doesn't strike at the root,
the source of the
On Apr 13, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
The trouble I have with 12-step programs is twofold. ...
1. The Admit you are powerless clause, particularly in
conjunction with the Higher Power idea.
30 or 40 years ago, Charles Hampden-Turner (in, I think, The Delancy
Street
On the contrary, Saddam Hussein's government was actively
working on them. That is why some people were worried in 2002
-- they really did not think that Saddam Hussein was lying when
he claimed to be continuing the effort.
And we haven't found evidence of this, two years
JDG wrote
... let's consider a reasonable definition of the US's friends as
being those countries with which the US has a formal Alliance ...
Of the 32 or so of these ...
That fails to provide much legitimacy. It is the same argument as
that in favor of the United Nations.
That is
On Apr 9, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, why though? Isn't everything we state that is less than 100%
provable an opinion? Isn't it valid to read in the phrase In my
opinion... before any declaration, at least of values or judgments?
Obviously
On Apr 9, 2005, at 2:20 PM, JDG wrote:
At 04:17 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
It means that there wasn't a third option between
going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in
power. It didn't exist. No one proposed one that was
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 9, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: Warren
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
If the Iraqi government had waited until it had nuclear weapons, Iraq
might well have become the first country since 1945 to annex all of
another country successfully (country as recognized by the UN as a
1648 `Treaty of Westfalia' type of country, not as a `protocol
On Apr 9, 2005, at 8:06 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure, this is readily apparent to *us*, but back then any pregnancy
in
concert with an intact hymen would be considered miraculous.
How much knowledge of a hymen was there ca. 2K years ago, though? I
mean,
JDG wrote:
Sent: Sunday, 10 April 2005 7:20 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Democracy in Iraq Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble
theory, and comments)
At 04:17 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
It means
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:53:25 -0400, JDG wrote
The creation of
the United Nations following World War II crystalized a concept of
international
peace and security that was in the collective interest of nations.
The United Nations was not formed to prosecute wars, but to resolve conflicts
Nick wrote:
Certainly. The kind of collateral damage we're seeing in Iraq is
unacceptable in a police action. Police, even SWAT teams and such,
operate under very
different rules. They target only the perpetrators. They don't destroy
the infrastructure of the country. They don't replace
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not that I don't agree with most of your post but
didn't we target Bosnian
infrastructure - bridges, power plants etc. with the
bombing. I thought
the only thing we tried to avoid was civilian
casualties.
--
Doug
A good friend of mine was
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:04:35 -0400, JDG wrote
Just imagine how history might have been different
if Saddam Hussein
had simply waited two or three more years or so,
and asserted his
claim to Kuwait *after* acquiring nuclear weapons
- and then
At 10:46 PM 4/9/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:21:58 -0400, JDG wrote
Note that this resolution requires these things to be destroyed,
removed, or rendered harmless under international supervision.
This was to ensure that Iraq could never use the suspicion that it
had
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:07:33 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
That's a remarkable statement, given that the UN
inspectors after 1991 reported that he was within a
couple of years (probably less) of having a
functioning nuclear device.
Are you saying that he was actively working on
- Original Message -
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:07:33 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
That's
... asserted his claim to Kuwait *after* acquiring nuclear weapons -
and then began to talk about securing the Muslim Holy Land as leader
of the Arab people
What nuclear weapons? He wasn't building any.
On the contrary, Saddam Hussein's government was actively working on
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:28:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
I hope you would accept the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as a reasonable
Source:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/bas-iraq-rules-nuke-8-91.htm
You want me to accept a report from 1991 to tell me if Iraq was actively
building
Here, John is right:
... the purpose of inspections is to assure the rest of the world
that Iraq did not retain any WMD stockpiles or programs. This
assurance was impossible to make under the inspections.
In January 2003, I read Blix's report on the inspections. While he
did not
At 04:32 PM 4/10/2005 -0700, you wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:28:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
I hope you would accept the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as a reasonable
Source:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/bas-iraq-rules-nuke-8-91.htm
You want me to accept a report from 1991 to tell
- Original Message -
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:28:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
I hope you
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:08:25 + (UTC), Robert J. Chassell wrote
... asserted his claim to Kuwait *after* acquiring nuclear
weapons - and then began to talk about securing the Muslim Holy
Land as leader of the Arab people
What nuclear weapons? He wasn't building any.
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:42:19 -0400, JDG wrote
Before reacting so indignantly, perhaps you aught to re-examine the context
of this particular line of discussion.
I did not intend indignance. I had no idea you weren't talking about the war
in which we are presently entangled. That's what I
Nick,
At 11:04 PM 4/9/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
The creation of
the United Nations following World War II crystalized a concept of
international
peace and security that was in the collective interest of nations.
The United Nations was not formed to prosecute wars, but to resolve
conflicts
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:45:22 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
There's a big difference between a young woman and a virgin.
More with some than with others...
Sound of Dave getting slapped.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 7, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Substantial long-term support for the internal
opposition
to Hussein would have been a third say: neither
going to
war nor leaving him in power. At the very least,
we
would have avoided being seen and
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 22:28:38 -0700 (PDT), Gautam
Mukunda wrote
What you are talking about is a slow
and uncertain process.
Compared to what? The speedy and certain process
underway in Iraq???
Nick
Relative to the two hundred year fall of
At 02:18 AM Saturday 4/9/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:45:22 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
There's a big difference between a young woman and a virgin.
More with some than with others...
Sound of Dave getting slapped.
Dave
I was tempted to respond but managed to resist . . .
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and
comments)
On Apr 8, 2005, at 6:19 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Warren
- Original Message -
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
I didn't see analysis of what would happen without war from
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Dave Land wrote:
I wonder if we
At 04:17 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
It means that there wasn't a third option between
going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in
power. It didn't exist. No one proposed one that was
even vaguely plausible. You could
At 04:53 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
It means that there wasn't a third option between
going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in
power. It didn't exist. No one proposed one that was
even vaguely plausible. You could choose one or the
other.
Substantial long-term support
Nick Arnett wrote
Korea is about the worst example to pick, since it looked far more
like an undeclared war than a police action.
If I remember my history rightly, senior members of the US government
thought that the initial part of the Korean war was a feint. They
thought that WWIII
At 06:41 AM 4/8/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
What you are talking about is a slow
and uncertain process.
Compared to what? The speedy and certain process underway in Iraq???
I would say compared to North Korea, where the sorts of policies you
advocate resulted in the DPRK constructing
At 10:19 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
I think declarations that our only choice was invasion ignores the
success of the inspections; not only those just prior to that event
but the earlier ones that we now know ended all of Hussein's WMD programs.
That is a rather good point that I'm
At 05:23 PM 4/6/2005 -0700,Nick wrote:
Are you saying that war is the only way to get rid of an evil dictator? Or
war was the only way to get rid of this one? Am I mistaken in believing
that
in almost every other case, our policy has been not to go to war for that
reason? Is removing an evil
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:04:35 -0400, JDG wrote
Just imagine how history might have been different if Saddam Hussein
had simply waited two or three more years or so, and asserted his
claim to Kuwait *after* acquiring nuclear weapons - and then began
to talk about securing the Muslim Holy
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:21:58 -0400, JDG wrote
Note that this resolution requires these things to be destroyed,
removed, or rendered harmless under international supervision.
This was to ensure that Iraq could never use the suspicion that it
had chemical or biological weapons to again
--- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there's nothing wrong with opposing the
unjustifiable attack on
Iraq, why are you so committed to twisting the tits
of everyone who
does oppose it?
Because so many of them say things like calling it
unjustifiable, when, of course, it's
On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:07 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there's nothing wrong with opposing the
unjustifiable attack on
Iraq, why are you so committed to twisting the tits
of everyone who
does oppose it?
Because so many of them say things like calling it
At 12:10 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 7, 2005, at 7:49 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 08:59 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
though there's some wiggle room there -- IIRC the original text had it
as behold, a young woman shall conceive.
Which is correct, afaik.
At 10:58 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 08:59 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Not really. Virgin conception is impossible,
I am not a fertility specialist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I can
think of ways to implant a fertilized egg in a
At 12:04 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
I am not a fertility specialist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I
can think of ways to implant a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus
without her having ever had sexual
At 12:52 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 7, 2005, at 10:40 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
_There's nothing wrong with
opposing the war_. Knowing what I know now about the
competence of the Administration, I don't think _I_
would have supported the war (not knowing then what I
know
At 01:28 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Why didn't we focus on doing that in Afghanistan first? I think it's
because -- and this is really important -- Iraq was sexier. GWB would be
able to finish what Daddy was unable to see to fruition. That's the
elephant in the room very few
1 - 100 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
