In a message dated 7/20/2003 10:25:49 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Here's part of a New York Times article, covering claims that
> strong enforcement of laws against homosexuality first began
> about 100 years ago in America.
>
> Interesting, but I'm not convinc
Here's part of a New York Times article, covering claims that
strong enforcement of laws against homosexuality first began
about 100 years ago in America.
Interesting, but I'm not convinced. Comments?
---David
At 12:24 AM 7/18/2003 + Robert J. Chassell wrote:
>No, not quite. If my memory serves me right, US President Bush did
>not say that the `British said'. Instead, Bush said that the `British
>learned'. There is a difference. In everyday language, people do not
>say of others that they learned
At 10:48 AM 7/18/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
>When is it acceptable to criticize the administration regarding
>justification for a war?
Sorry Nick, but if you can find me someone who thought that the British
reports of Iraqi atempts to acquire uranium in Africa was the lynchpin of
the war argume
At 01:07 PM 7/18/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote:
>Criticize him?!? If Bush had really lied to Congress so he could initiate
>an unjustified war, it would be more appropriate for us to push for his
>*impeachment* and felony prosecution under US law. Time will tell.
Huh?
Surely if the Bush Admini
At 05:37 PM 7/17/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>Furthermore, Bob, you're much too smart to believe
>something as dumb as that the world of intelligence is
>quite as clear as whether Bill Clinton had sex with
>Monica Lewinsky.
Which of course is what this all about.So many Democrats turned
At 09:14 PM 7/17/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote:
> Is a general pattern of making misleading statements on
>similar subjects admissable evidence?
> On the other hand, his administration has been succeeding
>in misleading most of the American public for years, and finally
>got called on
"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> One of the original principles of this List is that it should be open to
> "rough-and-tumble" adult conservation. So long as Gautam is employing a
> semblance of rasoning and attempting to engage in constructive discussion,
> I think that there is nothing wrong with hi
Erik Reuter wrote:
> This is quite shaky reasoning.
Certainly. That doesn't make it unlikely though. Besides, how many solid
ideas do you think Saddam ever managed to come up with? :)
> Why would Saddam destroy the weapons at all?
Insert the obligatory warning about sheer speculation...and h
At 10:05 PM 7/18/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote:
> Since his actions are producing the conditions for
>MORE terrorism rather than less, this is asking a bit much.
On what basis do you make this claim?
Given that one of Al-Qaeda's primary recruiting tools was US presence in
the "Holy Land
At 08:07 PM 7/18/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> Had you
>told me, on September 12th, that _no_ significant
>terrorist attack on the United States would be
>launched in the one and a half years after the attack,
>I would have told you that such a suggestion was
>absurd.
I believe that you mea
At 11:10 PM 7/18/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Government enters war without being attacked based on claim that the
> opponent has WMD. Information comes to light that these claims are false.
Actually, a large part of the justification for te war was based on the
fact that Iraq was conti
At 11:27 PM 7/18/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gautam, I am actually quite fearful for our country at the moment. The
current government is doing all that it can to insure its control of the US
for years and decades to come. It is using means that I find at least
objectionable if not illegal
At 11:40 PM 7/18/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would not be a bad thing if the administration was honest about its
intentions and motives. It seems clear that the WMD arguement was used
since it was thought to be the one that would most easy to "sell" to the
american public (Wolfowitz or P
At 07:35 AM 7/19/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>Frankly, Ray, I think that I'm showing a lot more
>respect for people on the list who disagree with me
>than most of the people on this list are showing to
>me. The difference is that I'm in the minority, so it
>just looks different.
One of the
At 11:10 PM 7/18/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This actually a JDG
style arguement. The things that conservatives and
> replubicans do are right and moral because republicans are right and moral
> which of course means that anything they do is right and moral.
Actually, this is a Bob Z. s
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 08:12:30PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
> Let me give an example of 'phenomena that had been investigated for
> centuries' to no avail, until after the proper equipment was invented
> and the phenomenon was explained scientifically: blood circulation.
Bad example. While t
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:54:24PM -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote:
> What I'm trying to come around to: "trickle up" for good or evil has
> been in place seventy years,
In different degrees. The democrats tend to tilt it towards more
progressive taxation, and the Republicans toward less progressive
taxa
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:36:11PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> Hence, the government gets `more bang for the buck' by giving money to
> the poor than the rich.
Yes, and if you look at GDP growth, it is greater with trickle up than
trickle down.
> The counter argument is that a person with
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:12:11PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> Thank you. Am I right in thinking that for air, this is the heat
> conductivity for still air, and not the heat transfer capabilities of
> moving air?
It is the thermal conductivity of air, which is almost the same whether
the
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... Debbi claims that there may be some as yet
> unmeasurable by
> science connection between her numinous experiences
> and the rest of
> the universe. Very similar to some claims of
> astrology. I would not
> have made the comparison if there were n
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: Religion based ethics
> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >
> > One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone
with
From: Trent Shipley
In the US a huge problem with all 'trickle up' policies is that they require
legislative intervention. Laizie Faire (sp?) economic systems stabilize with
huge income and wealth disparities. In the US a combination of social
atomization (probably a result of immigration--Ameri
Gautum wrote-
That's the name of a drill we use to sanity check
ideas. It's probably at the root of my frustration
over a lot of what's being discussed with regards to
Iraq.
What would you have to believe to believe that the
Bush Administration faked WMD evidence in order to
invade Iraq? In othe
At 10:12 PM 7/20/2003 +, you wrote:
> What is the heat conductivity of dirt, rock, and nickle-iron? Does
> anyone one know?
Dirt and rock are similar, in the range 0.2 - 2 W / m K.
Iron is about 84 W / m K
Nickel is 92 W / m K
air at 300K is 0.026 W / m K
Thank you.
- Original Message -
From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
> > What is the heat conductivity of dirt, rock, and nickle-iron? Does
> > anyone one
On Sunday 2003-07-20 14:36, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> trickle down: more money to the rich
>
>
> The argument for giving more money to the rich than to the poor is
> that the rich save more. (That is to say, they save a higher portion of
> additional income;
> What is the heat conductivity of dirt, rock, and nickle-iron? Does
> anyone one know?
Dirt and rock are similar, in the range 0.2 - 2 W / m K.
Iron is about 84 W / m K
Nickel is 92 W / m K
air at 300K is 0.026 W / m K
Thank you. Am I right in thinking that for air,
> Seriously, I don't know why I have become so involved. ... Do
> I worry about my fellow man because I want there to be a fair
> and clean world for my nephews?
Roy Rappaport pointed out, in `Ritual and Religion in the Making of
Humanity', which I am reading right now,
... wha
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:43:36PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> I always reply to the digest. Presumably, all the threads in it are
> for that digest. It is all one mail message.
I didn't expect that! The message I was replying to previously was about
the habitat, but it referenced a mess
Robert,
You have been mixing References: headers between this thread and others
and it makes it harder for me to follow.
Sorry, I did not mean to. I reply to the digest, then remove the
digest's second address, so you do not receive two copies of the same
message, and I try repl
trickle down: more money to the rich
The argument for giving more money to the rich than to the poor is
that the rich save more. (That is to say, they save a higher portion of
additional income; in jargon, their marginal propensity to save is higher.)
After b
I rode past four cows to day...I've never seen a skinny cow before. There
was feed available, and water and shelter; they must have been sick or part
of an experiment. Two of them had letters painted on them. You could see
their hip bones under the skin. Sorry for visual, but wow.
When I left t
> From: Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --- The Fool wrote:
> > > From: Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > --- The Fool wrote:
> > > > > From: Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >
> > > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >It is an old boys club writ on a globa
--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > --- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > From: Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >It is an old boys club writ on a global
> > > > > scale.
>
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 05:17:09PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > As a continuous policy it stinks, but to jumpstart a failing economy
> > it has worked in the past.
>
> Only for a sufficiently vague definition of worked. Getting money into
> the hand
Along the way to finding other stuff, I came across this:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/6/prweb67746.php
Since it's a press release, I think it's okay for me to post the whole darn
thing here...
--
Research Study on Extraterrestrial Infiltration of Clandestine Government
Organizations
A U
Coming Soon to a Galaxy Near You
DUCK DODGERS--NEW SERIES PREMIERE!
Saturday, August 23, at 11:30 a.m. (e/p)
Earth needs a hero. Until then, theres a duck. Dont miss the premiere
of Duck Dodgers, coming next month to Cartoon Network. Meet your captain
and get a sneak peek of the new show now at
38 matches
Mail list logo
