Suggestions for improving this site

dubhlinn · Post by **dubhlinn** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:57 am

Perrins,
You really need to read up a bit on the subject of Anarchy.
Two friends of mine class themselves as Anarchists and they are two of the most considerate, kind and caring people that I know.
Bob Dylan summed it up nicely when he said "To live outside the Law you must be honest".

Slan,
D.

Flyingcursor · Post by **Flyingcursor** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:22 am

It's the old "How Much Moderation" thread yet again.

So, dubhlinn, anarchy is not equal to pandemonium? Good clarification.

Joseph E. Smith · Post by **Joseph E. Smith** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:46 am

Flyingcursor wrote:So, dubhlinn, anarchy is not equal to pandemonium? Good clarification.

... that is, until somebody opens Pandemonium's box. Ooooops! Sorry, wrong thread.

buddhu · Post by **buddhu** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:30 am

dubhlinn wrote:Perrins,
You really need to read up a bit on the subject of Anarchy.
Two friends of mine class themselves as Anarchists and they are two of the most considerate, kind and caring people that I know.
Bob Dylan summed it up nicely when he said "To live outside the Law you must be honest".

Slan,
D.

Yep.

The shallow perception that anarchy just means a shambles where everyone runs around breaking windows, screaming, shooting each other and playing Daniel O'Donnell CDs always annoyed me.

In fact it pretty much means 'without ruler' - which I prefer to think of as being able to think and act for oneself (or as a group) without having restrictions on one's behaviour imposed from outside.

Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_society

perrins57 · Post by **perrins57** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:10 am

buddhu wrote:[

In fact it pretty much means 'without ruler' - which I prefer to think of as being able to think and act for oneself (or as a group) without having restrictions on one's behaviour imposed from outside.

Which usually means a shambles where everyone runs around breaking windows, screaming, shooting each other and playing Daniel O'Donnell CDs.

(See various documentaries where a group are shacked up together without any rules and they routinely trash the joint.)

djm · Post by **djm** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:06 am

Where do you get "without a ruler" from anarchy? I thought it meant to get rid of libraries and any archived materials.

djm

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:17 am

djm wrote:Where do you get "without a ruler" from anarchy? I thought it meant to get rid of libraries and any archived materials.

djm

You've evidently had a librarian rap your knuckles with a ruler.

Seriously, though, this post got me to wondering how "archive" derived from the latin root "arch" (rule or government)

It turns out it's derived from the latin word for "town hall", which I suppose is where archives would b kept. I feel like such a nerd when I find stuff like this fascinating.

djm · Post by **djm** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:38 am

Does that make an "arch rival" a political enemy?

djm

dapple · Post by **dapple** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:48 pm

. . . and Republicans running naked down alleys, setting fire to stuff.

That's simply not true. I was wearing boxers.

Random notes · Post by **Random notes** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:18 pm

dapple wrote:That's simply not true. I was wearing boxers.

Cool. They're great dogs.

Roger

Joseph E. Smith · Post by **Joseph E. Smith** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:45 pm

Random notes wrote:
dapple wrote:That's simply not true. I was wearing boxers.
Cool. They're great dogs.

Roger

So, just how would one wear a boxer?

Denny · Post by **Denny** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:51 pm

Joseph E. Smith wrote:
Random notes wrote:
dapple wrote:That's simply not true. I was wearing boxers.
Cool. They're great dogs.

Roger
So, just how would one wear a boxer?

Ya just gotta try everything at least once, don't ya?

dapple · Post by **dapple** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:41 pm

Random notes wrote:
dapple wrote:
That's simply not true. I was wearing boxers.

Cool. They're great dogs.

Roger

So, just how would one wear a boxer?

Carefully. It's an art, really.

Post by **Nanohedron** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:42 pm

Joseph E. Smith wrote:
Random notes wrote:
dapple wrote:That's simply not true. I was wearing boxers.
Cool. They're great dogs.

Roger
So, just how would one wear a boxer?

With the right accessories, of course. Boxers make quite an impression, though, so of course less is more. Simple, understated elegance is called for: a single strand of pearls, for example, or a whimsical brooch that compliments your boxer's pelt. With brooches, well-loved bronze works wonderfully against black; a large, simply-set topaz would be just the right touch for brindled fur; tan coats just cry out for jade. I firmly believe that diamonds of any kind would be over the top. Nevertheless, follow your own star and let your own taste and means dictate the statement you want your boxers to make.

Lambchop · Post by **Lambchop** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:04 pm

Nanohedron wrote:
Joseph E. Smith wrote:
Random notes wrote: Cool. They're great dogs.

Roger
So, just how would one wear a boxer?
With the right accessories, of course. Boxers make quite an impression, though, so of course less is more. Simple, understated elegance is called for: a single strand of pearls, for example, or a whimsical brooch that compliments your boxer's pelt. With brooches, well-loved bronze works wonderfully against black; a large, simply-set topaz would be just the right touch for brindled fur; tan coats just cry out for jade. I firmly believe that diamonds of any kind would be over the top. Nevertheless, follow your own star and let your own taste and means dictate the statement you want your boxers to make.

Boxers? Hmm, that would make a nice change from your little flock of mutton. . .