Helo and the Chief (Series 2 - Ep. 13)
Carl
So what's the deal with Helo and the Chief? Are they just free to go after
Cain dies?
They seem to be back to normal in 'Epiphanies'.
No revised trial? Have I missed something?
Thanks.
Carl :-)
cloud dreamer
It's quite likely that Adama knows the incident was an accident.
Given the circumstances, the ship can't afford to lose two trained
personnel without more evidence.
..
vo...@webtv.net
America being tried for being cruel to the bad guys with the Red Skull
as the judge, Osama Bin Laden as the prosocution, Viper/Madame Hydra the
defense atty., with Cap locked in a cell three lvls. down and not even
allowed to speak in his own behalf.
Skull; How does the defense plead to supporting truth and justice
Viper; Guilty
Osama; We call for the death penalty!
Skull; GUILTY! Now for the execution!
Kangeroo courts are more just than what Helo and Chief got.
Tara
could have been tried while still between ships for what I saw.
cloud dreamer
> True.W don't have any evidence they even got a trial. Helo and Chiel
> could have been tried while still between ships for what I saw.
>
If Adama had already decided that it was an accident, there wouldn't be
any need for a trial.
..
Rich Clark
"Carl" <re...@newsgrouponly.com> wrote in message
news:43d81d97$0$26131$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
I forget if it was mentioned in the episode, but obviously a few weeks have
passed between the end of "Res Ship 2" and the beginning of "Epiphanies."
Plenty of time for an administrative solution to the Helo/Chief issue.
It's not necessary (or desirable) for every detail to be covered in the
episodes.
RichC
Mike Hall
> It's quite likely that Adama knows the incident was an accident.
How was attacking a superior officer doing his duty, an accident?
Mike Hall
vo...@webtv.net
putting panties on the heads of hardened terrorist fanatics. The enemy
laughs at us while they chop off the heads of kidnapped civilians.
Matt Clara
news:11tg7uu...@corp.supernews.com...
What more evidence do they need than the testimony of the six people
present? Even if Adama knows it was an accident, and I suspect he does,
there are formalities to be observed, particularly in a military
organization. Without those formalities, the chain of command would soon
break down. I agree with those others who have commented on this that it is
a gapping hole. However, I also realize they've only got 42 minutes per
show, and they can't get _everything_ in there. Still, it would have only
taken a half minute of dialogue to let us know some sort of hearing had been
conducted and they'd been exonerated.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
cloud dreamer
Sheesh...it isn't a big leap to figure he let them off cause he knew
they were innocent. Stop looking to get your hand held.
..
Matt Clara
I'm sorry, have I offended you with my opinion? Is it just me, or have
there been several posts of other people who feel the same way? Yes, it
appears there is. As you can see in my post, I understand that not
everything can be explained, but the fact that many people have commented,
and that Helo is running around the Galactica like a loose canon threatening
to pull firearms on the most senior officer of the ship, would seem to
warrant some explanation--other wise it seems like piss-poor writing.
cloud dreamer
I'm not offended by your post. I'm offended by the fact that so many
here can't accept a perfectly logical explanation. The writers can not
explain everything. Some people are just too demanding. There comes a
point when you just have to accept things.
As for Helo, he never threatened anyone. Putting your hand on your
holster is not an overt action. Adama is intelligent enough to know the
guy is hurt and is not a threat. And as I've seen in my lengthy military
career, some commanders are understanding. I don't see anything wrong
with Adama's actions.
We shouldn't need to be shown every minute detail. BSG is shown on
Space: The IMAGINATION Station up here....some of us that that to mean
that an imagination is necessary at times.
..
Mike Hall
> SInce when is rape and torture doing duty? We put our boys in jail for
> putting panties on the heads of hardened terrorist fanatics.
None of the interogators have been tried AFAIK. Only the poor saps who who
may have been following orders to break them.
Anyway Helo and Tyroll should have complained to a senior officer, not
attacked one in a rage. Adama would have sent down a squad of marines
immediately. Cain was right, Adama's command is a joke when his soldiers
take the law into their own hands rather than trust in the chain of command!
Mike Hall
Matt Clara
Of course it's not, that's why the camera zoomed in on the action, because
it was a non-action.
>Adama is intelligent enough to know the
> guy is hurt and is not a threat. And as I've seen in my lengthy military
> career, some commanders are understanding. I don't see anything wrong
> with Adama's actions.
Nor do I, but with your long history in military, don't you find it odd that
someone died due to the actions of others and there wasn't even a hearing on
it? That it was just glossed over?
>
> We shouldn't need to be shown every minute detail. BSG is shown on
> Space: The IMAGINATION Station up here....some of us that that to mean
> that an imagination is necessary at times.
>
> ..
So now we lack imagination? I think you should read some of my other posts
before you accuse me of that. To me it would seem it's a lack of
imagination that allows one to simply gloss over gaping holes in a plot
line.
cloud dreamer
So, you're telling me you'd stand back and watch someone get raped while
dialing 911???? Foolishness. Their actions were wholly understandable
and acceptable. They saw someone they both loved about to be raped - all
they did was pull him off her. There was no intent to harm him.
..
cloud dreamer
Fine. Believe what you want. The simple fact of the matter is that if
you consider something so obvious to be a "gaping hole", you'll never be
satisfied. Like someone said, you don't see them go to the bathroom
either. Does that mean they're all full of shit?
..
Matt Clara
That's not a comparable analogy. Almost no book or TV show or movie shows
people going to the bathroom. Period. And nothing about this is obvious,
except that the situation hasn't been dealt with. If it was obvious there
wouldn't be three or four posts on the subject, now would there? Or do you
believe everyone that doesn't hold your opinion to be somehow lacking in
imagination (obviously something you don't feel you're lacking in yourself,
ergo your condescending attitude in this thread)? Don't answer, it's
rhetorical.
the other Eric
cloud dreamer wrote:
<snip>
> > So now we lack imagination? I think you should read some of my other posts
> > before you accuse me of that. To me it would seem it's a lack of
> > imagination that allows one to simply gloss over gaping holes in a plot
> > line.
> >
>
>
> Fine. Believe what you want. The simple fact of the matter is that if
> you consider something so obvious to be a "gaping hole", you'll never be
> satisfied. Like someone said, you don't see them go to the bathroom
> either. Does that mean they're all full of shit?
Lets not forget that Adama is tired and hungry. He hasn't had a bite
to eat since 'Tigh Me Up Tigh Me Down' and he hasn't slept a wink since
'33'. We don't want to gloss over those gaping holes in the plot line.
Regards,
-Eric
cloud dreamer
Three or four posts does not make it "unobvious." It simply a result of
some people who just want to find fault with the show at any cost. And
there are sure as hell more than three or four of them in here.
..
cloud dreamer
Perhaps if they weren't all having sex, we'd see them eat once in a
while.....ummm...wait a sec...
..
Matt Clara
Well, I apologize if that seems to be my agenda. I love the show and
believe it to be one of if not the best show on television today. I don't
think that means I should find no fault with it, or gloss over points I take
exception to. That's rather the point of these tv newsgroups.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think the writers have left
this open ended, perhaps to use it as a source of tension between Pegasus
and Galactica. After all, the person they killed (albeit, accidentally) was
considered a hero and loved by many on the Pegasus (how that guy can also be
a brutal rapist, I don't know, but that's a plot line I won't question).
Also, the integration of Pegasus and its crew into the "fleet" hasn't been
dealt with as of yet (though they may not go that way, too, I realize, and
I'll just have to say, harumph if they never deal with it).
Matt Clara
news:1138293859....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ya know, Eric, there's a world of difference between those trivial details
and this, if you can't see the difference, forgive me if I think less of
your intellect. You want to just go on about how great the show is, fine.
I'll kill file you as having nothing useful to add to the group.
Mike Hall
> Their actions were wholly understandable and acceptable. They saw someone
> they both loved about to be raped - all they did was pull him off her.
> There was no intent to harm him.
They charged in like stupid heroes, when they could have called in Adama who
might have got a squad of marines in quicker than they could arrive.
They didn't just pull him off of her. They threw fists and a superior
officer was killed as a result. The chief might be a civilian wearing
uniform but Tyrol is supposed to be military! Maybe the mitigating
circumstances should prevent them from being executed but they committed a
crime which caused a man to be killed and Adama just let them walk
apparently!
Mike Hall
cloud dreamer
> cloud dreamer wrote:
>
>
>>Their actions were wholly understandable and acceptable. They saw someone
>>they both loved about to be raped - all they did was pull him off her.
>>There was no intent to harm him.
>
>
> They charged in like stupid heroes, when they could have called in Adama who
> might have got a squad of marines in quicker than they could arrive.
They charged in like two men who saw someone they loved being raped. To
insinuate that it would have been more believable for them to stand out
there and call up Adama and sit around waiting for the marines is
ludicrous. They acted human.
..
Mike Hall
> Their actions were wholly understandable and acceptable. They saw someone
> they both loved about to be raped - all they did was pull him off her.
> There was no intent to harm him.
They charged in like stupid heroes, when they could have called in Adama who
might have got a squad of marines in quicker than they could arrive.
They didn't just pull him off of her. They threw fists and a superior
officer was killed as a result. The chief might be a civilian wearing
uniform but Helo is supposed to be military! Maybe the mitigating
circumstances should prevent them from being executed but they committed a
crime which caused a man to be killed and Adama just let them walk
apparently!
Mike Hall (apologies in advance to those who saw the cancelled post and
think this is a repost)
Russ
news:bi7Cf.145724$Xg2....@fe01.news.easynews.com:
<snip>
>> Three or four posts does not make it "unobvious." It simply a result
>> of some people who just want to find fault with the show at any cost.
>> And there are sure as hell more than three or four of them in here.
>
> Well, I apologize if that seems to be my agenda. I love the show and
> believe it to be one of if not the best show on television today. I
> don't think that means I should find no fault with it, or gloss over
> points I take exception to. That's rather the point of these tv
> newsgroups.
>
> Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think the writers have
> left this open ended, perhaps to use it as a source of tension between
> Pegasus and Galactica. After all, the person they killed (albeit,
> accidentally) was considered a hero and loved by many on the Pegasus
> (how that guy can also be a brutal rapist, I don't know, but that's a
> plot line I won't question).
One of the "heroes" of 'Black Hawk Down' (the fellow Ewan McGregor played)
was later convicted of child molestation.
<snip>
Russ
Mike Hall
> Mike Hall wrote:
>> They charged in like stupid heroes, when they could have called in Adama
>> who might have got a squad of marines in quicker than they could arrive.
> They charged in like two men who saw someone they loved being raped.
No. The idiotic, stupidly-heroic, "we don't believe that Adama can control
his own battlestar" behaviour started when Tyrol said to Helo, ' "Shouldn't
we be somewhere else?" ' rather than "The Old Man (Adama) needs to know
about this right now!"
Mike Hall
cloud dreamer
Huh? Not sure what you're referring to....but the point of the matter
is, they were there and to expect them to do anything but pull buddy off
Sharon is ridiculous.
..
the other Eric
It is a free internet so killfile whomever you like but don't kid
yourself as to why you would do so. I could list half a dozen things
from the show that indicate how this was resolved but perhaps you don't
want to hear that. Moore expects the audience to figure these things
out so if it bothers you it isn't going to change.
Regards,
-Eric
Mike Hall
> Mike Hall wrote:
>>>They charged in like two men who saw someone they loved being raped.
>> No. The idiotic, stupidly-heroic, "we don't believe that Adama can
>> control his own battlestar" behaviour started when Tyrol said to Helo, '
>> "Shouldn't we be somewhere else?" ' rather than "The Old Man (Adama)
>> needs to know about this right now!"
> Huh? Not sure what you're referring to.
Watch the episode and you'll understand the situation you are commenting on.
Essentially what happened was that the engineering crew and Helo were
listening to some Pegasus pervs bs about how Sharon was going to be raped as
part of the interrogation. Helo was going to fight the Pegasus pervs there
and then, but the Chief said, ' "Shouldn't we be somewhere else?" ' and the
Chief and Helo dashed off to the brig. After running across Galactica
without telling a soul what their suspicions were they arrived (possibly
while Sharon was being raped - it's unclear from the show) at the brig,
pulled off the officer and his guard without warning and started beating on
them which resulted in the officer dying.
Whatever one believes about the rights of a Cylon, Helo and Tyrol should
have answered for their actions.
Mike Hall
cloud dreamer
> cloud dreamer wrote:
>
>>Mike Hall wrote:
>>
>>>cloud dreamer wrote:
>
>
>>>>They charged in like two men who saw someone they loved being raped.
>>>
>>>No. The idiotic, stupidly-heroic, "we don't believe that Adama can
>>>control his own battlestar" behaviour started when Tyrol said to Helo, '
>>>"Shouldn't we be somewhere else?" ' rather than "The Old Man (Adama)
>>>needs to know about this right now!"
>
>
>>Huh? Not sure what you're referring to.
>
>
> Watch the episode and you'll understand the situation you are commenting on.
>
> Essentially what happened was that the engineering crew and Helo were
> listening to some Pegasus pervs bs about how Sharon was going to be raped as
> part of the interrogation. Helo was going to fight the Pegasus pervs there
> and then, but the Chief said, ' "Shouldn't we be somewhere else?" ' and the
> Chief and Helo dashed off to the brig. After running across Galactica
> without telling a soul what their suspicions were they arrived (possibly
> while Sharon was being raped - it's unclear from the show) at the brig,
> pulled off the officer and his guard without warning and started beating on
> them which resulted in the officer dying.
>
I don't see this as irrational. In such situations, people don't always
act rationally. We're talking about two men here who were just told
someone they love is about to be raped. Sorry, but I don't see them
stopping long enough to call 911. A rational man might. In hindsight,
they should have. In reality, emotion reigns.
..
Earl Grieda
"Mike Hall" <tar...@spam3block.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:km7Cf.9582$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> cloud dreamer wrote:
>
> > Their actions were wholly understandable and acceptable. They saw
someone
> > they both loved about to be raped - all they did was pull him off her.
> > There was no intent to harm him.
>
> They charged in like stupid heroes, when they could have called in Adama
who
> might have got a squad of marines in quicker than they could arrive.
> They didn't just pull him off of her. They threw fists and a superior
> officer was killed as a result. The chief might be a civilian wearing
> uniform but Tyrol is supposed to be military!
You are confused about the Chief. The Pegasus chief is the civilian wearing
a uniform. Galactica chief has been in the service for quite awhile.
You and the other Mike are the only ones who have an issue with Helo and the
Chief being freed after being rescued from the Pegasus. As I said in a
previous post, it only takes a few minutes of off-camera time for Adama to
realize that Helo and the Chief were acting responsibly, and the death was
an accident. Case dismissed.
Mike Hall
> I don't see this as irrational. In such situations, people don't always
> act rationally. We're talking about two men here who were just told
> someone they love is about to be raped. Sorry, but I don't see them
> stopping long enough to call 911. A rational man might. In hindsight, they
> should have. In reality, emotion reigns.
If they are supposed to be armed at all times, then they shouldn't act like
that. Anyway, you've virtually agreed with me that they've got a case to
answer for re: "In hindsight, they should have." Whether they should be
disciplined or not, isn't the question. The debate was whether they should
have be let off without trial or investigation once Cain had died. Helo
especially is too much of a liability to be let to run loose on the
Galactica.
Ah well. One more day to see if Adama will be a Picard, a Janeway or a
Kirk. A Picard would agree with the morality of their actions but question
the brains and have them removed from the Galactica. A Janeway would
condemn their actions and then let them off totally. A Kirk would totally
ignore them and start teaching Six what love really is!
Mike Hall
Mike Hall
> You are confused about the Chief. The Pegasus chief is the civilian
> wearing
> a uniform. Galactica chief has been in the service for quite awhile.
The Galactica is a museum ship, only being kept in fighting-condition
because of Adama. The entire forbidden Sharon-Tyrol romance was all about
how military discipline had been allowed to go to pot.
> You and the other Mike are the only ones who have an issue with Helo and
> the
> Chief being freed after being rescued from the Pegasus. As I said in a
> previous post, it only takes a few minutes of off-camera time for Adama to
> realize that Helo and the Chief were acting responsibly, and the death was
> an accident. Case dismissed.
It was in no way an accident! If I started beating on you and you hit your
head, I'd be guilty of manslaughter. I'm just one of the few people who
have a bit of time on their hands at the moment and feel like registering my
disgust on the Internet:)
Mike Hall
the other Eric
Mike Hall wrote:
<snip>
> > You and the other Mike are the only ones who have an issue with Helo and
> > the
> > Chief being freed after being rescued from the Pegasus. As I said in a
> > previous post, it only takes a few minutes of off-camera time for Adama to
> > realize that Helo and the Chief were acting responsibly, and the death was
> > an accident. Case dismissed.
>
> It was in no way an accident!
It was not intended.
>If I started beating on you and you hit your
> head, I'd be guilty of manslaughter.
Not it you did it to prevent a rape or to prevent the sabotage of a
military resource that saved over 48 thousand lives.
Regards,
-Eric
Lio Convoy
> They charged in like stupid heroes, when they could have called in
> Adama who might have got a squad of marines in quicker than they could
> arrive. They didn't just pull him off of her. They threw fists and a
> superior officer was killed as a result. The chief might be a
> civilian wearing uniform but Helo is supposed to be military! Maybe
> the mitigating circumstances should prevent them from being executed
> but they committed a crime which caused a man to be killed and Adama
> just let them walk apparently!
1. Helo had the same rank as Thorne (the rapist), so it was not striking a
superior officer.
2. For all we know, the brig is a few doors down from engineering.
3. If I was told my wife/gf/friend was about to be raped, I'd do the same
thing.
4. Remember, this is Galactica and not Star Trek (where everyone has a
personal communicator) and marines do take time to deploy as well, plus
they would have to explain the whole situation to Adama when they found a
way to contact him.
Lio Convoy
> Ya know, Eric, there's a world of difference between those trivial
> details and this, if you can't see the difference, forgive me if I
> think less of your intellect. You want to just go on about how great
> the show is, fine. I'll kill file you as having nothing useful to add
> to the group.
The only reason you are killfiling him is because he's given you logical
reasons as to why Helo and Tyrol are walking around.
I'll reiterate his logic and add some of my own.
1. We never see them go to the bathroom, so are they using diapers?
2. We never see them sleeping, so are they awake 24/7?
3. We never saw Roslyn write her letter to Baltar, so was it a forgery?
4. We rarely see Vipers land, so are they floating in space 90% of the
time?
5. How is gravity maintained on the Battlestars?
So please, grow up a little bit and stop focusing on the small shit.
Mike Hall
> 4. Remember, this is Galactica and not Star Trek (where everyone has a
> personal communicator) and marines do take time to deploy as well, plus
> they would have to explain the whole situation to Adama when they found a
> way to contact him.
The Galactica has phones. They could have simply dialed up the bridge and
informed Adama about the situation. Adama would have sent the marines.
They would then be entitled to rush to the brig in order to stop anything
happening. They could have least have asked someone to tell Adama. They
are supposed to be US-equivalent military not panicky schoolgirls, even if
the Galactica is a museum ship.
Mike Hall
JEDIDIAH
> vo...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>> SInce when is rape and torture doing duty? We put our boys in jail for
>> putting panties on the heads of hardened terrorist fanatics.
>
> None of the interogators have been tried AFAIK. Only the poor saps who who
> may have been following orders to break them.
>
> Anyway Helo and Tyroll should have complained to a senior officer, not
> attacked one in a rage. Adama would have sent down a squad of marines
> immediately. Cain was right, Adama's command is a joke when his soldiers
> take the law into their own hands rather than trust in the chain of command!
This would be along the lines of the usual civilian police policy
of do nothing beyond create chalk outlines and cleanup afterwards.
Ignoring the legal and philosphical spliting of hairs for a moment,
their actions were completely reasonable. A soldier is allowed to initiate
deadly force when witnessing a violent felony. The situation certainly had
the appearances of being one where clobbering a superior officer was not
a clear cut violation of military discipline.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
matt...@gmail.com
I'm sorry, but go take a class in film and literature, as I have (I
have two degrees in the field) and reiterate the nonsense you have
here, and, if it's a decent university, you won't last the semester.
You guys are fucking idiots.
Matt Clara
news:1138336880....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Did I say you're fucking idiots? I'm sorry, now I'm insulting idiots!
the other Eric
matt...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> I'm sorry, but go take a class in film and literature, as I have (I
> have two degrees in the field)
You do? Well that is just great. What shows have you made - perhaps I
have seen some of your work.
> and reiterate the nonsense you have
> here, and, if it's a decent university, you won't last the semester.
Why don't you enlighten us?
Regards,
-Eric
Lio Convoy
>> I'm sorry, but go take a class in film and literature, as I have (I
>> have two degrees in the field) and reiterate the nonsense you have
>> here, and, if it's a decent university, you won't last the semester.
>> You guys are fucking idiots.
>>
>
> Did I say you're fucking idiots? I'm sorry, now I'm insulting idiots!
So much for your '2 degrees' in film and literature. These last two
comments disprove that one. You can't even use proper grammar. It's YOUR
not YOU'RE. YOU'RE is the contraction of YOU ARE and is not a posessive.
Anyone with a film and literature degree should know that. And then the
insults, that means you can't back up anything you are saying, even with
any type of degrees.
and another thing...your resume doesn't mention anything about getting a
degree in film.................
And before you say this isn't part of your resume.....Your IP address from
your last post leads to Michigan
Design Web pages for the Michigan Department of Agriculture.
Research and write articles for the MDA Web site. This includes
the creation of graphics as well as rewriting technical lingo, and more.
Supervise and work with MDA Web Liaisons in creating and maintaining
MDA Web content.
2002é³³resent Michigan Department of Agriculture Lansing, MI
Web Producer / Communications Representative
01/27/06 00:58:10 Fast traceroute 67.167.142.172
Trace 67.167.142.172 ...
p011801.cgcil.ip.att.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative])
8 12.122.10.133 16ms 219ms 93ms TTL: 0 (tbr2-cl1.dtrmi.ip.att.net
bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative])
9 12.123.139.58 31ms 375ms 31ms TTL: 0 (gar3-
p390.dtrmi.ip.att.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative])
10 12.118.112.6 32ms 344ms 79ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
11 12.244.65.210 31ms 234ms 62ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
12 12.244.250.131 32ms 204ms 250ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
13 67.167.142.172 47ms 235ms 250ms TTL: 0 (c-67-167-142-
172.hsd1.mi.comcast.net ok)
01/27/06 00:57:52 IP block 67.167.142.172
Trying 67.167.142.172 at ARIN
Trying 67.167.142 at ARIN
Comcast Cable Communications, IP Services ATT-COMCAST (NET-67-160-0-0-1)
67.160.0.0 - 67.191.255.255
Comcast Cable Communications, IP Services MICHIGAN-L-2 (NET-67-167-128-0-1)
67.167.128.0 - 67.167.143.255
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2006-01-26 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
the other Eric
Lio Convoy wrote:
> "Matt Clara" <hey.w...@buzz.off> wrote in
> news:aMSdnTqFr5uQO0Te...@comcast.com:
>
> >> I'm sorry, but go take a class in film and literature, as I have (I
> >> have two degrees in the field)
How does Moore get by without Clara's input?
<snip>
> and another thing...your resume doesn't mention anything about getting a
> degree in film.................
> And before you say this isn't part of your resume.....Your IP address from
> your last post leads to Michigan
I'm sure he is the best wedding photographer in the business.
Regards,
-Eric
Earl Grieda
"Lio Convoy" <lioc...@iwonttellyou.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9758A9A816F2li...@69.28.186.121...
> "Matt Clara" <hey.w...@buzz.off> wrote in
> news:aMSdnTqFr5uQO0Te...@comcast.com:
>
> >> I'm sorry, but go take a class in film and literature, as I have (I
> >> have two degrees in the field) and reiterate the nonsense you have
> >> here, and, if it's a decent university, you won't last the semester.
> >> You guys are fucking idiots.
> >>
> >
> > Did I say you're fucking idiots? I'm sorry, now I'm insulting idiots!
>
> So much for your '2 degrees' in film and literature. These last two
> comments disprove that one. You can't even use proper grammar. It's YOUR
> not YOU'RE. YOU'RE is the contraction of YOU ARE and is not a posessive.
Is that correct? To me, "Did I say you're fucking idiots" sounds like, "Did
I say you are fucking idiots". I don't think he was saying he is the owner
of a group of "fucking idiots". Of course, I have had a couple beers, so my
judgment might be skewed. Also, the original poster is wasting time
worrying about why Helo, and the Chief, are free.
Lio Convoy
news:CjkCf.6953$Hd4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
I've had my share of beers too tonight, so I may be wrong.
But I don't think Mr Clara will be bothering us too much anymore in the
near future. Oh, if you want to read his pathetic resume, go to
http://www.mattclara.com (my daughter makes better looking sites at the age
of 12)
David Chapman
>
> not YOU'RE. YOU'RE is the contraction of YOU ARE and is not a posessive.
Since he's not talking about the fucking idiots that belong to you, but
rather saying that you are fucking idiots, I can draw two conclusions:
1) His grammar is fine.
2) His assertion is correct.
--
"My son is not a terrorist - he is a junior IT support officer."
Matt Clara
Nope, idiot, I'm still here. Thanks for making an ass of yourself trying to
correct my grammar. And please share some of your daughter's sites so we
can have a further laugh.
the other Eric
David Chapman wrote:
> 2) His assertion is correct.
You can't mean the silly ones. Those made about as much sense as
declaring "Its my ball and I'm not paying any more!" Lets deal with
the serious one. We know Adama handles legal matters by cutting
corners to achieve his desired result. We know that in this case
Adama's desired result was that the two men would be back to work and
we know that is nobody left that will stop Adama. How important was it
to the story to see Adama bend the rules again? I'm not asking if it
would be nice. Of corse I would like to see it. It would be nice
character development. However every episode has great character
development beats end up on the cutting floor. Was the problem that
the show picked up new viewers who had never seen the first season? I
could see how those who just started watching the show might struggle
with it because they would have to assume what everyone else already
knows.
Regards,
-Eric
Lio Convoy
> Nope, idiot, I'm still here. Thanks for making an ass of yourself
> trying to correct my grammar. And please share some of your
> daughter's sites so we can have a further laugh.
>
Where's your film degrees? I see you circumventing all that information.
How's it feel to be found out as a lying sack of shit over something as
stupid as a television show? At least I had an excuse correcting your
grammar, called beer. What's your excuse for claiming you had something you
don't?
the other Eric
Lio Convoy wrote:
> "Matt Clara" <hey.w...@buzz.off> wrote in
> news:jcidnTG9MMA...@comcast.com:
>
> > Nope, idiot, I'm still here. Thanks for making an ass of yourself
> > trying to correct my grammar. And please share some of your
> > daughter's sites so we can have a further laugh.
> >
>
> Where's your film degrees? I see you circumventing all that information.
> How's it feel to be found out as a lying sack of shit over something as
Be careful Lio. If you piss him off too much there is a real danger
that Mr. Clara will turn you into a villain in his next television
series.
Regards,
-Eric
RaptorDriver
@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
> cloud dreamer wrote:
>
>> It's quite likely that Adama knows the incident was an accident.
>
> How was attacking a superior officer doing his duty, an accident?
Superior officer engaged in a crime. Superior officer damaging weapon
system without authorization, etc... Superior officer died with his his
pants down... etc...
RaptorDriver
> cloud dreamer wrote:
>> Mike Hall wrote:
>
>>> They charged in like stupid heroes, when they could have called in
>>> Adama who might have got a squad of marines in quicker than they
>>> could arrive.
>> They charged in like two men who saw someone they loved being raped.
>
> No. The idiotic, stupidly-heroic, "we don't believe that Adama can
> control his own battlestar" behaviour started when Tyrol said to Helo,
> ' "Shouldn't we be somewhere else?" ' rather than "The Old Man (Adama)
> needs to know about this right now!"
If these two guys did what they did on my watch, I'd give them a medal for
having the balls to do the right thing. I'd also keel-haul the CAG and
whoever else was involved in letting Helo and the Chief off my ship without
authorization. Then again I was a submariner and we didn't have marines
around and had to do our own thug work.
RaptorDriver
> It was in no way an accident! If I started beating on you and you hit
> your head, I'd be guilty of manslaughter. I'm just one of the few
> people who have a bit of time on their hands at the moment and feel
> like registering my disgust on the Internet:)
It was also no accident that the dead person died with his dick hanging out
and his pants down in the act of trying to rape a prisoner. Failing to act
on this one would have put Tyrol and Helo in the brig for deriliction of
duty and conduct unbecoming. The guy doing the raping was committing:
Sabotage - he was damaging a weapon system one that literally just took out
an entire air wing.
Rape - pants down, etc.
Conduct unbecoming.
Following an illegal order
Disobeying a written general order (i.e. no rape)
Conduct against good discipline
Conspiracy (by inviting others to assist)
Lio Convoy
news:1138395926....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> Where's your film degrees? I see you circumventing all that information.
>> How's it feel to be found out as a lying sack of shit over something as
>> stupid as a television show? <snip>
>
> Be careful Lio. If you piss him off too much there is a real danger
> that Mr. Clara will turn you into a villain in his next television
Muuuuuuuuuhahahahahahahaha
Already played the villain in a few high school and college productions, so
it wouldn't bother me at all.
LS
> cloud dreamer wrote:
>
>> It's quite likely that Adama knows the incident was an accident.
>
> How was attacking a superior officer doing his duty, an accident?
how many people do you know that think as sick as you do?
torture&rape=duty??
LS
> cloud dreamer wrote:
>> Mike Hall wrote:
>>> cloud dreamer wrote:
>
>>> No. The idiotic, stupidly-heroic, "we don't believe that Adama can
>>> control his own battlestar" behaviour started when Tyrol said to Helo, '
>>> "Shouldn't we be somewhere else?" ' rather than "The Old Man (Adama)
>>> needs to know about this right now!"
>
>
> Watch the episode and you'll understand the situation you are commenting on.
>
> Essentially what happened was that the engineering crew and Helo were
> listening to some Pegasus pervs bs about how Sharon was going to be raped as
> part of the interrogation. Helo was going to fight the Pegasus pervs there
> and then, but the Chief said, ' "Shouldn't we be somewhere else?" ' and the
> Chief and Helo dashed off to the brig. After running across Galactica
> without telling a soul what their suspicions were they arrived
like there was time?
> (possibly
> while Sharon was being raped - it's unclear from the show)
no, it's not, it was a clear attempt to rape her, watch it again, you
torture-apologetic pig
who are you, again that jeff-sicko, polluting the newsgroup?
if that's not enough, listen to the podcast, they intended to have the
rape scene go for a few minutes before the chief and helo turned up
> Whatever one believes about the rights of a Cylon, Helo and Tyrol should
> have answered for their actions.
the interrogator's death was an accident, killing him wasn't not
intended - but coming back from the dead is a trick that hasn't been
pulled off for two millenia, well... dead is dead. nevertheless, it
strikes me as it didn't hit the wrong guy
LS
> Lio Convoy wrote:
>
>> 4. Remember, this is Galactica and not Star Trek (where everyone has a
>> personal communicator) and marines do take time to deploy as well, plus
>> they would have to explain the whole situation to Adama when they found a
>> way to contact him.
>
> The Galactica has phones. They could have simply dialed up the bridge and
> informed Adama about the situation. Adama would have sent the marines.
> They would then be entitled to rush to the brig in order to stop anything
> happening. They could have least have asked someone to tell Adama.
would, could, should... you should reread your own postings here.
you can't change what happened and it certainly didn't call for the two
to be put into the brig again. stopping somebody else from committing a
heinous crime was absolutely right, in this case and context.
EOD
MarkRRose
Well, not to play devil's advocate to you but he WAS the cylon
interrogator and his methods were under the approval of Commander Cain.
Thus, he was doing his duty...and he is their superior officer. Whether
you agree with his methods or not, HIS commanding officer did.
Mark
Johnboy
"MarkRRose" <MRose...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:43DC02C7...@nyc.rr.com...
I believe that line of defense was rather discredited after the Nuremburg
trials.
Cheers,
Johnboy
>
> Mark
>
Mike Hall
> I believe that line of defense was rather discredited after the Nuremburg
> trials.
The Nuremburg trials were unfair by any stretch of the imagination. It's
not reasonable to state them as precedent for anything but a respectable
kangaroo court.
Mike Hall
Stephen Fairchild
The same can be said of the Saddam trial.
The only charges brought against him are the ones that are unlikely to raise
any embarrassing questions about the role of certain western powers. He
was kept in power as long as he was with the help of the west who saw him
as a necessary bulwark against Iran.
--
Stephen Fairchild
Bob
<joh...@johnnyville.com> wrote:
>> Well, not to play devil's advocate to you but he WAS the cylon
>> interrogator and his methods were under the approval of Commander Cain.
>> Thus, he was doing his duty...and he is their superior officer. Whether
>> you agree with his methods or not, HIS commanding officer did.
>I believe that line of defense was rather discredited after the Nuremburg
>trials.
When Cain ordered her military to assassinate Adama, what if they had
refused. They would have been shot on the spot.
So what is better: A) To die on the spot for disobeying a direct
order; B) Die later at a Nuremburg trial?
--
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession.
I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."
--Ronald Reagan
Bo Raxo
"Mike Hall" <tar...@spam3block.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6bDf.11610$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
If it was a kangaroo court, why were several defendants acquitted?
David Chapman
> "Mike Hall" <tar...@spam3block.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f6bDf.11610$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> The Nuremburg trials were unfair by any stretch of the imagination. It's
>> not reasonable to state them as precedent for anything but a respectable
>> kangaroo court.
>>
>>
>
> If it was a kangaroo court, why were several defendants acquitted?
Just because it's arbitrary doesn't mean it convicts everyone. Not that it
was, you understand, and Mike is a cretin, but it is possible to be found
innocent by a kangaroo court.
Mike Hall
> From the Collected Witterings of Bo Raxo, volume 23:
>>> The Nuremburg trials were unfair by any stretch of the imagination.
>>> It's
>>> not reasonable to state them as precedent for anything but a respectable
>>> kangaroo court.
>> If it was a kangaroo court, why were several defendants acquitted?
> Just because it's arbitrary doesn't mean it convicts everyone. Not that
> it was, you understand, and Mike is a cretin, but it is possible to be
> found innocent by a kangaroo court.
Ah, yes. The infamous sci-fi newsgroups flame-baiter decides to make
another attempt at riling me. Sorry, David. I've seen your evil spread
across many a newsgroup and I'm not biting! This time, you didn't try to
dispute a historical fact so I don't have to waste time proving (again) that
you write inflammatory nonsense to trick the innocent. Find someone else,
who hasn't witnessed your cunningly-disguised trolling in too many groups,
to play with.
re: Bo Raxo
Like David implied (I told you he was cunning in his baiting - a truth
followed by a gratuitous insult and then a truth - he's done this for
years!), Nuremberg had to be seen to be fair to make the Allies feel good
about themselves. If everyone had been found guilty, they would not have
been able to pat themselves on the backs and feel that they were any better
than the Cylons.. I mean Axis.
The Soviets had just raped their way through East Germany, the British had
carpet-bombed the German civilian population to make their soldiers feel bad
and the US had just ridden a coach and horses through the intent of the
Geneva Convention by dropping 2 H-bombs! If Nuremberg was a fair court,
then the Allies would have had their soldiers being tried too.
Could you imagine a US court system where the accusers were not subject to
the same laws as the accused? Obviously, many worse post-war atrocities
have happened but don't try to let anyone trick you into thinking that the
Nuremberg trials were legitimate.
Mike Hall
Bob
<tar...@spam3block.yahoo.com> wrote:
>The Soviets had just raped their way through East Germany,
Don't forget Poland where they nailed the local women to the side of
barns and gang-raped them as they marched by.
>the British had carpet-bombed the German civilian population to make their soldiers feel bad
The firebombing had a stategic purpose - to prepare for invasion.
BTW, don't forget that the Gernans were bombing Britain with V-2
rockets at the same time.
>and the US had just ridden a coach and horses through the intent of the
>Geneva Convention by dropping 2 H-bombs!
Please tell us how nuclear weapons were in violation of the Geneva
Convention.
> If Nuremberg was a fair court,
Of course it was not fair. It was not meant to be fair. It was meant
to be punative.
>then the Allies would have had their soldiers being tried too.
For what?
>Could you imagine a US court system where the accusers were not subject to
>the same laws as the accused?
Yes I can indeed imagine such a thing because that is what the current
reality is. There are over 10,000 innocent people in prison in the US,
yet none of them are officers of the US court system. If a lawyer is
in prison it's because he belongs there.
>Obviously, many worse post-war atrocities
>have happened but don't try to let anyone trick you into thinking that the
>Nuremberg trials were legitimate.
They derived their legitimacy from the consent of the victors.
Would you have preferred using the methods of Abraham Lincoln, and
just take them off at 3:00 am never to be heard of again?
Mike Hall
> Mike Hall wrote:
>> If Nuremberg was a fair court,
> Of course it was not fair. It was not meant to be fair. It was meant
> to be punative.
That was what this sub-thread was about: that Nuremberg was unfair. Nothing
more, nothing less. There's little point getting worked up over WW2, since
almost everyone who fought in it is now dead.
Mike Hall
Bob
<tar...@spam3block.yahoo.com> wrote:
>There's little point getting worked up over WW2, since
>almost everyone who fought in it is now dead.
Don't you think there are lessons to be learned from a discussion of
WW2, especially in the context of BSG?
Robert J. Kolker
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:14:41 GMT, "Mike Hall"
> <tar...@spam3block.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>There's little point getting worked up over WW2, since
>>almost everyone who fought in it is now dead.
>
>
> Don't you think there are lessons to be learned from a discussion of
> WW2, especially in the context of BSG?
Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to relive them.
WW2 was the last time that generally righteous folk were given a chance
to save the world and they succeeded admirably at it. It will be a long
time before that is repeated.
Perhaps I am getting cranky in my old age, but I do not see a "greatest
generation" anywhere in sight. Are my eyes going dim? Or is it because
there is not a "greatest generation" in sight?
Bob Kolker
Russ
@individual.net:
<snip>
> Perhaps I am getting cranky in my old age, but I do not see a "greatest
> generation" anywhere in sight. Are my eyes going dim? Or is it because
> there is not a "greatest generation" in sight?
How about the members of the FDNY who continued to enter the North Tower
after the South Tower had already collapsed.
Sorry, but I'll put my generation up against any other.
Russ
Johnboy
"Bob" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:43de0ac5...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:20:47 +1100, "Johnboy"
> <joh...@johnnyville.com> wrote:
>
>>> Well, not to play devil's advocate to you but he WAS the cylon
>>> interrogator and his methods were under the approval of Commander Cain.
>
>>> Thus, he was doing his duty...and he is their superior officer. Whether
>>> you agree with his methods or not, HIS commanding officer did.
>
>>I believe that line of defense was rather discredited after the Nuremburg
>>trials.
>
> When Cain ordered her military to assassinate Adama, what if they had
> refused. They would have been shot on the spot.
>
> So what is better: A) To die on the spot for disobeying a direct
> order; B) Die later at a Nuremburg trial?
How about (C) saying "Yes Sir. Whatever you say Sir" and then hightailing
it to Adama as soon as you get out of the door.
Cheers,
Johnboy
Bob
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Don't you think there are lessons to be learned from a discussion of
>> WW2, especially in the context of BSG?
>Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to relive them.
That's not very comforting. Most people on Earth have been
brainwashed. For example, most people have been brainwashed into
believing that Lincoln freed the slaves. That is a Big Lie.
>Perhaps I am getting cranky in my old age, but I do not see a "greatest
>generation" anywhere in sight. Are my eyes going dim? Or is it because
>there is not a "greatest generation" in sight?
The current 20 somethings need to be looked at. Not everyone wants an
abortion.
Bob
wrote:
>> When Cain ordered her military to assassinate Adama, what if they had
>> refused. They would have been shot on the spot.
>> So what is better: A) To die on the spot for disobeying a direct
>> order; B) Die later at a Nuremburg trial?
>How about (C) saying "Yes Sir. Whatever you say Sir" and then hightailing
>it to Adama as soon as you get out of the door.
"Sorry, son - that's the Admiral you are disobeying. Into the brig you
go."
Atlasbugged
RE: David Chapman
> Ah, yes. The infamous sci-fi newsgroups flame-baiter decides to make
> another attempt at riling me.
I killfiled this monkey last year. You probably ought to ignore or KF him
altogether, otherwise he'll never leave. Even this very post of mine is a
bad idea, but I figure an occasional warning buoy makes sense.
Bo Raxo
>
> re: Bo Raxo
>
> Like David implied (I told you he was cunning in his baiting - a truth
> followed by a gratuitous insult and then a truth - he's done this for
> years!), Nuremberg had to be seen to be fair to make the Allies feel good
> about themselves. If everyone had been found guilty, they would not have
> been able to pat themselves on the backs and feel that they were any
better
> than the Cylons.. I mean Axis.
Quite a circular argument. Some defendants being found not guilty proves it
is a kangaroo court? No, wait, not even circular: just wacky.
> The Soviets had just raped their way through East Germany, the British had
> carpet-bombed the German civilian population to make their soldiers feel
bad
> and the US had just ridden a coach and horses through the intent of the
> Geneva Convention by dropping 2 H-bombs!
Yes, all true.
> If Nuremberg was a fair court,
> then the Allies would have had their soldiers being tried too.
You're conflating two kinds of fair: Fair in terms of whom was tried, and
fair in terms of a fair trial, a chance to confront witnesses and evidence,
and present one's own, etc.
Was it fair in terms of whom was put on trial? Arguable.
Were the people charged given a fair trial, adequate counsel, faced with
real witnesses and real evidence and not the victims of frame-ups?
It was eminently fair in those terms. Look at how aonly about a quarter of
those charged got the death penalty - does that sound like any kangaroo
court, as agreed on by most historians?
Not remotely.
> Could you imagine a US court system where the accusers were not subject to
> the same laws as the accused?
I'm not understanding how this comment applies to the Nuremburg courts:
you're conflating the victors and vanquished of the war with the proecutors
and defendants in the trials. Not the same, though, because these are
different contexts. The defendants and the prosecutors labored under the
same standards for presenting witnesses, admitting evidence, etc.
> Obviously, many worse post-war atrocities
> have happened but don't try to let anyone trick you into thinking that the
> Nuremberg trials were legitimate.
>
Too late. In the course of pursuing a degree in contemporary European
History I spent far too many days and nights reading about the atrocities of
the Nazi regime, and many enjoyable hours reading about and watching films
of the Nuremburg trials. Justice was done, in full view of the whole world,
and that was a moment that the human species should be proud of.
At the tail end of a whole lot of deeply shameful years, where we
demonstrated our modern era worst.
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:449m2rF...@individual.net...
The only reason those people had to rise to the challenge that made t4ehm
"the greatest generation" was because of the rise of fascism: call it the
"worst generation" of Europe.
Thanks to a combination of technology and greater wisdom there is no
comparable evil today to the angry, arrogant, racist hordes of 1940s
Germany, Italy, and Japan. Thus, no need for a comparable counterweight.
In my estimation, that's an improvement in the human condition.
But the century is young. We still have plenty of time for all new horrors,
so don't close the book quite yet.
Bo Raxo
Robert J. Kolker
> In my estimation, that's an improvement in the human condition.
>
> But the century is young. We still have plenty of time for all new horrors,
> so don't close the book quite yet.
Wait for the real war that is brewing. Islam against everyone else. Note
the reaction among the Moslems to the Danish cartoons. That will give
you a foretaste and a hint.
Alah'hu Akbar!
Bob Kolker
David Chapman
> Bo Raxo wrote:>
>> In my estimation, that's an improvement in the human condition.
>>
>> But the century is young. We still have plenty of time for all new
>> horrors, so don't close the book quite yet.
>
> Wait for the real war that is brewing. Islam against everyone else. Note
> the reaction among the Moslems to the Danish cartoons.
Several of which portray Mohammed as a terrorist. I've seen these cartoons,
and they're on the same level as the "grasping kike" cartoons of Nazi
propaganda.
For the benefit of anyone who hasn't yet seen them, here's a link:
http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html
Note also that making images of the Prophet is a grave blasphemy against
Islam - which is exactly why the Danes did it in the first place. Of course
the Muslims are angry; they've been purposefully and maliciously denigrated.
On a related subject, I suspect you'll show no outrage at all about this:
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=578&id=339792002
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Several of which portray Mohammed as a terrorist. I've seen these cartoons,
> and they're on the same level as the "grasping kike" cartoons of Nazi
> propaganda.
No sense of humor. What about the one where Mohammed says Stop!!! to the
suicided bombers. We have run out of virgins.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> propaganda.
>
> For the benefit of anyone who hasn't yet seen them, here's a link:
> http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html
>
> Note also that making images of the Prophet is a grave blasphemy against
> Islam - which is exactly why the Danes did it in the first place. Of course
> the Muslims are angry; they've been purposefully and maliciously denigrated.
Poor babies. Now they will have to hijack a plane and crash it into a
tall building in Copenhagen.
Bob Kolker
Bob
<jedit_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Wait for the real war that is brewing. Islam against everyone else. Note
>> the reaction among the Moslems to the Danish cartoons.
>Several of which portray Mohammed as a terrorist. I've seen these cartoons,
>and they're on the same level as the "grasping kike" cartoons of Nazi
>propaganda.
But when the commies make fun of GW Bush, every leftist queer in the
world runs to celebrate up his boyfriend's ass.
Bob
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Note also that making images of the Prophet is a grave blasphemy against
>> Islam - which is exactly why the Danes did it in the first place. Of course
>> the Muslims are angry; they've been purposefully and maliciously denigrated.
>Poor babies. Now they will have to hijack a plane and crash it into a
>tall building in Copenhagen.
Yeah, goddamit - that'll show them not to make fun of Mohammed.
I suppose when we blew the livin' crap out of Saddam Hussein, we were
getting even for making fun of us with 911.
We will get the last laugh.
the other Eric
David Chapman wrote:
> From the Collected Witterings of Robert J. Kolker, volume 23:
> > Bo Raxo wrote:>
> >> In my estimation, that's an improvement in the human condition.
> >>
> >> But the century is young. We still have plenty of time for all new
> >> horrors, so don't close the book quite yet.
> >
> > Wait for the real war that is brewing. Islam against everyone else. Note
> > the reaction among the Moslems to the Danish cartoons.
>
> Several of which portray Mohammed as a terrorist. I've seen these cartoons,
> and they're on the same level as the "grasping kike" cartoons of Nazi
> propaganda.
They seemed kind of tame to me. It was not as bad as what a typical US
president gets in a typical copy of Newsweek.
> For the benefit of anyone who hasn't yet seen them, here's a link:
> http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html
>
> Note also that making images of the Prophet is a grave blasphemy against
> Islam - which is exactly why the Danes did it in the first place. Of course
> the Muslims are angry; they've been purposefully and maliciously denigrated.
The problem is what do they do with that anger. The -first- response
is to send gunmen. We are talking about a drawing. How long before
they send bombs?
> On a related subject, I suspect you'll show no outrage at all about this:
> http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=578&id=339792002
In the US artists have been intentionally offending Christians for
decades. Some of the worst stuff is rumored to involve defecation and
sexual encounters. The enraged Christians responded with debate. They
seemed to think the federal government shouldn't pay to support anti
relitious art.
Regards,
-Eric
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I suppose when we blew the livin' crap out of Saddam Hussein, we were
> getting even for making fun of us with 911.
Actually not. Saddam probably had nothing to do with 9/11. That was a
Wahabi operation.
>
> We will get the last laugh.
Speedily and in Our Day.
Bob Kolker
>
>
Bob
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> I suppose when we blew the livin' crap out of Saddam Hussein, we were
>> getting even for making fun of us with 911.
>Actually not. Saddam probably had nothing to do with 9/11. That was a
>Wahabi operation.
Iraqi intelligence trained them. I did not say that the Iraqis
participated directly.
Anyway, I am sure Hussein got a big laugh when the towers blew up.
>> We will get the last laugh.
>Speedily and in Our Day.
The world needs to learn not to fuck with the US, and especially not
with Texas.
Stephen Adams
>From the Collected Witterings of Robert J. Kolker, volume 23:
>> Bo Raxo wrote:>
>>> In my estimation, that's an improvement in the human condition.
>>>
>>> But the century is young. We still have plenty of time for all new
>>> horrors, so don't close the book quite yet.
>>
>> Wait for the real war that is brewing. Islam against everyone else. Note
>> the reaction among the Moslems to the Danish cartoons.
>
>Several of which portray Mohammed as a terrorist. I've seen these cartoons,
>and they're on the same level as the "grasping kike" cartoons of Nazi
>propaganda.
The proper response to 'bad' free speech is 'good' free speech.
Censorship is NOT the answer. Unless, of course, you want to live
in a thought-controlled environment. Crossing swords with those
who have very different (even offensive) positions is an intergral
part in understanding your OWN position.
>For the benefit of anyone who hasn't yet seen them, here's a link:
>http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html
Some funny. Some not. Nothing worthy of censorship there.
>Note also that making images of the Prophet is a grave blasphemy against
>Islam - which is exactly why the Danes did it in the first place.
Which they are free to do. Nothing is sacrosanct to EVERYONE. If I want
to express a negative opinion of something, it's my right. If you don't
like what I'm saying, ignore me or counter it. Don't censor it.
>Of course
>the Muslims are angry; they've been purposefully and maliciously denigrated.
Tough. Grow a thicker skin. Deal with it. There are LOTS of opinions in
the world that are bad or offensive. I've seen plenty of stuff that I
think is blasphemous against my faith, but permitting is is the ONLY thing
that lets *me* express *my* opinions freely.
Remember - if you want the right to freely express yourself, you have to
allow that same right to others. Unless of course, supression of ideas
is your goal. And THAT, of course, IS what the Muslims want. And to
some extent, they've been successful. By having such a fit now, they
will make people think twice before doing it again.
Some people in Europe have shown guts. Others haven't. Those with guts
defended the journalists. Those without, kow-towed to Islamic fascism.
>On a related subject, I suspect you'll show no outrage at all about this:
>http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=578&id=339792002
Why sould we? Heck, there's been a lot worse! The Romans mocked the
Christian faith with all kinds of scandalous claims. And look who
survived. :-)
Once again, for the benefit of those who might have forgotten, here it
what is at stake (pardon the use of the US Consittution, but the point
is well made there):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Fundamentalist Islam does NOT agree with this. They believe that there
should be NO religious freedom, NO free press, NO free speech, NO
right of assembly and NO right to petittion for redress.
That's what's at stake. Pick your side.[*]
[*] Freedom vs. Fascism, not USA vs. Islam If the 2nd one is a result of
the first, so be it. But the first is the REAL question at hand.
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchu...@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Russ
<snip>
> Wait for the real war that is brewing. Islam against everyone else.
> Note the reaction among the Moslems to the Danish cartoons. That will
> give you a foretaste and a hint.
>
> Alah'hu Akbar!
Gesundheit!
Russ
Russ
news:drvfue$bt8$2$8302...@news.demon.co.uk:
<snip>
> Several of which portray Mohammed as a terrorist. I've seen these
> cartoons, and they're on the same level as the "grasping kike"
> cartoons of Nazi propaganda.
>
> For the benefit of anyone who hasn't yet seen them, here's a link:
> http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html
>
> Note also that making images of the Prophet is a grave blasphemy
> against Islam - which is exactly why the Danes did it in the first
> place. Of course the Muslims are angry; they've been purposefully and
> maliciously denigrated.
To bad. They should grow up and join civilized society.
Russ
Atlasbugged
news:ds07r...@news2.newsguy.com...
> Once again, for the benefit of those who might have forgotten, here it
> what is at stake (pardon the use of the US Consittution, but the point
> is well made there):
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
> of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>
> Fundamentalist Islam does NOT agree with this. They believe that there
> should be NO religious freedom, NO free press, NO free speech, NO
> right of assembly and NO right to petittion for redress.
>
> That's what's at stake. Pick your side.[*]
>
> [*] Freedom vs. Fascism, not USA vs. Islam If the 2nd one is a result of
> the first, so be it. But the first is the REAL question at hand.
You may choose anything from the top shelf.
Andy
Humor and Idol Worship don't intersect well.
--
A
"You won't sh-"... Bravo, Lee :)
Andy
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:43:23 -0000, "David Chapman"
> <jedit_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Wait for the real war that is brewing. Islam against everyone else. Note
>>> the reaction among the Moslems to the Danish cartoons.
>
>>Several of which portray Mohammed as a terrorist. I've seen these
>>cartoons, and they're on the same level as the "grasping kike" cartoons of
>>Nazi propaganda.
>
> But when the commies make fun of GW Bush, every leftist queer in the
> world runs to celebrate up his boyfriend's ass.
>
>
Careful, lest you invoke the JS bot. ;-)
What is it with you and that particular behavior, anyway? You hype on it
too much. What, ru 2 cute? ;-) Give it up already, it's a Mundane behavior.
Seems a helluva burden to live under, to me. After all, political
correctness in this country is being extended far enough to cover ants. We
do have some internal concerns here in the states.
Besides, it's pure ad hom. But you knew that.
Andy
But you're obligated to receive at random from the lower tiers, as well.
Andy
But sometimes it's also fun to play :)
CatPanDaddy
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:43:23 -0000, "David Chapman"
> <jedit_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Wait for the real war that is brewing. Islam against everyone else. Note
>>> the reaction among the Moslems to the Danish cartoons.
>
>>Several of which portray Mohammed as a terrorist. I've seen these
>>cartoons,
>>and they're on the same level as the "grasping kike" cartoons of Nazi
>>propaganda.
>
> But when the commies make fun of GW Bush, every leftist queer in the
> world runs to celebrate up his boyfriend's ass.
>
I like the joke about the Log Cabin Republicans... "We disapprove of our own
lifestyle!"
Scarecrow
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
> of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>
>Fundamentalist Islam does NOT agree with this. They believe that there
>should be NO religious freedom, NO free press, NO free speech, NO
>right of assembly and NO right to petittion for redress.
>
>That's what's at stake. Pick your side.[*]
>
>[*] Freedom vs. Fascism, not USA vs. Islam If the 2nd one is a result of
> the first, so be it. But the first is the REAL question at hand.
Ah, yes, but Fundamentalist Islam IS A RELIGION, so does the
constitution need to be changed to read:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except of course
Fundamentalist Islam; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Understand there are Fundamentalist Christians in the US that don't
believe that any one, other than Christians, should have any say in
our government. I for one know which side I'll choose.
the other Eric
Scarecrow wrote:
<snip>
> >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
> > of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> > assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> >Fundamentalist Islam does NOT agree with this. They believe that there
> >should be NO religious freedom, NO free press, NO free speech, NO
> >right of assembly and NO right to petittion for redress.
> >
> >That's what's at stake. Pick your side.[*]
> >[*] Freedom vs. Fascism, not USA vs. Islam If the 2nd one is a result of
> > the first, so be it. But the first is the REAL question at hand.
>
> Ah, yes, but Fundamentalist Islam IS A RELIGION, so does the
> constitution need to be changed . . .
Nope. It is fine just the way it is.
<snip>
> Understand there are Fundamentalist Christians in the US that don't
> believe that any one, other than Christians, should have any say in
> our government.
They get to vote just like everyone else and there is no need to change
the Constitution's wording.
Regards,
-Eric
Stephen Adams
>On 3 Feb 2006 18:36:18 GMT, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>
>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
>> of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>>
>>Fundamentalist Islam does NOT agree with this. They believe that there
>>should be NO religious freedom, NO free press, NO free speech, NO
>>right of assembly and NO right to petittion for redress.
>>
>>That's what's at stake. Pick your side.[*]
>>
>>[*] Freedom vs. Fascism, not USA vs. Islam If the 2nd one is a result of
>> the first, so be it. But the first is the REAL question at hand.
>
>Ah, yes, but Fundamentalist Islam IS A RELIGION, so does the
>constitution need to be changed to read:
>
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except of course
>Fundamentalist Islam; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
>press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
>petition the government for a redress of grievances."
They are free to practice their faith if and only if they agree that
I am free to practice mine. Same goes for free speech, assembly,
press, etc.
In other words, it's reciprocal. To get them, they have to give them.
>Understand there are Fundamentalist Christians in the US that don't
>believe that any one, other than Christians, should have any say in
>our government. I for one know which side I'll choose.
I'm a Christian and they don't think *I* should have a say. I oppose
fascism no matter what it's based on. Christians, Muslims, Hindus,
Atheists. All the same - if they try and violate my rights, then can
expect a fight.
That goes for the government, too. See Messrs Madison, Jefferson, Monroe,
Washington, Jay, Paine, Franklin, Henry, Adams, et al, for details. :-)
David Chapman
> "David Chapman" <jedit_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> From the Collected Witterings of Robert J. Kolker, volume 23:
>>> Bo Raxo wrote:>
>>>> In my estimation, that's an improvement in the human condition.
>>>>
>>>> But the century is young. We still have plenty of time for all new
>>>> horrors, so don't close the book quite yet.
>>>
>>> Wait for the real war that is brewing. Islam against everyone else. Note
>>> the reaction among the Moslems to the Danish cartoons.
>>
>> Several of which portray Mohammed as a terrorist. I've seen these
>> cartoons, and they're on the same level as the "grasping kike" cartoons
>> of Nazi propaganda.
>
> The proper response to 'bad' free speech is 'good' free speech.
Tell that to Kolker and his psycho squad. They're responding to 'bad' free
speech with *worse* free speech. At least the Islamics only want to kill
the infidels who've actually done something to them.
>> Note also that making images of the Prophet is a grave blasphemy against
>> Islam - which is exactly why the Danes did it in the first place.
>
> Which they are free to do. Nothing is sacrosanct to EVERYONE. If I want
> to express a negative opinion of something, it's my right.
Not when it turns into hate speech, you don't.
> Some people in Europe have shown guts. Others haven't.
You misspelled "a complete lack of common sense or decency" there.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
> of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>
> Fundamentalist Islam does NOT agree with this. They believe that there
> should be NO religious freedom, NO free press, NO free speech, NO
> right of assembly and NO right to petittion for redress.
>
> That's what's at stake.
In a word: no. There is nothing at stake here because Islam is never going
to take over the world. We will have free speech, and maybe they will not,
but no amount of spouting rhetoric will ever make this domino theory come to
pass.