Famous Women: Language Intolerant
Purl Gurl
example of intolerance of language and intolerance
on the part of leftist elite.
Our country is in deep trouble!
I checked out her other writings……………….they are
all gone except for her goodbye one....
By Dona Howlett on 12/01/2008 7:11 pm
So fascinating, this partial comment above
and another exceptionally intolerant comment
appear in response to Whoopi Goldberg going
on about intolerance and racism.
Such hypocrisy! Such ironic comedy!
I will qualify my couple hundred articles at
Women on the Web were carefully crafted to be
professional, polite, firm but fair yet very
powerful in wording. I also made a point to
present a very realistic viewpoint about life,
from a common peoples' stance.
My articles there at WoW were exceptionally tame
compared to what I write here in our group, where
we support our notion of Freedom of Speech, and I do
appreciate this; I am able to write freely and you
boys respect this whether you agree or disagree.
Today, all my articles are removed to prevent
the public from reading my well written comments
about a variety of topics related to ordinary people.
Also removed are a good number of my story telling
comments which are delightful and enjoyable evidenced
by many positive and supportive comments by participants
who sincerely appreciate my reflections on life. Even
one of those participants who dislikes me the most and
is quite open about her dislike, even she indicates
an appreciation for my writings about life.
Other words, those famous elite women are covering
up truth, are whitewashing their website, are working
at protecting their elitist social status as the
cost of their dignity.
As you boys know, my dignity has no price tag.
Women on the Web is a carefully crafted website
to present a perfect image, or they think. Drop
in an English professor who really knows how to
write, and their charade falls apart.
This is a great demonstration of the very powerful
nature of our English language, and the even greater
power of mastery of our English language.
Problem here is all those famous women are hardcore
Obama supporters and routinely bash Republicans. This
is a dire disservice for our America; they are working
at brainwashing daytime television watching women into
some twisted fantasy Obama is the Black Messiah and his
democrat cohorts are his disciples.
I really do not care, I am wise enough to know Obama
might prove a good president or prove another Bush.
I am also wise enough to know not to craft a Golden Calf.
Those women are also working at creating a false facade
for themselves as being liberal minded tolerant girls
performing a patriotic service for America.
This is, until an English professor drops in, whom
they assume to be a poorly educated Okie Indian girl,
until a truly tolerant and fair minded person appears.
Then wham! Their iron fist censorship hits the table.
You boys have a look the long line of famous women
appearing across the top of the WoW website. These
are very famous women, most of whom I now believe
to be intolerant arrogant elitists.
...until powerful words send them into a feminine panic
which has their expensive Victoria's Secret panties in a knot.
Does this motivate you boys to become true masters
of our English language?
Truth is found in words just as deceit is found in words.
"Words are powerful, dangerous, even fatal"
- Okpulot Taha
--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
Purl Gurl
(snipped)
> So fascinating, this partial comment above
> and another exceptionally intolerant comment
> appear in response to Whoopi Goldberg going
> on about intolerance and racism.
Good news! Chances are now better than 50-50 terrorists
will detonate an atomic bomb or biological weapon here
in America, maybe Britain. Other words, this will happen.
Maybe Joe Biden does know something he is not telling us.
Where do you think this will happen? Washington, D.C. maybe,
perhaps London? The Vatican? Yeah, probably the Vatican
which is a soft and easy target of high impact. This will
prove Allah to be a more powerful god than our Anglican god.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chances of a terror
attack on a major city somewhere in the world
using weapons of mass destruction are better
than even, according to a task force mandated
by the U.S. Congress, The Washington Post reported
in its Tuesday edition.
A draft study by the panel warns of growing threats
from rogue states, nuclear smuggling rings and the
spread of atomic information in the developing world,
the newspaper reported.
This is, however, not the important news.
I scanned a good number of media sources reporting this news.
There are two words carefully avoided: "Islamic" and "Muslim".
Obama will not allow Muslim women to be photographed with him,
although he is the Black Messiah. This does not bother me,
we know Obama is a hypocrite.
What bothers me is we must genuflect before political correctness.
Do not you dare use those words "Islamic" and "Muslim" no, no, NO!
How is this we have arrived at such a sorry state of censorship
because of political correctness?
We are not allowed to write nor say, "Those Muslim murderous lunatics
are planning to nuke us and probably will."
My word! Forbid such truth in language. This is not politically correct.
We good leftist elite would never use such language.
Strikes me Americans, all peoples, should know who, more specifically
what group of people, are working at slaughtering hundreds of thousands
of us, maybe a million of us, and give millions more fatal cancers through
radiation poisoning for centuries to come.
Allah is a merciful god. Might turn out Muslims will only slaughter
us with a small pox bomb or an anthrax bomb. How many of our children
are vaccinated against small pox these days? Close to none?
Might not be a bomb. Might just simply be a dozen Muslim suicide
small pox carriers walking and breathing in big cities.
Well gosh darn, there I go again using the taboo "Muslim" word.
How quick are left elitist to push the 9-11 horror out of mind.
Damn Islamic nutcases.
Oh crap, I am being politically incorrect again.
Upon Muslims nuking our nation's capitol, political correctness
censorship will go up in a mushroom cloud, or will be forgotten
as fatal pox skin eruptions appear, or political correctness will
be washed away by our tears for our dead children.
For today, though, do not you dare use "Islamic" nor "Muslim"
in language; this is very wrongful to name those who intend
to slaughter us by the millions.
This is the harsh reality of our new Obama world; extremist
political correctness or else.
We must deny the Islamic intend to kill us. We must always
be politically correct, no matter the cost, such as the lives
of our children of the world.
Well, you must be politically correct. I do not have to stress
over this, I am comfortable with being truthful.
Jeffrey Turner
> Purl Gurl wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>
>> So fascinating, this partial comment above
>> and another exceptionally intolerant comment
>> appear in response to Whoopi Goldberg going
>> on about intolerance and racism.
>
> Good news! Chances are now better than 50-50 terrorists
> will detonate an atomic bomb or biological weapon here
> in America, maybe Britain. Other words, this will happen.
What? You mean the U.S. cannot just bully the world and slaughter
innocents without fear of retribution? Who'd have thought?
> Maybe Joe Biden does know something he is not telling us.
Lots of things you don't know, obviously. Maybe if you'd stayed in
school past sixth grade.
<snip PG's delusional ravings>
--Jeff
--
I learned that ... the most grinding
poverty is a trifling evil compared
with the inequality of classes.
--William Morris
Purl Gurl
> Purl Gurl wrote:
>> Purl Gurl wrote:
>> (snipped)
>>> So fascinating, this partial comment above
>>> and another exceptionally intolerant comment
>>> appear in response to Whoopi Goldberg going
>>> on about intolerance and racism.
>> Good news! Chances are now better than 50-50 terrorists
>> will detonate an atomic bomb or biological weapon here
>> in America, maybe Britain. Other words, this will happen.
> What? You mean the U.S. cannot just bully the world and slaughter
> innocents without fear of retribution? Who'd have thought?
You remind me of the famous elitist girls over at
Women of the Web! You also remind me of mindless
daytime television watching groupies over there.
"Muslims are not at fault, America is at fault!"
Oh yes! The Obama family minister of twenty years is
quite correct, "God damn America!"
We know, with significant simplicity, Muslims would not be
sawing off the heads of nuns, would not be pouring blistering
acid over little school girls, would not be blowing up school
children in Russia, would not be blowing up trains in Spain,
would not be killing the British riding buses, would not be
hijacking aeroplanes to use as missiles to kill thousands, would
not be... well, no need for me to continue about this.
Yes, God damn America! Our country, we people of America are
both at fault and the root cause of millions of Muslims killing
and slaughtering people around our world for hundreds of years,
even back before our country was created.
I am curious, Jeffery. Who will you blame when you look out
your kitchen window then see a mushroom cloud roaring up into
our blue skies, a mushroom cloud with "ISLAM" written across
its terrifying face?
Will you blame America when your children die of smallpox
given to them by Muslims?
> Lots of things you don't know, obviously. Maybe if you'd stayed in
> school past sixth grade.
* Deliverance Banjo Music *
Yes, sir, I am an illiterate toothless hick whose best
line is, "Squeal like a pig!"
God damn America for creating people like me!
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
A nuclear attack, if only one bomb was involved, might not be all it
is cracked up to be. What I mean is, it wouldn't mean the end of the
world, nor would the event necessarily be as serious as global
warming, the scariest scenario man has ever faced. We'd survive a
nuclear bomb attack, just as Japan survived two of them, whoever the
"we" may be.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Purl Gurl
> Purl Gurl wrote:
>> Purl Gurl wrote:
(snipped again)
>> Good news! Chances are now better than 50-50 terrorists
>> will detonate an atomic bomb or biological weapon here
>> in America, maybe Britain. Other words, this will happen.
[...]
>> Well, you must be politically correct. I do not have to stress
>> over this, I am comfortable with being truthful.
> A nuclear attack, if only one bomb was involved, might not be all it
> is cracked up to be. What I mean is, it wouldn't mean the end of the
> world, nor would the event necessarily be as serious as global
> warming, the scariest scenario man has ever faced. We'd survive a
> nuclear bomb attack, just as Japan survived two of them, whoever the
> "we" may be.
Detonation of a nuclear weapon or biological weapon
on or near Capitol Hill would behead our country,
create a power vacuum and would certainly have our
military forces carpet bombing the entire Mideast,
if not raining down nuclear weapons of our own.
A single weapon of this type detonated by Muslims
to slaughter people would plunge our world into
very dark days of worldwide warfare. This would
prove to be a metaphorical "end of the world".
However, this is not my point. My objection is all
this political correctness censorship which forbids
us from simply being truthful, as well displayed by
heavy handed censorship at Women of the Web.
We are allowed to discuss "extremists" and discuss
"religious fanatics" and similar notions while we
are not allowed to label those people; we are not
allowed to use "Islamic" nor "Muslim" for fear of
offending whomever.
This political correctness is both hypocritical
and very dangerous. The elite politically correct
of our society are demanding we are not to speak
bluntly truthful rather to speak with cleverly
crafted deceitful diplomatic political correctness.
These elite and famous people are demanding we
whitewash all this Islamic terrorism taking
place around our world. These are arrogant
self-righteous people who would have us forget
our 9-11 horror which slaughtered thousands.
Censorship, when unreasonable, is wrongful and
very dangerous. This lulls our people into a
false sense of security. Those famous and elite
are placing our peoples in grave danger.
Typically, we do not associate censorship of
language, notions and thinking with danger. We
simply are annoyed we are not to use select
words in everyday life. People do not consider
censorship is a suppression of truth which leads
to very dangerous circumstances.
Here we are faced with a very high chance horrible
weapons of mass destruction will be used to slaughter
innocent people, especially children, yet the elite
demand we not speak truthfully, not speak of "Islam"
being the force behind this slaughtering.
This is no different than our school textbooks and
our history books carefully avoiding mention of our
American forefathers, of our Anglican ancestors,
committing the most abhorrent genocide of history
against my peoples; my ancestors were slaughtered
by the tens of millions. Political correctness
demands we never mention this, demands we whitewash.
Muslims by the tens of millions are bent on killing
us but we are not to mention "Muslim" in our dialog.
This is about as stupid and wrongful as can be.
Political correctness censorship is killing us.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
Yes, but only metaphorical. My point yesterday was that we can't allow
fear of attack to paralyze us into inaction. Even nuclear and
biological skirmishes are winnable, for they certainly needn't be
worldwide. Let us hope such horrors never descend on us. Of course,
saying that is like saying we love Mom and apple pie. To reiterate, to
not plan for unthinkable contingencies is foolish.
>However, this is not my point. My objection is all
>this political correctness censorship which forbids
>us from simply being truthful, as well displayed by
>heavy handed censorship at Women of the Web.
>
>We are allowed to discuss "extremists" and discuss
>"religious fanatics" and similar notions while we
>are not allowed to label those people; we are not
>allowed to use "Islamic" nor "Muslim" for fear of
>offending whomever.
I believe that talking to the enemy is preferable to shooting him or
bombing his civilians with soon-to-be-illegal cluster bombs, not that
America has signed that treaty yet.
>This political correctness is both hypocritical
>and very dangerous. The elite politically correct
>of our society are demanding we are not to speak
>bluntly truthful rather to speak with cleverly
>crafted deceitful diplomatic political correctness.
Crafty diplomacy is not, I agree, any sort of solution. We must be
open and truthful, especially if there is to be the creation of a new
Palestine, which there must be.
>These elite and famous people are demanding we
>whitewash all this Islamic terrorism taking
>place around our world. These are arrogant
>self-righteous people who would have us forget
>our 9-11 horror which slaughtered thousands.
How many more American will have to die in Afghanistan finding those
responsible? We're headed for another Vietnam, especially since Obama
supports the escalation of that Afghan war.
>Censorship, when unreasonable, is wrongful and
>very dangerous. This lulls our people into a
>false sense of security. Those famous and elite
>are placing our peoples in grave danger.
>
>Typically, we do not associate censorship of
>language, notions and thinking with danger. We
>simply are annoyed we are not to use select
>words in everyday life. People do not consider
>censorship is a suppression of truth which leads
>to very dangerous circumstances.
>
>Here we are faced with a very high chance horrible
>weapons of mass destruction will be used to slaughter
>innocent people, especially children, yet the elite
>demand we not speak truthfully, not speak of "Islam"
>being the force behind this slaughtering.
How do weapons of mass destruction, assuming anyone is going to use
them, single out children?
>This is no different than our school textbooks and
>our history books carefully avoiding mention of our
>American forefathers, of our Anglican ancestors,
>committing the most abhorrent genocide of history
>against my peoples; my ancestors were slaughtered
>by the tens of millions. Political correctness
>demands we never mention this, demands we whitewash.
The white man has faced up to the atrocities. What was done can't be
undone, not that I'm proud of what happened, Kira.
>Muslims by the tens of millions are bent on killing
>us but we are not to mention "Muslim" in our dialog.
>
>This is about as stupid and wrongful as can be.
>
>Political correctness censorship is killing us.
Let's give the Obama admin a chance. Perhaps he and his crew will be
honest with the American people.
Purl Gurl
> Purl Gurl wrote:
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>> Purl Gurl wrote:
>>>> Purl Gurl wrote:
(more snipped)
>> However, this is not my point. My objection is all
>> this political correctness censorship which forbids
>> us from simply being truthful, as well displayed by
>> heavy handed censorship at Women of the Web.
[...]
>> This political correctness is both hypocritical
>> and very dangerous. The elite politically correct
>> of our society are demanding we are not to speak
>> bluntly truthful rather to speak with cleverly
>> crafted deceitful diplomatic political correctness.
> Crafty diplomacy is not, I agree, any sort of solution. We must be
> open and truthful, especially if there is to be the creation of a new
> Palestine, which there must be.
Precisely. I must continue my rant about people like those
found at Women of the Web. Censorship and intolerance does
not allow for open and honest discussion.
Most logical approach is what you suggest, discussions.
However, when have people like Whoopi Goldberg, Leslie Stahl,
Joni Evans, Candice Bergen, Lily Tomlin, Cynthia McFadden and
others of power and influence, when we have people like this
shaping and molding the minds of Americans through Orwellian
like Newspeak, this is extremely dangerous.
Women of the Web, as with the Nation of Islam and the Aryan Nation,
are attacking and undermining our American ideals, especially our
Freedom of Speech. Women of the Web is the polar opposite of the
Aryan Nation yet both are equally destructive.
Within today's America, political correctness is an ongoing attack
upon both our English language and our Freedom of Speech. This is
leading our peoples to slaughter like leading sheep to slaughter.
We cannot practice Iron Fist censorship and expect to remain
a free and democratic society.
[...]
>> Here we are faced with a very high chance horrible
>> weapons of mass destruction will be used to slaughter
>> innocent people, especially children, yet the elite
>> demand we not speak truthfully, not speak of "Islam"
>> being the force behind this slaughtering.
> How do weapons of mass destruction, assuming anyone is going to use
> them, single out children?
Muslims specialize in slaughtering women and children. Muslims
behead nuns in Malaysia, blow up school children in Russia,
poor blistering acid on young school girls, stone women to death,
shoot women in their heads....
Of great hypocrisy, quite damaging, Women of the Web periodically
publish articles about mistreatment of women and children by the
Islamic yet censor and banish those who dare to blame the Islamic
for these atrocities such as are taking place around our world.
A weapon of mass destruction cannot, in itself, target children
but Muslims can use such a weapon to target children.
Muslims specialize in slaughtering women and children.
[...]
> Let's give the Obama admin a chance. Perhaps he and his crew will be
> honest with the American people.
Obama is already telling all kinds of lies to America. Obama is a
Women of the Web type; a left liberal who punishes those who refuse
to genuflect before politically correct censorship.
To close, Chuck, Women of the Web, organizations like this, Obama,
many of the left liberal elite are effecting a policy of Iron Fist
censorship of our peoples. These are people who are effecting an
agenda of censorship of our English language. These are people who
are sticking duct tape over our mouths and breaking our typing fingers.
Our world, our peoples, can never move forward, can never solve these
problems which plague us while Women of the Web types silence us.
Our English language is under attack. This angers me, greatly.
Purl Gurl
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
(weapon of mass disturbance snip)
Reminds me of a notion, not a story, a notion.
You boys know I frequently bash dumb boys here in
our newsgroup. My ongoing rant about this laughable
Women of the Web outfit clearly exemplifies I am
equally quick to bash dumb girls.
You are to make a mental note of this for the future.
Problem here is there are a lot more dumb boys than
there are dumb girls.
* demure smile *
alan
"Purl Gurl" wrote
[PG's ugly little rant snipped]
> Muslims specialize in slaughtering women and children.
[more ugly little rant snippage]
The distinction between normal, everyday, law-abiding Muslims and crazed
Muslim fundamentalist fanatics who cloak their political goals in the mantle
of Islam is just too fine a line for you to discern, isn't it?
Purl Gurl
> Purl Gurl wrote:
(prior snippage)
>> Muslims specialize in slaughtering women and children.
> The distinction between normal, everyday, law-abiding Muslims and crazed
> Muslim fundamentalist fanatics who cloak their political goals in the
> mantle of Islam is just too fine a line for you to discern, isn't it?
You are engaging in stereotypical leftist elitist
Slippery Semantics deceit. You are a right funny boy!
You, Obama, Women of the Web, other deceitful elitists
would have us believe there are only a "handful" of
Islamic extremists inflicting Islamic terrorism.
All of you know you are lying through your teeth.
A simple quick glance at logistics evidences your deceit.
This recent Islamic terrorism over in India cost millions
of dollars. There must be support groups, an infrastructure,
transportation, lodging, food, on and on. This was not an
operation effected by a "dozen" terrorists. This was an
operation effected by thousands of terrorists.
Our 9-11 horror. What cost? I would estimate millions of
dollars to effect the 9-11 Islamic terrorist attack. Smuggling
of terrorists into America is an expensive task. Forged documents,
bribes, equipment, lodging, clothing, food, cars, training to fly
at flight schools, aeroplane tickets, cellphones, infrastructure,
support groups. This and more cost millions of dollars.
Do explain away those costs.
This millions and millions of dollars provided to effect Islamic
terrorism, for decades, derives mostly from Muslims, not just a
few wealthy Muslims, no, millions of Muslims around our world who
are knowingly giving money to support Islamic terrorism. Those
people providing money for terrorism, are terrorists.
Returning the our tragic 9-11 terrorist attack, millions of us
watched tens of thousands of Muslims in Palestine celebrating
in the streets when they learned of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
Celebrations like this took place all around our world. Right
there, millions of Muslim terrorists celebrating our deaths.
When cartoons were drawn of Mohammed, tens of millions of Muslims
took to the streets to riot, loot, burn and murder. Those tens
of millions are all terrorists.
Over in Iraq, Afghanistan, millions of Muslims, Sunni, Shiite,
Taliban, other sects, are killing each other by the tens of
thousands through terrorist acts. Those Muslims are terrorists.
Radioactive material, a suitcase nuke, how much would either
cost on the black market? Maybe ten-million, maybe fifty-million?
Where does this money derive? From tens of millions of Muslims
who are giving money to fund Islamic terrorism.
Logistics of Islamic terrorism demand hundreds of millions of
Muslims participate, directly or indirectly, and those hundreds
of millions are all terrorists. This worldwide Islamic terrorism
requires, must have, an infrastructure manned, operated and supported
by hundreds of millions of Muslims, directly and indirectly.
This Islamic terrorist infrastructure is growing by the day.
Sure there are law abiding Muslims. Those who are law abiding
represent a minority of Muslims. However, I sure do not witness
many Muslims taking to the streets to protest terrorism by their
own. This strongly suggests they are passive-aggressive.
You, Obama, Women of the Web, leftist elitists, you continue
on with your excuse making for Islamic terrorism. All you are
doing is enabling and facilitating Islamic terrorism through
your deep denial of truth, through your deceitful words. You
are helping Islam to slaughter innocent people, mostly children.
You just go right ahead with your political correctness censorship
and I will just go right ahead and call you out for your lying to
our world, for your being patsies for Islamic terrorists.
Purl Gurl
> alan wrote:
>> Purl Gurl wrote:
(lots snipped)
>> The distinction between normal, everyday, law-abiding Muslims and
>> crazed Muslim fundamentalist fanatics who cloak their political goals
>> in the mantle of Islam is just too fine a line for you to discern,
>> isn't it?
> You, Obama, Women of the Web, other deceitful elitists
> would have us believe there are only a "handful" of
> Islamic extremists inflicting Islamic terrorism.
> A simple quick glance at logistics evidences your deceit.
> This recent Islamic terrorism over in India cost millions....
NEW DELHI, Dec. 3 (UPI) -- U.S. intelligence agencies believe
former Pakistani Army officers and its intelligence agency helped
the Mumbai attackers....
(Digital Journal, Canada) -- ...Pranab Mukherjee said that the
perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attack are in Pakistan. “I
informed Dr. Rice there is no doubt that the terrorist attack
in Mumbai were perpetrated by individuals who came from Pakistan
and whose controllers are in Pakistan”, he added....
New Delhi, India (AHN) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
said Wednesday Pakistan has to act strongly against terrorists inside
its territory even if they are stateless....
Just a handful of Islamic terrorists hiding behind "the mantle of Islam"?
I am more terrified by those who are excuse makers for Islam than those
who perpetrate Islamic terrorism upon our world.
Once again, political correctness is killing us just as excuse makers
for Islamic terrorism are killing us. We are at war, we must acknowledge
who is our enemy. This is Islam.
Censorship of truth, like exercised at Women of the Web, serves only
to play into the hands of Islamic terrorists.
Unwarranted censorship is extremely dangerous.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
<snip>
>To close, Chuck, Women of the Web, organizations like this, Obama,
>many of the left liberal elite are effecting a policy of Iron Fist
>censorship of our peoples. These are people who are effecting an
>agenda of censorship of our English language. These are people who
>are sticking duct tape over our mouths and breaking our typing fingers.
>
>Our world, our peoples, can never move forward, can never solve these
>problems which plague us while Women of the Web types silence us.
>
>Our English language is under attack. This angers me, greatly.
There is only one way I know of to combat censorship and that is to
keep open as many lanes of information as possible.
What worries me from exchanges with Americans is how uninformed they
are. We are lucky in Ireland in that, in addition to the Internet
sources everyone who isn't too lazy to find them has, we have easy
access to high quality newspapers and to excellent BBC and RTE news
and documentaries on television. American television hardly compares
in quality to what can be found in the British Isles, IMO. The several
outstanding American newspapers are available on the Internet at no
charge, so I try to read through the main articles in them every day,
too.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Purl Gurl wrote:
>
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>(weapon of mass disturbance snip)
>
>
>Reminds me of a notion, not a story, a notion.
>
>You boys know I frequently bash dumb boys here in
>our newsgroup. My ongoing rant about this laughable
>Women of the Web outfit clearly exemplifies I am
>equally quick to bash dumb girls.
>
>You are to make a mental note of this for the future.
>
>Problem here is there are a lot more dumb boys than
>there are dumb girls.
That may be true, but the smartest of the boys are smarter than the
smartest of the girls. That is why, historically speaking, women lag
far behind in virtually every discipline you can name, save child
rearing.
>* demure smile *
<Confident laugh>
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>alan wrote:
Excellent, Kira.
Why not apply for a job at the Homeland Security Office, if I have the
name right? I noticed a few weeks ago they had a number of openings
for technical people at the GS-11 and GS-12 levels, with advancement
possibilities, which pay quite well. You'd probably have to move to
Washington, D.C., which might not suit you, but I can assure you that
working for the government has its perks.
Purl Gurl
> Purl Gurl wrote:
>> alan wrote:
>>> Purl Gurl wrote:
(a lot snipped)
>> You just go right ahead with your political correctness censorship
>> and I will just go right ahead and call you out for your lying to
>> our world, for your being patsies for Islamic terrorists.
> Excellent, Kira.
> Why not apply for a job at the Homeland Security Office, if I have the
> name right? I noticed a few weeks ago they had a number of openings
> for technical people at the GS-11 and GS-12 levels, with advancement
> possibilities, which pay quite well. You'd probably have to move to
> Washington, D.C., which might not suit you, but I can assure you that
> working for the government has its perks.
Perks such as kneeling under a big fancy desk
in an Oval Office?
Purl Gurl
> Purl Gurl wrote:
>> Purl Gurl wrote:
>>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>(weapon of mass disturbance snip)
>> Reminds me of a notion, not a story, a notion.
>> You boys know I frequently bash dumb boys here in
>> our newsgroup. My ongoing rant about this laughable
>> Women of the Web outfit clearly exemplifies I am
>> equally quick to bash dumb girls.
>> You are to make a mental note of this for the future.
>> Problem here is there are a lot more dumb boys than
>> there are dumb girls.
> That may be true, but the smartest of the boys are smarter than the
> smartest of the girls. That is why, historically speaking, women lag
> far behind in virtually every discipline you can name, save child
> rearing.
* bumps her head on a masculine glass ceiling *
OUCH! That hurts! I suppose this will smarten me up.
Hatunen
<chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>There is only one way I know of to combat censorship and that is to
>keep open as many lanes of information as possible.
>What worries me from exchanges with Americans is how uninformed they
>are. We are lucky in Ireland in that, in addition to the Internet
>sources everyone who isn't too lazy to find them has, we have easy
>access to high quality newspapers and to excellent BBC and RTE news
>and documentaries on television. American television hardly compares
>in quality to what can be found in the British Isles, IMO. The several
>outstanding American newspapers are available on the Internet at no
>charge, so I try to read through the main articles in them every day,
>too.
I should think the doings of, say, the EU are of considerably
more interest to the Irish than to Americans and it shouldn't be
surprising that they know more about the world immediately around
them than Americans know about that world. But I suspect that the
average Irish resident isn't as knowledgable as the the well-read
poster to a newsgroup called "alt.usage.english" would be.
Americans also have access to high quality newspapers and to BBC
news and documentaries on television. The public broadcasting
stations play them a lot, as does BBC America on the cable, and
such cable channels as the Discovery group.
American television "hardly compares" on the average because
there's so much of it. Refine American television down to the
"qualtiy" channles, Like the PBS network or the documentary cable
channels and you have something else. On the other hand, the
high-qulity BBC seems to enjoy presenting Americans with Graham
Norton and such high class fare as "Coupling" (which I rather
enjoy but I do hope is not presented as some of your high quality
programming). On Satuday evenings our local PBS station presents
us with a series of programs of such high class British fare as
"Are You Being Served" and the like. At one time Benny Hill was
available, which I confess I found hilarious at times.
On the other hand, I daresay the average resident of southern
Arizona knows a lot more about the goings-on in Mexico than any
Irishman and I susect we Arizonans and your Irish are more or
less equally ignorant as to goings on in Uzbekistan.
The amount of ignorance I've seen regarding the USA by Europeans
in this group is pretty disappointing to me and the knowledge of
Europeans in general seems to be largely based on Hollywood
movies and American television programs. Recent discussions here
about the presidential electoral process are pretty indicative.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>
>Perks such as kneeling under a big fancy desk
>in an Oval Office?
If you do do that be careful to see who is in the room with you. The fancy
chair at the big fancy desk might be occupied by H R Clinton trying the chair
for size and dreaming about the future.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Purl Gurl
> Purl Gurl wrote:
>> Perks such as kneeling under a big fancy desk
>> in an Oval Office?
> If you do do that be careful to see who is in the room with you. The fancy
> chair at the big fancy desk might be occupied by H R Clinton trying the chair
> for size and dreaming about the future.
No problem. I am bisexual and Hillary wears pant suits.
However, there is a need to be careful of that woman
who wore a black widow dress on election victory night.
http://www.purlgurl.net/aue/mo_dress.jpg
alan
"Purl Gurl" <purl...@purlgurl.net> wrote in message
news:7a2dnZIWULQn36rU...@giganews.com...
> Purl Gurl wrote:
>
>> alan wrote:
>>> Purl Gurl wrote:
>
> (lots snipped)
>
>>> The distinction between normal, everyday, law-abiding Muslims and crazed
>>> Muslim fundamentalist fanatics who cloak their political goals in the
>>> mantle of Islam is just too fine a line for you to discern, isn't it?
>
>
>> You, Obama, Women of the Web, other deceitful elitists
>> would have us believe there are only a "handful" of
>> Islamic extremists inflicting Islamic terrorism.
>
>> A simple quick glance at logistics evidences your deceit.
>
>> This recent Islamic terrorism over in India cost millions....
>
>
> NEW DELHI, Dec. 3 (UPI) -- U.S. intelligence agencies believe
> former Pakistani Army officers and its intelligence agency helped
> the Mumbai attackers....
>
> (Digital Journal, Canada) -- ...Pranab Mukherjee said that the
> perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attack are in Pakistan. “I
> informed Dr. Rice there is no doubt that the terrorist attack
> in Mumbai were perpetrated by individuals who came from Pakistan
> and whose controllers are in Pakistan”, he added....
>
> New Delhi, India (AHN) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
> said Wednesday Pakistan has to act strongly against terrorists inside
> its territory even if they are stateless....
>
>
> Just a handful of Islamic terrorists hiding behind "the mantle of Islam"?
Oh yes, there you go ---- proof positive that that "majority" of Muslims are
in on the terrorist conspiracy --- we all know that the majority of Muslims
are "former Pakistani Army officers" and members of Pakistan's "intelligence
agency". With facts like yours, who needs wild speculation?
[...]
>We are at war, we must acknowledge
> who is our enemy. This is Islam.
Your poisonous racist garbage doesn't surprise me at all, as you've shown
yourself to be a raving, ranting bigot in the past. What does disappoint
me, however, is that you seem to be treated almost affectionately as a kind
of harmless nitwit mascot of this group. When you come up with statements
like "Those who are law abiding represent a minority of Muslims", I would
have expected that at least half a dozen folks would have called you on your
venomous bullshit.
You come up with poisonous, racist crap like that and you **dare** to take
offense at someone who stereotyped Native Americans as fat-cat casino
owners?
Purl Gurl
>
> Purl Gurl wrote:
>> Purl Gurl wrote:
>>> alan wrote:
>>>> Purl Gurl wrote:
(random snipping)
>>>> The distinction between normal, everyday, law-abiding Muslims and
>>>> crazed Muslim fundamentalist fanatics who cloak their political
>>>> goals in the mantle of Islam is just too fine a line for you to
>>>> discern, isn't it?
>>> You, Obama, Women of the Web, other deceitful elitists
>>> would have us believe there are only a "handful" of
>>> Islamic extremists inflicting Islamic terrorism.
>>> A simple quick glance at logistics evidences your deceit.
>>> This recent Islamic terrorism over in India cost millions....
>> NEW DELHI, Dec. 3 (UPI) -- U.S. intelligence agencies believe
>> former Pakistani Army officers and its intelligence agency helped....
>> (Digital Journal, Canada) -- ...Pranab Mukherjee said that the
>> perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attack are in Pakistan....
>> New Delhi, India (AHN) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
>> said Wednesday Pakistan has to act strongly against terrorists....
>> Just a handful of Islamic terrorists hiding behind "the mantle of Islam"?
> Oh yes, there you go ---- proof positive that that "majority" of Muslims
> are in on the terrorist conspiracy --- we all know that the majority of
> Muslims are "former Pakistani Army officers" and members of Pakistan's
> "intelligence agency". With facts like yours, who needs wild speculation?
> [...]
>> We are at war, we must acknowledge
>> who is our enemy. This is Islam.
> Your poisonous racist garbage doesn't surprise me at all, as you've
> shown yourself to be a raving, ranting bigot in the past. What does
> disappoint me, however, is that you seem to be treated almost
> affectionately as a kind of harmless nitwit mascot of this group. When
> you come up with statements like "Those who are law abiding represent a
> minority of Muslims", I would have expected that at least half a dozen
> folks would have called you on your venomous bullshit.
Oh my! You are such an excitable boy! Reads to me I had you piddle your pants.
> You come up with poisonous, racist crap like that and you **dare** to
> take offense at someone who stereotyped Native Americans as fat-cat
> casino owners?
Ah ha! You have been reading the Queen of Diamonds, four times married
Margo Howard, daughter of Ann Landers. Boy howdy, I sure pissed off
that red headed city slicker, Margo. Probably pissed her off as much
as I piss you off.
Amusing Margo demanded I be "kicked off the island" -- her island.
Wood Avens
wrote:
>What does disappoint
>me, however, is that you seem to be treated almost affectionately as a kind
>of harmless nitwit mascot of this group.
Most of us have her killfiled and don't see her posts unless someone
quotes them; indeed, some also kill any threads started by her or
including her. Lack of response, therefore, is no sign of approval or
affection.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Paul Wolff
>On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:15:03 -0800, "alan" <in_fla...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>What does disappoint
>>me, however, is that you seem to be treated almost affectionately as a kind
>>of harmless nitwit mascot of this group.
>
>Most of us have her killfiled and don't see her posts unless someone
>quotes them; indeed, some also kill any threads started by her or
>including her. Lack of response, therefore, is no sign of approval or
>affection.
>
--
Paul
tony cooper
wrote:
>>Problem here is there are a lot more dumb boys than
>>there are dumb girls.
>
>That may be true, but the smartest of the boys are smarter than the
>smartest of the girls. That is why, historically speaking, women lag
>far behind in virtually every discipline you can name, save child
>rearing.
You have been nominated for the Lawrence H. Summers Award.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
tony cooper
>American television "hardly compares" on the average because
>there's so much of it. Refine American television down to the
>"qualtiy" channles, Like the PBS network or the documentary cable
>channels and you have something else. On the other hand, the
>high-qulity BBC seems to enjoy presenting Americans with Graham
>Norton and such high class fare as "Coupling" (which I rather
>enjoy but I do hope is not presented as some of your high quality
>programming).
I rather like Graham Norton at times. He's irrepressible, and has a
sharp wit. You want really, really, *bad* fare from BBC, then watch
any of the "BBC America Reveals" shows.
http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/292/index.jsp Sixty minutes of
close-ups of people with bad teeth, obesity, ugly features, and
over-size or under-sized breasts. And more.
> On Satuday evenings our local PBS station presents
>us with a series of programs of such high class British fare as
>"Are You Being Served" and the like. At one time Benny Hill was
>available, which I confess I found hilarious at times.
That's because your local station is cheap. They purchase these shows
from the BBC Pound Store. Better shows, and more current shows, are
available to them, but they won't spend the money to buy them.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>> Purl Gurl wrote:
>>> Purl Gurl wrote:
>>>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>>>(weapon of mass disturbance snip)
>
>>> Reminds me of a notion, not a story, a notion.
>
>>> You boys know I frequently bash dumb boys here in
>>> our newsgroup. My ongoing rant about this laughable
>>> Women of the Web outfit clearly exemplifies I am
>>> equally quick to bash dumb girls.
>
>>> You are to make a mental note of this for the future.
>
>>> Problem here is there are a lot more dumb boys than
>>> there are dumb girls.
>
>> That may be true, but the smartest of the boys are smarter than the
>> smartest of the girls. That is why, historically speaking, women lag
>> far behind in virtually every discipline you can name, save child
>> rearing.
>
>
>* bumps her head on a masculine glass ceiling *
>
>OUCH! That hurts! I suppose this will smarten me up.
Are you a member of the group of geniuses I was writing about? I know
I'm not.
Chuck Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:55:58 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>Problem here is there are a lot more dumb boys than
>>>there are dumb girls.
>>
>>That may be true, but the smartest of the boys are smarter than the
>>smartest of the girls. That is why, historically speaking, women lag
>>far behind in virtually every discipline you can name, save child
>>rearing.
>
>You have been nominated for the Lawrence H. Summers Award.
<silly, time-wasting reference, snipped>
Since you're so smart, you should be able to give us an explanation
for the disparity.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
<snip>
>I would
>have expected that at least half a dozen folks would have called you on your
>venomous bullshit.
<snip>
"Your venomous bullshit" interests me, so I'm trying to figure out how
this works. Can the mooing -- or is it roaring? -- of a bull ever
poison someone who hears it? Or can a bull's shit poison someone who
steps in it, even the substantial cowpat, aka as a "cow pie", of a
bull?
Chuck Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:48:13 -0700, Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> On Satuday evenings our local PBS station presents
>>us with a series of programs of such high class British fare as
>>"Are You Being Served" and the like. At one time Benny Hill was
>>available, which I confess I found hilarious at times.
>
>That's because your local station is cheap. They purchase these shows
>from the BBC Pound Store. Better shows, and more current shows, are
>available to them, but they won't spend the money to buy them.
Yours in Jacksonville, or wherever you live in that godforsaken state
of Florida, will?
'godforsaken" is an AmE word attributed to Emerson, first used in 1856
according to the OED. It means lacking any merit or attraction,
according to the COD10.
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>
>"Purl Gurl" <purl...@purlgurl.net> wrote in message
>news:7a2dnZIWULQn36rU...@giganews.com...
[snip ramblings of PG]
>Your poisonous racist garbage doesn't surprise me at all, as you've shown
>yourself to be a raving, ranting bigot in the past. What does disappoint
>me, however, is that you seem to be treated almost affectionately as a kind
>of harmless nitwit mascot of this group.
No, most of us have her killfiled.
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
the Omrud
> Your poisonous racist garbage doesn't surprise me at all, as you've
> shown yourself to be a raving, ranting bigot in the past. What does
> disappoint me, however, is that you seem to be treated almost
> affectionately as a kind of harmless nitwit mascot of this group. When
> you come up with statements like "Those who are law abiding represent a
> minority of Muslims", I would have expected that at least half a dozen
> folks would have called you on your venomous bullshit.
We tried that for a few years but it made no difference, so most here
now don't read her rantings. She has one acolyte and a few who enjoy
her stories, but don't be deceived by her chummy manner into thinking
that we're her chums.
> You come up with poisonous, racist crap like that and you **dare** to
> take offense at someone who stereotyped Native Americans as fat-cat
> casino owners?
Yes, that's what she does.
obAUE: your use of "called" is, AFAIK, restricted to Northern England -
is that where you're from?
--
David
Chuck Riggs
<sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:15:03 -0800, "alan" <in_fla...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Purl Gurl" <purl...@purlgurl.net> wrote in message
>>news:7a2dnZIWULQn36rU...@giganews.com...
>[snip ramblings of PG]
>
>>Your poisonous racist garbage doesn't surprise me at all, as you've shown
>>yourself to be a raving, ranting bigot in the past. What does disappoint
>>me, however, is that you seem to be treated almost affectionately as a kind
>>of harmless nitwit mascot of this group.
>
>No, most of us have her killfiled.
Who members plonk is their business, which is why Plonk Announcements
are in bad taste, but to urge other members to plonk someone, which is
what Linz has done, is deplorable.
If members want to read Kira's posts, which are twice as interesting
as any of yours, IMO, that is their business. Quit being an
interfering ninny.
Paul Wolff
>On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:37:10 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
><sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>>On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:15:03 -0800, "alan" <in_fla...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>[snip ramblings of PG]
>>
>>>Your poisonous racist garbage doesn't surprise me at all, as you've shown
>>>yourself to be a raving, ranting bigot in the past. What does disappoint
>>>me, however, is that you seem to be treated almost affectionately as a kind
>>>of harmless nitwit mascot of this group.
>>
>>No, most of us have her killfiled.
>
>Who members plonk is their business, which is why Plonk Announcements
>are in bad taste, but to urge other members to plonk someone, which is
>what Linz has done, is deplorable.
>If members want to read Kira's posts, which are twice as interesting
>as any of yours, IMO, that is their business. Quit being an
>interfering ninny.
Those remarks miss the point entirely. Linz replied to correct alan's
inference that the PG person was treated almost affectionately as a
group mascot in alt.usage.english. The reason many here don't dispute
PG's posts is that they long ago blocked the poster and shut PG out of
their lives as a tedious nuisance, so all that remains are the very few
respondents who actively encourage her.
You, Chuck, are the interfering ninny, by first misrepresenting Linz and
then presuming to tell her off.
--
Paul
Richard Yates
That use of "called", in at least parts of the US, comes from poker. Someone
"calls" another player's bet by matching it and thereby forcing him to show
his hand. It is related to "calling someone to account."
LFS
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:37:10 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
> <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> No, most of us have her killfiled.
>
> Who members plonk is their business, which is why Plonk Announcements
> are in bad taste, but to urge other members to plonk someone, which is
> what Linz has done, is deplorable.
I am at a loss to understand how a sentence which reads "No, most of us
have her killfiled" can be interpreted as urging anyone to do anything.
Perhaps someone can explain.
[..]
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
the Omrud
Ah, yes, I'm familiar with that but hadn't thought of it. I read it
with the northern English meaning which is not really translatable into
standard English but means something like "abused". One child might ask
another child "Are you calling me?", which means bad-mouthing.
--
David
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
Might that "calling me" be the equivalent of "calling me names"?
Ah yes.
OED:
call, v.
12. To apply abusive names to; to abuse, vilify. Now dial. Cf. to call
(one) names, 17c.
1633 ...
1701 ...
1825 BROCKETT N. Country Gloss. 37 Call, to abuse. They called one
another!
1860 Dial. Batley s.v., In the unsophisticated Yorkshire dialect..to call
is to put forth torrents of abuse.
Purl Gurl
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>>> No, most of us have her killfiled.
>> Who members plonk is their business, which is why Plonk Announcements
>> are in bad taste, but to urge other members to plonk someone, which is
>> what Linz has done, is deplorable.
> I am at a loss to understand how a sentence which reads "No, most of us
> have her killfiled" can be interpreted as urging anyone to do anything.
> Perhaps someone can explain.
I would explain but you have me killfiled!
You shall remain ignorant on this topic, just as you
remain ignorant on so many other topics.
--
Purl Gurl
--
I am the egg which sticks to your teflon pan.
Hatunen
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I have no doubt that there are better UK programmes, and some of
them are shown on those same PBS stations. I merely point out
that UK television isn't wall-to-wall quality documentaries and
drama and I suspect that this is implied only by those in the UK
who usually watch only quality documentaries and dramas on the
telly.
To be truthful, I watched Benny Hill on a Canadian station that
was carrieed on our cable in Wahington state.
Hatunen
<purl...@purlgurl.net> wrote:
>LFS wrote:
>
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>>> Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>
>>>> No, most of us have her killfiled.
>
>>> Who members plonk is their business, which is why Plonk Announcements
>>> are in bad taste, but to urge other members to plonk someone, which is
>>> what Linz has done, is deplorable.
>
>> I am at a loss to understand how a sentence which reads "No, most of us
>> have her killfiled" can be interpreted as urging anyone to do anything.
>> Perhaps someone can explain.
>
>
>I would explain but you have me killfiled!
How you would explain why someone else has you killfiled might be
entertaining.
>You shall remain ignorant on this topic, just as you
>remain ignorant on so many other topics.
There are certain topics I, for one, am quite happy to be
ignorant of. I had you killfiled, but I used the "cancel if no
posts for thirty days option"; you seem to have been gone long
enough to cancel my killfile. So...
*plonk*
Robin Bignall
It's part of the old chant (at least where I come from): "Sticks and
stones can hurt my bones but calling cannot harm me".
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
the Omrud
> American television "hardly compares" on the average because
> there's so much of it. Refine American television down to the
> "qualtiy" channles, Like the PBS network or the documentary cable
> channels and you have something else. On the other hand, the
> high-qulity BBC seems to enjoy presenting Americans with Graham
> Norton and such high class fare as "Coupling" (which I rather
> enjoy but I do hope is not presented as some of your high quality
> programming).
I don't see why not. Not everything has to be highbrow to be high quality.
> On Satuday evenings our local PBS station presents
> us with a series of programs of such high class British fare as
> "Are You Being Served"
Yes, but that's 30 years old. It wouldn't be made now, but it was good
family fare watched by everybody, in the days when we had only three
channels. British comedy has always had a partial reliance on smut,
innuendo and effeminacy in men. Careers have been forged on it.
> and the like. At one time Benny Hill was
> available, which I confess I found hilarious at times.
There's nothing wrong with Benny Hill, but we are sometimes amused by
foreigners who consider him to be the height of comedy.
--
David
the Omrud
The majority of those programmes are not BBC productions but were made
by a variety of commercial production companies and were shown on
non-BBC channels here. BBC America buys UK TV programmes, but most of
them are not BBC programmes.
--
David
Hatunen
A surprising number of documentaries on the likes of the
Discovery Channel are Discovery Channel/BBC co-productions.
Robin Bignall
That should be "break my bones..."
Robin Bignall
The Benny Hill show was as popular as Morecombe and Wise way back
then, but IMO he went down the tubes when he went international and
most of his material was mimed.
CDB
> The reason
> many here don't dispute PG's posts is that they long ago blocked
> the poster and shut PG out of their lives as a tedious nuisance, so
> all that remains are the very few respondents who actively
> encourage her.
There are those bodhisattvas who stay in touch to protect innocent
enquirers from wild advice. I think she can contribute something to
the group, and does so more often now than formerly. It seems to me
that recognising that, and not taking her deliberate provocations as
an occasion for hostility, is the best way to encourage that side of
her to flourish. I will leave the amateur lecture on the masochistic
response for another day.
I say all this in the realisation that I am to some degree a purlish
contributor here, myself.
Paul Wolff
principal reason many here don't..." and so forth. Those many are not
numbered among the saints, and I dare say count themselves lucky on that
score.
--
Paul
alan
"Robin Bignall" <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:f23mj4pvjmr0lavkd...@4ax.com...
Where I come from (San Francisco Bay area), the "old chant" was: "Sticks and
stones'll break my bones, but names'll never hurt me".
--
alan
tony cooper
You are using "Are You Being Served" as an example. That program was
aired on BBC between 1972 and 1985. Your local station is buying it
because it's a cheap time filler.
In it's heyday, it was an entertaining program that some people did
like. Programs don't run for 13 years unless people watch it. To say
a program that was current almost 20 years ago is not a "quality"
program is a bit unfair. It was never intended to be drama. You can't
compare it to, for example, "Prime Suspect".
BBC* aired "Life on Mars" last year. I watched a few programs and
thought it was utterly stupid. The only redeeming factor was the
acting of Philip Glenister. It won a BAFTA award and an Emmy.
Several regulars of this group indicated that they liked it.
Now, the program has been copy-catted in the US and airs on ABC. I
can't understand why.
The point of the above is that tastes differ. Name a "quality drama"
and someone will think it's utterly stupid. Name a refreshing comedy
and someone will think it's an inane waste of time.
tony cooper
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>BBC* aired "Life on Mars" last year.
Arggh. I put in the asterisk and forgot to say why. I don't know if
the show is a BBC show or not. I have no idea who produced it or
aired in the UK. It was aired here on BBCAmerica.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:50:26 -0500, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>BBC* aired "Life on Mars" last year.
>
>Arggh. I put in the asterisk and forgot to say why. I don't know if
>the show is a BBC show or not. I have no idea who produced it or
>aired in the UK. It was aired here on BBCAmerica.
It was commissioned by the BBC and made by Kudos Film & Television.
It's origins are described at:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars_(TV_series)#Origins>
Idea put to BBC by Kudos - rejected. Picked up by a drama executive at Channel
4 - rejected by C4 senior management. Drama executive moves to BBC and
commissions the show.
R H Draney
>
>There's nothing wrong with Benny Hill, but we are sometimes amused by
>foreigners who consider him to be the height of comedy.
He's funny, but he's no Moe Howard....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Purl Gurl
> Paul Wolff wrote:
>> The reason
>> many here don't dispute PG's posts is that they long ago blocked
>> the poster and shut PG out of their lives as a tedious nuisance, so
>> all that remains are the very few respondents who actively
>> encourage her.
[...]
> that recognising that, and not taking her deliberate provocations as
> an occasion for hostility....
I am not provocative, you boys are overly sensitive; sissy boy crybabies.
> I say all this in the realisation that I am to some degree a purlish
> contributor here, myself.
Watch it or I will jerk your poetic license.
* political power smile *
Don Aitken
It seems to be generally agreed that his earlier material was better,
but people don't always realise how much of an "earlier" there was. He
made his TV debut in 1948; most of his best performances are now never
seen, even if they survive, because they were made in black and white.
That doesn't stop people watching the Marx Brothers, but, for some
reason, the conventional wisdom is that black and white TV material is
unsaleable, even on DVD.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Irwell
How about Z(ed) Cars?
Maria C.
> Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>>> Your poisonous racist garbage doesn't surprise me at all, as you've
>>> shown yourself to be a raving, ranting bigot in the past. What
>>> does disappoint me, however, is that you seem to be treated almost
>>> affectionately as a kind of harmless nitwit mascot of this group.
>>
>> No, most of us have her killfiled.
>
> Who members plonk is their business, which is why Plonk Announcements
> are in bad taste, but to urge other members to plonk someone, which is
> what Linz has done, is deplorable.
Linz did that? When? All she said above is that "most of us have her
killfiled."
> If members want to read Kira's posts, which are twice as interesting
> as any of yours, IMO, that is their business. Quit being an
> interfering ninny.
Maybe you are attributing to Linz what "alan" said. Linz is certainly
not "an interfering ninny." From all the posts I've seen from Linz over
the years, I'd say she's a very nice person.
--
Maria C.
Purl Gurl
Say, do you and your friends frequently suffer sore necks
from holding your long noses so high in the air?
--
Purl Gurl
--
About the only chance you have at an education
is to read what I write.
the Omrud
> BBC* aired "Life on Mars" last year. I watched a few programs and
> thought it was utterly stupid. The only redeeming factor was the
> acting of Philip Glenister. It won a BAFTA award and an Emmy.
> Several regulars of this group indicated that they liked it.
John Simm is slowly and professionally becoming a national favourite.
Look out for "The Devil's Whore" (a splendid production showing here on
Channel4, depicting the English Civil War through the life of one woman)
in which he is magnificent. He was also the most recent incarnation of
The Master, which is about as close as you can get to immortality
without actually being The Doctor (who is up for regeneration, BTW - I
would have put money on David Morrissey if he weren't already in this
year's Christmas special).
--
David
Chuck Riggs
It is presumptuous for one member, popular as Linz is, to speak for
the entire group. Who can say what most of us think or who we have in
our killfiles? Who runs this group? Not her, not even our serious
scholars.
Secondly, I feel that Kira is as deserving of respect as anyone here.
She tries hard to write interesting posts and some of the time she
succeeds admirably. Sure, she fails miserably with some of her posts
and is over the top more often than most of us are, but talented
people often have quirks and I believe Kira is unusually talented.
If catty feelings against her block some members from appreciating her
posts, fine, but a campaign to drive her from the group, which Linz is
promoting, is uncalled for, in my opinion.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
I feel fortunate to have found a newsgroup with more than its share of
educated, thoughtful, entertaining people, but God save me from "very
nice people". They're the ones who can turn ugly, with little or no
provocation, showing an unpredictable side. Look at the handle Linz
picked: "Amethyst Deceiver".
For a solution to our differences, I'll go back to ignoring her posts
if she'll do me the favour of ignoring mine.
Chuck Riggs
That probably explains why I was disappointed in the programming on
the "BBC America" channel in Bellingham, WA on my last visit to
America.
Chuck Riggs
<docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Like "Are You Being Served?", a little of "Benny Hill" goes a long
way, at least for me. On the other hand, I can watch anything with
John Cleese in it time and again.
Chuck Riggs
>the Omrud filted:
>>
>>There's nothing wrong with Benny Hill, but we are sometimes amused by
>>foreigners who consider him to be the height of comedy.
>
>He's funny, but he's no Moe Howard....r
Moe Howard is no Groucho Marx.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>Look at the handle Linz
>picked: "Amethyst Deceiver".
"Amethyst Deceiver" is the common name of an edible mushroom-like fungus:
Laccaria amethystina (sometimes incorrectly "amethystea").
_Amethyst Deceivers_ is the name of a song I've never heard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amethyst_Deceivers
by a band I've never heard of:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coil_(band)>
I don't know why Linz chose the name of a "deep purple-lilac" fungus as her
handle, but I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that her handle is
an announcement that she is deceptive. Perhaps she likes the fungus; perhaps
she likes the song.
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:37:10 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
><sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:15:03 -0800, "alan" <in_fla...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Purl Gurl" <purl...@purlgurl.net> wrote in message
>>>news:7a2dnZIWULQn36rU...@giganews.com...
>>[snip ramblings of PG]
>>
>>>Your poisonous racist garbage doesn't surprise me at all, as you've shown
>>>yourself to be a raving, ranting bigot in the past. What does disappoint
>>>me, however, is that you seem to be treated almost affectionately as a kind
>>>of harmless nitwit mascot of this group.
>>
>>No, most of us have her killfiled.
>
>Who members plonk is their business, which is why Plonk Announcements
>are in bad taste, but to urge other members to plonk someone, which is
>what Linz has done, is deplorable.
You seem to be losing your ability to read for comprehension, Chuck.
Which of my seven words urged anyone to do anything?
What I did was explain to Alan why it appears that PG is treated
affectionately. I'm sorry if you failed to understand that, but
misunderstand it you did.
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>Maybe you are attributing to Linz what "alan" said. Linz is certainly
>not "an interfering ninny." From all the posts I've seen from Linz over
>the years, I'd say she's a very nice person.
I have my moments, Maria, I have my moments!
Richard Yates
Yes. And it could even be her real name. Who knows? Most of us know only the
patterns of pixels on the screen. Other names here are made of common words
but may simply be the ones the people were given. Drop a 'g' from 'chuck
riggs' and you have a sentence, also with ominous implications.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:33:16 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Look at the handle Linz
>>> picked: "Amethyst Deceiver".
>>
>> "Amethyst Deceiver" is the common name of an edible mushroom-like
>> fungus: Laccaria amethystina (sometimes incorrectly "amethystea").
>>
>> _Amethyst Deceivers_ is the name of a song I've never heard:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amethyst_Deceivers
>> by a band I've never heard of:
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coil_(band)>
>>
>> I don't know why Linz chose the name of a "deep purple-lilac" fungus
>> as her handle, but I don't think we should jump to the conclusion
>> that her handle is an announcement that she is deceptive. Perhaps she
>> likes the fungus; perhaps she likes the song.
>
>Yes. And it could even be her real name. Who knows?
In this case, No. Her real name is in her email address.The domain name is her
real name. The appropriate Whois search shows the registrant name to be the
same as that in the domain name.
She used to use the handle "Linz", which is still her signature, but changed
to "Amethyst Deceiver" in 2006. She explained the reason at the time. I think
that in another forum someone had adopted her handle (for less than friendly
reasons, IIRC).
> Most of us know only the
>patterns of pixels on the screen. Other names here are made of common words
>but may simply be the ones the people were given. Drop a 'g' from 'chuck
>riggs' and you have a sentence, also with ominous implications.
>
We can never be absolutely certain about anything.
Wood Avens
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:46:25 +0000, LFS
><la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:37:10 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
>>> <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> No, most of us have her killfiled.
>>>
>>> Who members plonk is their business, which is why Plonk Announcements
>>> are in bad taste, but to urge other members to plonk someone, which is
>>> what Linz has done, is deplorable.
>>
>>
>>I am at a loss to understand how a sentence which reads "No, most of us
>>have her killfiled" can be interpreted as urging anyone to do anything.
>>Perhaps someone can explain.
>>
>
>It is presumptuous for one member, popular as Linz is, to speak for
>the entire group. Who can say what most of us think or who we have in
>our killfiles? Who runs this group? Not her, not even our serious
>scholars.
Chuck, come on. I posted almost exactly the same thing a day or two
before Linz did, and you didn't jump on me. What I wrote was "Most of
us have her killfiled and don't see her posts unless someone quotes
them; indeed, some also kill any threads started by her or including
her. Lack of response, therefore, is no sign of approval or
affection." Linz just said the same thing in far fewer words.
Remember we were responding to Alan's complaint that PG is treated
"almost affectionately as a kind of harmless nitwit mascot of this
group". This is incorrect, and Linz and I were explaining the real
reason why Alan doesn't see all that many posts challenging her. (I
take my hat of to those who do, but at my end of the duck-pond life's
too short.)
Maybe not everyone who doesn't challenge her has her killfiled; maybe
they read her posts for amusement, but reason that responding would
merely encourage her, and hope that if no-one says anything she'll go
away. However, as you point out, none of us has any control over
anyone else here, and there's always someone who does respond.
Your second paragraph has me mind-boggled, so I'll leave it at that.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
CDB
> CDB wrote:
>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>> The reason
>>> many here don't dispute PG's posts is that they long ago blocked
>>> the poster and shut PG out of their lives as a tedious nuisance,
>>> so all that remains are the very few respondents who actively
>>> encourage her.
> [...]
>> that recognising that, and not taking her deliberate provocations
>> as an occasion for hostility....
> I am not provocative, you boys are overly sensitive; sissy boy
> crybabies.
Perhaps a debatable question; the real point of what I said was in
the word "deliberate". You have always been quite open about wanting
to control our behaviour.
>> I say all this in the realisation that I am to some degree a
>> purlish contributor here, myself.
> Watch it or I will jerk your poetic license.
Be gentle with me.
Amethyst Deceiver
One of my friends posted a link to a picture of the fungus, and said
it would make a fantastic nym. I said I'd like it, and it was agreed
that since I was actually capable of spelling the name without
thinking, it should be mine. No deceit involved.
alan
"Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:W9I_k.10397$ZP4...@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
Don't see how that could be --- I've called PG a "raving, ranting bigot",
but I'm sure I never urged others to killfile her, nor have I ever made an
announcement that I'd done so . . .
Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
>>
>> It's part of the old chant (at least where I come from): "Sticks and
>> stones can hurt my bones but calling cannot harm me".
>
> That should be "break my bones..."
> --
> Robin
> (BrE)
> Herts, England
>
> Where I come from (San Francisco Bay area), the "old chant" was:
> "Sticks and stones'll break my bones, but names'll never hurt me".
Where I come from (SW England) it was the same (more or less).
--
athel
R H Draney
>>patterns of pixels on the screen. Other names here are made of common words
>>but may simply be the ones the people were given. Drop a 'g' from 'chuck
>>riggs' and you have a sentence, also with ominous implications.
>>
>We can never be absolutely certain about anything.
Or so they'd like us to believe....r
alan
"Chuck Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> wrote
[...]
> If catty feelings against her block some members from appreciating her
> posts, fine, but a campaign to drive her from the group, which Linz is
> promoting, is uncalled for, in my opinion.
Amazing how an originally unfounded accusation that Linz was urging others
to "killfile" PG has now escalated into an assumption that she is
"promoting" "a campaign to drive her from the group" . . .
--
alan
Irwell
Never complain, never explain.
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>
>> Maybe you are attributing to Linz what "alan" said. Linz is certainly
>> not "an interfering ninny." From all the posts I've seen from Linz
>> over the years, I'd say she's a very nice person.
>
> I have my moments, Maria, I have my moments!
Oh, so do I. Sometimes I'm a very sweet but sometimes I'm a downright
bitch.
(Did I really say that?)
--
Maria C.
the Omrud
I may be the only person here who has met both of you in person. I'm
saying nothing.
--
David
Irwell
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
Maria C.
That's probably a smart move.
--
Maria C.
Purl Gurl
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> LFS wrote:
>>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>>> Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
Amuses me to witness you boys and girls, especially girls,
end up on the defensive each time you inflict your hateful
bigotry upon me.
You remind me of Margo Howard!
Difference is, here you cannot burn a cross while hanging
me from a righteous tree; you cannot silence my voice.
Hatunen
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 14:24:43 -0700, Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:57:15 -0500, tony cooper
>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:48:13 -0700, Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>American television "hardly compares" on the average because
>>>>there's so much of it. Refine American television down to the
>>>>"qualtiy" channles, Like the PBS network or the documentary cable
>>>>channels and you have something else. On the other hand, the
>>>>high-qulity BBC seems to enjoy presenting Americans with Graham
>>>>Norton and such high class fare as "Coupling" (which I rather
>>>>enjoy but I do hope is not presented as some of your high quality
>>>>programming).
>>>
>>>I rather like Graham Norton at times. He's irrepressible, and has a
>>>sharp wit. You want really, really, *bad* fare from BBC, then watch
>>>any of the "BBC America Reveals" shows.
>>>http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/292/index.jsp Sixty minutes of
>>>close-ups of people with bad teeth, obesity, ugly features, and
>>>over-size or under-sized breasts. And more.
>>>
>>>> On Satuday evenings our local PBS station presents
>>>>us with a series of programs of such high class British fare as
>>>>"Are You Being Served" and the like. At one time Benny Hill was
>>>>available, which I confess I found hilarious at times.
>>>
>>>That's because your local station is cheap. They purchase these shows
>>>from the BBC Pound Store. Better shows, and more current shows, are
>>>available to them, but they won't spend the money to buy them.
>>
>>I have no doubt that there are better UK programmes, and some of
>>them are shown on those same PBS stations. I merely point out
>>that UK television isn't wall-to-wall quality documentaries and
>>drama and I suspect that this is implied only by those in the UK
>>who usually watch only quality documentaries and dramas on the
>>telly.
>
>You are using "Are You Being Served" as an example. That program was
>aired on BBC between 1972 and 1985. Your local station is buying it
>because it's a cheap time filler.
>
>In it's heyday, it was an entertaining program that some people did
>like. Programs don't run for 13 years unless people watch it. To say
>a program that was current almost 20 years ago is not a "quality"
>program is a bit unfair.
I actually enjoyed it for the first few "seasons" it was shown
here.
>It was never intended to be drama. You can't
>compare it to, for example, "Prime Suspect".
Which has also played here. But I'm only responding to the
comment, "American television hardly compares in quality to what
can be found in the British Isles, IMO." Are you defending that
statement?
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Purl Gurl
> BrE filted:
BrE ?
>> Richard Yates wrote:
>>> Most of us know only the
>>> patterns of pixels on the screen. Other names here are made of common words
>>> but may simply be the ones the people were given. Drop a 'g' from 'chuck
>>> riggs' and you have a sentence, also with ominous implications.
>> We can never be absolutely certain about anything.
> Or so they'd like us to believe.
Except for death and taxes.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Yup. That's it. (That's what I meant by "more or less").
--
athel
Hatunen
BBC America is on our cable and I do watch it from time to time.
I admit to a mild addiction to Gordon Ramsey and "ktichen
Nightmares" both Brit and American versions. I would like to
follow "Dr Who" but takes too much effort to keep current.
But my comments above were in reference to the statement
"American television hardly compares in quality to what can be
found in the British Isles, IMO," which is rather a blanket
claim.
the Omrud
Yes, ma'am.
--
David
the Omrud
> BBC America is on our cable and I do watch it from time to time.
> I admit to a mild addiction to Gordon Ramsey and "ktichen
> Nightmares" both Brit and American versions. I would like to
> follow "Dr Who" but takes too much effort to keep current.
An average of about six to ten one-hour episodes a year can't be that
difficult - I don't think there will be a regular series in 2009. Or
are you still seeing Tom Baker?
--
David
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>> Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>>>> alan wrote, to Purl Gurl:
>>
>>>>> Your poisonous racist garbage doesn't surprise me at all, as
>>>>> you've shown yourself to be a raving, ranting bigot in the past.
>>>>> What does disappoint me, however, is that you seem to be treated
>>>>> almost affectionately as a kind of harmless nitwit mascot of
>>>>> this group.
>>>>
>>>> No, most of us have her killfiled.
>>>
>>> Who members plonk is their business, which is why Plonk
>>> Announcements are in bad taste, but to urge other members to plonk
>>> someone, which is what Linz has done, is deplorable.
>>
>> Linz did that? When? All she said above is that "most of us have her
>> killfiled."
>>
>>> If members want to read Kira's posts, which are twice as interesting
>>> as any of yours, IMO, that is their business. Quit being an
>>> interfering ninny.
>>
>> Maybe you are attributing to Linz what "alan" said. Linz is
>> certainly not "an interfering ninny." From all the posts I've seen
>> from Linz over the years, I'd say she's a very nice person.
>>
> bigot", but I'm sure I never urged others to killfile her, nor have I
> ever made an announcement that I'd done so . . .
Fair point. I was looking for a reason why Chuck would say that Linz
urged others to plonk Kira/"Purl Gurl." I thought that your remarks
about Kira, had he thought they were Linz's remarks, might have been
relevant in eliciting his remark.
With no offense meant to you,
Maria
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Where I came from (SE England) it was "words" rather than "names".
Arcadian Rises
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
> > On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:37:10 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
>
> >> No, most of us have her killfiled.
>
> > Who members plonk is their business, which is why Plonk Announcements
> > are in bad taste, but to urge other members to plonk someone, which is
> > what Linz has done, is deplorable.
>
> have her killfiled" can be interpreted as urging anyone to do anything.
> Perhaps someone can explain.
>
>
> --
> Laura
> (emulate St. George for email)
It's a logical fallacy whose fancy name escapes me at the moment:
appealing to authority, in this case, group authority, i.e. "[most of]
we the people have plonked PG, therefore you should do that too",
otherwise you won't be a part of "most of us".
Arcadian Rises
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:46:25 +0000, LFS
>
>
>
>
>
> <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
> >Chuck Riggs wrote:
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:37:10 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
> >> <s...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> No, most of us have her killfiled.
>
> >> Who members plonk is their business, which is why Plonk Announcements
> >> are in bad taste, but to urge other members to plonk someone, which is
> >> what Linz has done, is deplorable.
>
> >I am at a loss to understand how a sentence which reads "No, most of us
> >have her killfiled" can be interpreted as urging anyone to do anything.
> >Perhaps someone can explain.
>
> >[..]
>
> the entire group. Who can say what most of us think or who we have in
> our killfiles? Who runs this group? Not her, not even our serious
> scholars.
> She tries hard to write interesting posts and some of the time she
> succeeds admirably. Sure, she fails miserably with some of her posts
> and is over the top more often than most of us are, but talented
> people often have quirks and I believe Kira is unusually talented.
> If catty feelings against her block some members from appreciating her
> posts, fine, but a campaign to drive her from the group, which Linz is
> promoting, is uncalled for, in my opinion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chuck Riggs
> Near Dublin, Ireland- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mr. Riggs, chapeau!
Your message is what I call "the voice of reason".
alan
"Maria C." wrote
None taken . . .
--
alan
Arcadian Rises
wrote:
[...]
> You seem to be losing your ability to read for comprehension, Chuck.
> Which of my seven words urged anyone to do anything?
If you were blessed with at least 25% of Mr. Riggs comprehension
ability you'd be able to enjoy some of PG's humor.
>
> What I did was explain to Alan why it appears that PG is treated
> affectionately. I'm sorry if you failed to understand that, but
> misunderstand it you did.
Your "explanation" is a double falacy:
1."most of us" is a wrong and vague assumption; who are "us"?
do you include the lurkers?
2. appeal to authority:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
even if you were right about "most of us" [killfiled PG] your
assertion still doesn't provide a valid explanation.
alan
"Arcadian Rises" <Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:815d41a9-6b76-4790...@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Mr. Riggs, chapeau!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The voice of reason" ?? !!! ?? You can't have read Mr. Riggs's apologia
for PG very carefully --- or do you share his outrageous contention that
Linz is "promoting" "a campaign to drive her from the group"?
On the other hand, perhaps you had a fool's cap in mind when you presented
that congratulatory chapeau?
--
alan
Robin Bignall
I mentioned it as an example of the midlands and northern use of
"calling" -- insulting someone -- that was mentioned upthread.
Default User
> On Dec 7, 7:13�am, Amethyst Deceiver <s...@lindsayendell.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
> > You seem to be losing your ability to read for comprehension, Chuck.
> > Which of my seven words urged anyone to do anything?
>
> If you were blessed with at least 25% of Mr. Riggs comprehension
> ability you'd be able to enjoy some of PG's humor.
Wow, one of the dumbest statements today. That even tops Chuck's idiocy.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
the Omrud
> On Dec 6, 8:46�am, LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:37:10 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
>>> <s...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> No, most of us have her killfiled.
>>> Who members plonk is their business, which is why Plonk Announcements
>>> are in bad taste, but to urge other members to plonk someone, which is
>>> what Linz has done, is deplorable.
>> I am at a loss to understand how a sentence which reads "No, most of us
>> have her killfiled" can be interpreted as urging anyone to do anything.
>> Perhaps someone can explain.
>>
> appealing to authority, in this case, group authority, i.e. "[most of]
> we the people have plonked PG, therefore you should do that too",
> otherwise you won't be a part of "most of us".
Nonsense. It was an straightforward explanation for why there are so
few complaints about PG's intemperate language.
--
David
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> I say all this in the realisation that I am to some degree a purlish
> contributor here, myself.
I can't even begin to imagine in what sense--and I have tried.
--
Mike.