What should be done?
Gary Pollard
news:3ba7f658...@news.earthlink.net...
> Gary,
>
> I've been reading your posts. I'm not attacking you and think you
> have brought up some good points, but what *would* you do if you
> were us? Just want to know what you think the solution is since
> you've been sort of critical. I'm not talking broad philosophies here
> but action. What would you do?
>
> Suzy
Suzy,
I think I've already said this, but first - and right now - I would make
SURE I knew who did this and I'd go after them. And by "sure" I mean having
enough evidence that would stand up in a court of law or before any
relatively unbiased tribunal. Then I'd make sure that the rest of the world
knew what evidence I had so that it would know I was not merely settling old
scores. Even people in the State Department (hardly left wingers) are
worried that threats to bomb Iraq for instance are being made on the basis
of evidence so tenuous that it looks like an old score deal. Whoever did
this is a murderer and should be treated as such. The only sadness is that
they can only die once.
That said though, the reality is that the Middle-East is a house of cards,
just as the Balkans were a house of cards at the beginning of this century.
Pakistan - for example - is on the West's side right now, but the reality is
that so many in Pakistan despise the West for its policies in the region
that the Pakistan government is risking being kicked out. If that government
is kicked out, we have another State with an enemy in control. If Bush's
advisors were as totally ignorant of the justified reasons for anger many
Muslims/Arabs have as some here are, we'd be in serious trouble. EVERY
country in that region presents its own set of problems. In some hard-liners
are in control. In others they are nipping at the heels of those who are.
Despite the ludicrous "communist" jibes of this group's most ugly Americans,
I'll tell you frankly one of my worries. The Chinese government is quite
likely to be one of the first to deviate from any coalition and support the
Middle-East if the US is perceived to be throwing its weight around too
greatly. If it DID come down to a full scale religious war I strongly
suspect they would be arming the other side.
But, as Bush's advisors have undoubtedly told him, this is not a military
war. Despite the macho breast-thumping of some here it cannot be won by
military means alone. In fact, the use of military means alone will create
more enemies than you ever thought you had.
I see today that there's another attempt at an Israeli/Palestinian
cease-fire. Of course some are going to try to disrupt that cease-fire and
commit provocative actions, but it IS interesting that the US seems to be
acting on what I've said here before and - at last - reining in Israel's
hawks. Sharon, as I've said, is responsible for war crimes, and would
undoubtedly like to commit more. He needs MORE than a slap on the wrist.
But the greatest thing we have to do in the long run is to live by the
principles we say we believe in. If we believe in democracy, we have to be
willing to push for democracy in the Middle-East rather than support tin-pot
dictators just because they'll give us cheap oil. We have to show greater
political EQ. The reality is that right now if you let most countries in
that region vote you'd have governments not entirely happy with the US (or
Britain for that matter). But that's their right.
We may though have to realise and accept that the world has more than one
way of life, even more than one civilization, and that we cannot impose our
views that our philosophies are superior to the other ones. That does mean
accepting other people's right to do things we may find abhorrent within
their own cultures. IF we believe Western values are better, and I think -
of course - broadly they are, we have to believe that given the knowledge
and the opportunity to choose people WILL choose them, and they will
triumph.
I believe people turn to extreme religion in weakness, or when they feel
they have little power. I believe this about Christian Fundamentalism, and I
believe it about Muslim Fundamentalism. I believe it about the practitioners
of the Falun Gong.
The reality is, and if Bush didn't know it before he is having a quick
lesson in it, that America is not as invincible as it appears to be. There
are too many balls to keep in the air, international and domestic. Look at
what's happening in the stock markets right now. Bush is on the one hand
saying, we're having a war chaps", but on the other, to keep the economy
flowing he is having to say "Everything's fine, go out and but that new
house, buy that new car, because we're screwed if you don't".
Even in terms of support for military action, do you remember the American
action in Somalia I think it was, to take on some criminal renegade? Many
Americans felt it was fine to go in and police that state, but once footage
of the bodies of two American soldiers being dragged through the street and
played with in the most revolting manner were shown, the US was out of
there. And this was an incredibly minor enemy - little more than a bandit -
by comparison with the Middle-Eastern states.
The West has lost 6000. 500 of those seem to be Britons, many were of other
nationalities, so this is NOT just an American tragedy. The shock to the
American psyche is largely that this is the first time ever the result of
its foreign policy has been felt on US soil. As I've said before, all of us
in Europe have lived with the threat of terrorism in our own countries since
the sixties. From Carlos the Jackal, to the Red Brigade, to the IRA. (And I
DO hope some Americans have finally realised the implications of their
support for the IRA.)
Terrorism has to be fought, yes. But it also has to be lived with as long as
we have foreign policy that creates fertile ground for it. And
indiscriminate use of force and power does that. Such behaviour would not
wipe it out, it will grow it.
Gary
>
>
D C Harris
----------
In article <3ba7f658...@news.earthlink.net>, bzel...@earthlink.net
(Buzz Elkins) wrote:
>
> Gary,
>
> I've been reading your posts. I'm not attacking you and think you
> have brought up some good points, but what *would* you do if you
> were us? Just want to know what you think the solution is since
> you've been sort of critical. I'm not talking broad philosophies here
> but action. What would you do?
>
> Suzy
>
>
Can I put in two cents here?
Your airport security sounds useless.
On an international front it is no good making hate figures
of *one* man - he is just representative of millions.
Politics is the art of the possible - and if 'I were you' I
would be going to the Middle East and listening to the problems out
there.
And I would be doing that for my own good.
That's me.
Gary Pollard
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 08:14:46 +0800, "Gary Pollard"
> <gpono...@netnovigator.com> wrote:
>
> I appreciate your response and maybe you've gone over this before, but
> it was necessary for me to see it more compact.
>
> I think "evidence" and "unbiased tribunal" may be problematic on a
> world basis.
>
> This is not going to be easy.
>
> Again, thanks for responding. I understand a little better now.
>
> Suzy (we do have a giant hole in New York and our headquarters have
> been attacked, but I know you know that)
Suzy
Have you ever seen any footage of Lebanon, which was once one of the most
beautiful places on Earth? Have you seen the rubble all over the
Middle-East? Have you actually SEEN good footage of Kabul? Have you seen the
rubble in London after IRA bomb blasts?
This is new to the US. In this equation it is ONLY new to the US.
Unthinking vengeance is only an option if we like rubble and want more of
it.
Gary
Better Duck
I know you didn't ask me but what the hell.
First I would sieze all the T-Bonds. I would just pocket that. Then I would
draft the entire nation, all 250+ million people. We would load up all our
crack, pornos, guns, nukes and foreskin clippers and we would all move to the
middle east. 25 million in Iran, 25 million in Iraq and so on and so on. We
would show up like Randy Quaid from the Vacation movies. Ready to party. Get to
know each other. Teach em how delicious crack is. Turn those soccer fields into
football fields, start making some decent porno for em, install cable for MTV,
get em hooked on wrestling, and listening to Eminem. In 2 years we all come
home, and I reissue the T-bonds and we all go back to work.
If they think western influence is bad now, wait till we move in. Nobody will
ever f/w us again.
BD
Gary Pollard
> Well, all I can say is I have been reading about the Taliban (and I
> can tell you as a woman I am upset by what I read).
Many of us are. But I still think it is up to them to make those changes
within their own culture. Even here in Hong Kong many educated women resent
being told what to do by Western feminists, not because they are dumb but
because they do not agree. They do not consider the US, in terms of gender
relations, to be a shining example. We can't control what other cultures do.
Nor, I think, should we. It's terribly paternalistic to consider ourselves
shepherds of the world.
> Like Steven says (and I almost always listen to Steven) terrorism is a
> giant publicity stunt and it has worked. They have our attention.
Well, we disagree on the value of that ;-)
Terrorism is not ONLY a publicity stunt. It is often deliberately used to
galvanise repression to build more followers. During the Second World War
the Resistance often knew that if they killed a Nazi, twelve villagers would
be killed. But they also knew that the unjustified reprisal would bring them
more members. Yes, getting replay after replay on CNN is part of it, but
it's not the strategic part. More important for the terrorists is the sense
of empowerment it gives to those who previously felt totally without power
in the face of the West AND the fact that Western reprisals - if not careful
and backed by education and information - will get them more members.
> Hopefully there will be a good documentary on the Disovery Channel
> tomorrow night (9:00 ET ?) about who the terrorists are and why they
> hate us so much.
PBS already had one good one. But, even then, some things get skimmed over.
> This may sound trite, but I remember in 1986 being in the London
> ariport after we had bombed Lybia with my suede fringed jacket and
> cowboy boots on sitting in a room (after we had all been frisked) and
> on either side of me are veiled Arab women and we are stealing glances
> at each other.
If our lifestyle were really as much better as we seem to think, those looks
could only have been looks of envy. Hard as it may be for an American woman
to believe, many of those Arab women quite possibly consider - in balance -
their lives are better than yours.
I think it's fine to be happy with our values. I even think that we have a
right to expect people living in our country to live by them (which will get
"liberals" howling) but I think we should be wary of forcing them on others,
particularly in their own countries or civilizations.
One example - I've seen report after report condemning the Chinese
population-control measures, which I too find excessive. I've seen no report
examining the problem of feeding the masses if such measures were NOT in
operation. I've seen no American politician with an answer for how to cope
with the alternative population growth, and the projections are
overwhelming. The Western view seems to be that we must give people the
freedom to have as many kids as they want so those kids can grow up and
starve. Sometimes we go into other cultures half-baked.
Gary
Gary Pollard
AliasMoze
>
> First I would sieze all the T-Bonds. I would just pocket that. Then I
would
> draft the entire nation, all 250+ million people. We would load up all our
> crack, pornos, guns, nukes and foreskin clippers and we would all move to
the
> middle east. 25 million in Iran, 25 million in Iraq and so on and so on.
We
> would show up like Randy Quaid from the Vacation movies. Ready to party.
Get to
> know each other. Teach em how delicious crack is. Turn those soccer fields
into
> football fields, start making some decent porno for em, install cable for
MTV,
> get em hooked on wrestling, and listening to Eminem. In 2 years we all
come
> home, and I reissue the T-bonds and we all go back to work.
Duck, you just perfectly described my current lifestyle. Damn, are you
psychic?
OK, I'm exaggerating...I don't play football.
Gary Pollard
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:03:42 +0800, "Gary Pollard"
> <gpono...@netnovigator.com> wrote:
>
> >We can't control what other cultures do.
> >Nor, I think, should we. It's terribly paternalistic to consider
ourselves
> >shepherds of the world.
>
> No, not trying to be a sheperd, Just would like to be able to go
> there without being stoned.
Ever heard "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" Wherever in the world you
travel or live, you are expected - quite rightly to live by that country's
laws. Just as you expect others travelling to the U.S. to live by yours.
> >If our lifestyle were really as much better as we seem to think, those
looks
> >could only have been looks of envy. Hard as it may be for an American
woman
> >to believe, many of those Arab women quite possibly consider - in
balance -
> >their lives are better than yours.
>
> Maybe, but do you really think that? We're born into a whole lot of
> stuff.
Sure. And many of us grow up content with it. Or we change it. That's a task
for every individual group or country. Not for you to impose on me, or vice
versa.
> >I think it's fine to be happy with our values. I even think that we have
a
> >right to expect people living in our country to live by them (which will
get
> >"liberals" howling) but I think we should be wary of forcing them on
others,
> >particularly in their own countries or civilizations.
>
> I agree until they make a hole in New York and attack our
> headquarters.
Our involvement in their affairs caused that, NOT the other way around. We
should not export our views to them any more than they should export theirs
to us.
> >One example - I've seen report after report condemning the Chinese
> >population-control measures, which I too find excessive. I've seen no
report
> >examining the problem of feeding the masses if such measures were NOT in
> >operation. Sometimes we go into other cultures half-baked.
>
> Gary, just wondering. What country are you affiliated with. British?
Born British, living in China with - now - mostly Chinese friends. I'd
rather think of myself as European than British in many ways. In terms of
"affiliation", I've never believed "right or wrong my country". When it's
right it's right, when it's wrong, it's wrong, and I will stand against it.
The world's getting smaller. We're all citizens of the world now, like it or
not. If we realise that fast enough, we might make it through another
millennium.
Gary
wow
"Gary Pollard" <gpono...@netnovigator.com> wrote:
>The Western view seems to be that we must give
>people the freedom to have as many kids as they
>want so those kids can grow up and starve.
after orwell's novel _1984_ -- people became
"big brother" paranoid, and consequently
terrified of any state-administered eugenics
the probably don't like it in china, but
they can't deny the reality that people
will always fuck without contraception
while overpopulation is nearly impossible
to reverse, most people would probably not
want the government picking their children
because even absent civil rights abuses,
government controls bring bureaucracies
favoritism and corruption
fundamentalist christians already want federal
money for "faith-based" homeless shelters
if you give public funds to one religion
you must give it to all -- so ask right-wing
christians if they would rather have a little
federal money, or have a lot of federal
money going to moonies, and the church of satan,
devil worshippers -- also entitled
also, when reagan deregulated the faa and
other oversight agencies in the early eighties
-- so the fiscally-squeezed airlines could
spend less on safety and maintanence --
the faa wasn't administrating the security
personnel at the flight gates, was it?
that was always privately financed?
i remember after deregulation got going:
getting onto numerous planes with broken
seat arm, reclining buttons, or tray tables
-- and thinking that it's going to be pretty
hard to start re-regulating chaos back
into order
i can't even imagine the cost of federally
subsidized security personnel in every
gate of every airport
on the other hand, the airlines
can't afford it at all
Kel
"Gary Pollard" <gpono...@netnovigator.com> wrote in message
news:9o8r7e$cc...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> Have you ever seen any footage of Lebanon, which was once one of the most
> beautiful places on Earth? Have you seen the rubble all over the
> Middle-East? Have you actually SEEN good footage of Kabul? Have you seen
the
> rubble in London after IRA bomb blasts?
>
> This is new to the US. In this equation it is ONLY new to the US.
>
> Unthinking vengeance is only an option if we like rubble and want more of
> it.
I couldn't agree with you more Gary. Here in the UK we have fought terrorism
for 37 years. I was dismayed at the naivety of some of the posters but then,
I suppose this is totally new to the USA.
The problem, of course, is that they do it because they hate you and
everything that you stand for. The more brutal your response, the more they
hate you and on the thing goes.
I hope Powell succeeds in his attempt to get Bin Laden but I hope everyone
understands that this would only be the beginning. His arrest will infuriate
the Taliban who will then unleash more attacks for revenge.
People have been talking as if there is a very simple cure for this.
Unfortunately, there isn't. As we in Britain know to our cost.
slbarger
Kel wrote:
> I couldn't agree with you more Gary. Here in the UK we have fought terrorism
> for 37 years. I was dismayed at the naivety of some of the posters but then,
> I suppose this is totally new to the USA.
We're not all as naive as you might think. Many of us have been to other
countries, (UAE, Saudi, Lebanon, Sudan, Zaire (DRC) - - for myself) among a
few, and have seen the failures - and successes - of US policy. I too have
seen the plaques that memorialize the dead from the bomb blasts in London. I
for one know that no army can simply go in and blast their way through this
kind of problem. I also, do not fall prey to the incessant burbles from CNN.
> The problem, of course, is that they do it because they hate you and
> everything that you stand for. The more brutal your response, the more they
> hate you and on the thing goes.
And some people will not reason.
> I hope Powell succeeds in his attempt to get Bin Laden but I hope everyone
> understands that this would only be the beginning. His arrest will infuriate
> the Taliban who will then unleash more attacks for revenge.
... until they realize there's nothing to be gained - and it could take
generations for them to see this.
> People have been talking as if there is a very simple cure for this.
> Unfortunately, there isn't. As we in Britain know to our cost.
What difference does it make to the dead, whether the mad destruction is
wrought in the name of freedom or despotism. - Ghandi
Gary Pollard
news:t8%p7.1726$7M3.1...@news1.cableinet.net...
> > Unthinking vengeance is only an option if we like rubble and want more
of
> > it.
>
> I couldn't agree with you more Gary. Here in the UK we have fought
terrorism
> for 37 years. I was dismayed at the naivety of some of the posters but
then,
> I suppose this is totally new to the USA.
Naivete regarding the way the rest of the world works, is of course not
totally new to the USA.
At least not to the jingoistic nationalists here.
Gary
Gary Pollard
news:3BA88833...@mindspring.com...
>
> Kel wrote:
>
> > I couldn't agree with you more Gary. Here in the UK we have fought
terrorism
> > for 37 years. I was dismayed at the naivety of some of the posters but
then,
> > I suppose this is totally new to the USA.
>
> We're not all as naive as you might think.
Not all, I agree. But more than 90% are all in favour of Bush killing
innocents right now. This is a huge shot in the arm for the right-wing
zealots.
Gary
Geoff Alexander
Gary, this isn't an accurate number. In the polls I've read, the majority,
somewhere
around seventy percent of Americans, were in favor of a military response. I'm
not
aware of any poll in which the question, "Are you in favor of killing innocents
in
a war against terrorism" was asked. Were it posed, in this form, I can tell
you that
you'd have an even lower number than seventy percent, IMO.
Geoff
--
Posted from proxy1-external.santab1.ca.home.com [24.4.254.48]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Adam Fulford
comments have been well thought out. Almost without exception, he has
clearly researched the topics being discussed more than his critics. I may
not always agree with him, but I respect him. His scripts are certainly
top-rate. "Young Offenders" was one of the few movies that gang members and
police alike considered to be an accurate reflection of their situation.
"Buzz Elkins" <bzel...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3ba7f658...@news.earthlink.net...
Felicia Daunt
was defence lawyer in Young Offender court for several years.
Felicia
Kel
>
> > I couldn't agree with you more Gary. Here in the UK we have fought
terrorism
> > for 37 years. I was dismayed at the naivety of some of the posters but
then,
> > I suppose this is totally new to the USA.
>
> We're not all as naive as you might think.
That's why I said *some.* How nice to hear someone sensible on this
newsgroup.
Maj. Bushteaser
Share The Land
Have you been around
Have you done your share o' comin' down
On different things that people do
Have you been aware
You got brothers and sisters who care
About what's gonna happen to you in a year from now
Maybe I'll be there to shake your hand
Maybe I'll be there to share the land
That they'll be givin' away
When we all live together
I'm talkin' 'bout together now
Maybe I'll be there to shake your hand
Maybe I'll be there to share the land
That they'll be givin' away
When we all live together
I'm talkin' 'bout together now
Did you pay your dues
Did you read the news
This mornin' when the paper landed in your yard
Do you know their names
Can you play their games
Without losin' track and comin' down a bit too hard
Oh!
Maybe I'll be there to shake your hand
Maybe I'll be there to share the land
That they'll be givin' away
When we all live together
I'm talkin' 'bout together now
Maybe I'll be there to shake your hand
Maybe I'll be there to share the land
That they'll be givin' away
When we all live together
I'm talkin' 'bout together now
Mmm, maybe I'll be there to shake your hand
Maybe I'll be there to share the land
That they'll be givin' away
When we all live together
I'm talkin' 'bout together now
Maybe I'll be there to shake your hand
Maybe I'll be there to share the land
That they'll be givin' away
When we all live together
Together, together
(Shake your hand, share the land)
You know I'll be standin' by to help you if you're worried
(Shake your hand, share the land)
No more sadness, no more sorrow, and no more bad times
(Shake your hand, share the land)
Every day comin' sunshine, every day everybody laughin'
(Shake your hand, share the land)
Walkin' together by the river, walkin' together and laughin'
(Shake your hand, share the land)
Everybody singin' together, everybody singin' and laughin'
(Shake your hand, share the land)
Good times, good times, everybody walkin' by the river now
(Shake your hand, share the land)
Walkin', singin', talkin', smilin', laughin', diggin' each other
(Shake your hand, share the land)
Everybody happy together, I'll be there, don't worry, if you're needin' me
(Shake your hand, share the land)
Call on me, call on me, call my name, I'll be runnin' to help you
(Shake your hand, share the land)
Everybody walkin' by the river now, everybody, everybody laughin'
(Shake your hand, share the land)
Everybody singin' and talkin', smilin', laughin', diggin' each other
(Shake your hand, share the land)
--
Steve Richer
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sricher/
Two Steps from Greatness
"Gary Pollard" <gpono...@netnovigator.com> wrote in message
news:9o944g$c6...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
Maj. Bushteaser
I heard something about that "killing innocents" poll (I think the TV people
mentioned it came from Newsweek, not sure) and the numbers were quite high,
over 75%.
--
Steve Richer
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sricher/
Two Steps from Greatness
"Geoff Alexander"
> > Not all, I agree. But more than 90% are all in favour of Bush killing
> > innocents right now. This is a huge shot in the arm for the right-wing
> > zealots.
> >
Maj. Bushteaser
should be carefully reviewed before before retaliation are initiated.
I'm also glad that these issues are being raised by other NATO members (I
know Canada and France are anyway).
--
Steve Richer
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sricher/
Two Steps from Greatness
"Adam Fulford" <ad...@blahyah.net> wrote
Gary PoIIard
I'll email you
Gary
--
"Felicia Daunt" <sme...@oberon.ark.com> wrote in message
news:3BA8D2A2...@oberon.ark.com...
D C Harris
----------
In article <20010918215747...@mb-dd.aol.com>, bett...@aol.com
(Better Duck) wrote:
> First I would sieze all the T-Bonds. I would just pocket that. Then I would
> draft the entire nation, all 250+ million people. We would load up all our
> crack, pornos, guns, nukes and foreskin clippers and we would all move to the
> middle east.
You could have Hugh Hefner as Commander-in-Chief with bunny girls
to hand out the goodies.
Crack, heroine, cigarettes, and they would all be in your pocket
in ten seconds. That was probably the plot originally anyway.
Felicia Daunt
Gary PoIIard
--
"Geoff Alexander" <geeal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e7338350ed7b12c2b23...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> In the polls I've read, the majority,
> somewhere
> around seventy percent of Americans, were in favor of a military response.
I'm
> not
> aware of any poll in which the question, "Are you in favor of killing
innocents
> in
> a war against terrorism" was asked. Were it posed, in this form, I can
tell
> you that
> you'd have an even lower number than seventy percent, IMO.
>
> Geoff
A NEWSWEEK Poll showed that 71 percent of Americans favoured an attack on
terrorist bases, even if that meant a high likelihood of civilian casualties
A CBS News/New York Times poll found support dropped when it was specified
that "thousands of innocent civilians" would be killed, but even with this
harsh consequence spelled out, 60% continued to support military action,
with only 21% opposed, and another 19% saying that they didn't know.
According to CBS: Americans overwhelmingly support retaliation - and they
would retaliate against whomever is responsible even if it meant killing
innocent people. Two-thirds favour a military response in those
circumstances, and just 20 percent oppose it. Both men and women favour
military action, though there is still a sizable gender gap. Seventy-five
percent of men and 57 percent of women support military retaliation, even if
innocent people are killed.
spam]@world.std.com Blair P. Houghton
><< What would you do? >>
>
>I know you didn't ask me but what the hell.
>
>First I would sieze all the T-Bonds. I would just pocket that. Then I would
>draft the entire nation, all 250+ million people. We would load up all our
>crack, pornos, guns, nukes and foreskin clippers and we would all move to the
>middle east. 25 million in Iran, 25 million in Iraq and so on and so on. We
>would show up like Randy Quaid from the Vacation movies. Ready to party. Get to
>know each other. Teach em how delicious crack is. Turn those soccer fields into
>football fields, start making some decent porno for em, install cable for MTV,
>get em hooked on wrestling, and listening to Eminem. In 2 years we all come
>home, and I reissue the T-bonds and we all go back to work.
Some of the things I've read indicate that if you can
simply remove the Muslim clerics, and spread some cash
around, it would be exactly like that.
>If they think western influence is bad now, wait till we move in. Nobody will
>ever f/w us again.
These "Islamic fundamentalist" terrorist pilots spent a lot
of time in strip clubs. I saw a NY Times a trip report by
a journalist who visited the Islamic schools in western
Pakistan last year who said he'd been propositioned several
times--by the boys. In the video clips where the Taliban
do their Elliot Ness act and run tanks over cases of booze,
I'm thinking, "that's a lot of booze for an Islamic town".
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I can imagine the bars
being busy until the mullahs move to town.
So maybe, if we win, Kabul will be the next Havana.
--Blair
"Then again, maybe there's a reason
the veils are required by law."
BuzzGrief
>(Blair P. Houghton)
>"Then again, maybe there's a reason
the veils are required by law."
Sure. It's so you won't keeping thinking about their belly-buttons instead.
The other Buzz
"Movies are for sissies" B.J.Grief
Tom McDonough
>I was defence lawyer in Young Offender
>court for several years. Felicia
Hi Felicia,
Pardon my ignorance, but what is a "defence lawyer." I have a brother
in San Francisco who is a defense lawyer. Is it anything like that?
At a recent press conference, Bush was asked what he planned to do about
"defence." Dubya replied that he planned to paint de fence white to
match the rest of the White House. Do defence lawyers have anything to
do with politics or government? Or fences, maybe?
Don't you wish now that you'd spelled it right, gumdrop?
Regards,
Guy with less respect for lawyers than he has for pimps, prostitutes,
and politicians.
***********************************************
("...Well, if the law says that, sir, then the law is an ass..." Mr.
Bumble in Dicken's Oliver Twist.)
Steven J. Weller
com...@webtv.net (Tom McDonough) writes:
> Felicia writes:
> >I was defence lawyer in Young Offender
> >court for several years. Felicia
>
> Hi Felicia,
> Pardon my ignorance, but what is a "defence lawyer." I have a brother
> in San Francisco who is a defense lawyer. Is it anything like that?
Yes, Tom. It's very much like that, only British. If memory serves,
'defence' is the British spelling for 'defense.'
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven
Michael Dines
> In article <19038-3B...@storefull-112.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
> com...@webtv.net (Tom McDonough) writes:
>
> > Felicia writes:
> > >I was defence lawyer in Young Offender
> > >court for several years. Felicia
> >
> > Hi Felicia,
> > Pardon my ignorance, but what is a "defence lawyer." I have a brother
> > in San Francisco who is a defense lawyer. Is it anything like that?
>
> Yes, Tom. It's very much like that, only British. If memory serves,
> 'defence' is the British spelling for 'defense.'
>
We prefer to think that 'defense' is the American spelling for
'defence'.
Tom McDonough
>Yes, Tom. It's very much like that, only
>British. If memory serves, 'defence' is the
>British spelling for 'defense.'
>--
>Life Continues, Despite
>Evidence to the Contrary
>Steven
Your memory serves you well, Steven. You are correct. The second time
this week that my dog eared, heavily annotated American Heritage has led
me astray. The other was its spelling of the name of a famous British
painter -- one James Whistler.
One more embarrassment of this type and it's the trash can for the
American Heritage. Sad, but even the best of friends must eventually
part.
Regards,
Should use a Merriam-Webster
("...Not guilty, your honor. All I did was ask the lady if she'd mind
if I knocked her up at seven the next morning...")
Kel
"Michael Dines" <michaeldines@NO_SPICED_HAMcableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1f076a1.75u...@usr3358-kno.cableinet.co.uk...
There is no such language as American. You speak English. You just spell it
badly.
But hey, that's okay.
Michael Dines
We'd like to spell it like you do, but the queen won't let us - and as
it's _her_ English ...
spam]@world.std.com Blair P. Houghton
>We prefer to think that 'defense' is the American spelling for
>'defence'.
Given the Latin and French spellings, we prefer to think
of that as Ironic.
--Blair
"But that's how that works."
Geoff Alexander
news:22460-3B...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
> >Yes, Tom. It's very much like that, only
> >British. If memory serves, 'defence' is the
> >British spelling for 'defense.'
> >--
> >Life Continues, Despite
> >Evidence to the Contrary
> >Steven
>
> Your memory serves you well, Steven. You are correct. The second time
> this week that my dog eared, heavily annotated American Heritage has led
> me astray. The other was its spelling of the name of a famous British
> painter -- one James Whistler.
>
Either this is an incredibly complex and artfully constructed joke, or you're
unaware that Whistler was an American. Or, maybe I've been led astray
by my American Heritage.
Paula
<geeal...@aol.com> wrote:
>"Tom McDonough" <com...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:22460-3B...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>> Your memory serves you well, Steven. You are correct. The second time
>> this week that my dog eared, heavily annotated American Heritage has led
>> me astray. The other was its spelling of the name of a famous British
>> painter -- one James Whistler.
>>
>
>
>Either this is an incredibly complex and artfully constructed joke, or you're
>unaware that Whistler was an American. Or, maybe I've been led astray
>by my American Heritage.
>
>Geoff
None of us should be led astray by our American Heritage.
Whistler (my favorite painter) was, in fact, born in America, but he
left as soon as he could, and he never returned. Even though he was
born in Lowell, Massachusetts, studied in Paris and spent time in
Italy, he lived primarily in London. The art historians have deemed
him a "British artist" and one of the premiere exponents of the
British School. Of course Whistler would never want to be affiliated
with ANYONE. Other than himself, of course.
Paula (proud owner of The Yellow Book)
Tom McDonough
>Either this is an incredibly complex and
>artfully constructed joke, or you're
>unaware that Whistler was an American.
>Or, maybe I've been led astray by my
>American Heritage.
>Geoff
Paula replies:
>None of us should be led astray by our
>American Heritage.
>Whistler (my favorite painter) was, in fact,
>born in America, but he left as soon as he
>could, and he never returned. Even
>though he was born in Lowell,
>Massachusetts, studied in Paris and spent
>time in Italy, he lived primarily in London.
>The art historians have deemed him a
>"British artist" and one of the premiere
>exponents of the British School. Of course
>Whistler would never want to be affiliated
>with ANYONE. Other than himself, of
>course.
>Paula (proud owner of The Yellow Book)
Well now, Geoff, my cocky, smug epicurean and connoisseur of all things
artistic, I note that Paula the pistol, a/k/a the Dallas dynamo, has
knocked you flat on your intellect with her brief bio of Whistler.
Allow me to give you a couple of good clouts while you're down: (1) Is
Whistler's contemporary Oscar Wilde more properly referred to as an
Engish or an Irish playwright? Before you answer, remember the nature
of government and social mores in England and Ireland during the period
in which he wrote. (2) A real tough one for you. It's common
knowledge that Wilde was a homosexual, but what is the name -- single
word-- of the unusual sexual practice through which he received his
gratification? In deference to the ladies of the group as well as
devout Baptists Skip Press and Joe Myers, no wordy description please.
The four syllable word alone will do the job nicely. No point in
arousing group members who have alternate sexual preferences.
In closing, let me add that you, sir, are a cockalorum. What do you
mean you don't know what that word means? You goose, look it up in your
American Heritage.....
(Only funnin ya, Geoff. What is it the kids say: "Don't have a spas --
spaz???")
Regards,
Frank Harris
Paula
McDonough) wrote:
> A real tough one for you. It's common
>knowledge that Wilde was a homosexual, but what is the name -- single
>word-- of the unusual sexual practice through which he received his
>gratification?
Well, according to the Marquis of Queenberry he was a "somdomite" - so
perhaps he practiced something exotic like "somdomy" (not enough
syllables, but it's got an extra consonant, so it's close enough).
>In closing, let me add that you, sir, are a cockalorum. What do you
>mean you don't know what that word means? You goose, look it up in your
>American Heritage.....
And Whistler was a "coxcomb" according to the art critic Ruskin, the
senile husband of the child bride. Ah, to be back in the days when an
egomaniacal artist could sue a sputtering critic for calling him a
"coxcomb". And WIN. ...Sort of.
>Only funnin ya, Geoff.
I dare say Geoff knows more about Oscar Wilde than most.
>Regards,
>Frank Harris
And did Frank Harris EVER tell the truth?
And how did this end up under a Gary Pollard thread? Hi, Gary!
Paula
Tom McDonough
>Well, according to the Marquis of
>Queenberry he was a "somdomite" - so
>perhaps he practiced something exotic
>like "somdomy" (not enough
>syllables, but it's got an extra consonant,
>so it's close enough).
I'm positively shocked to read the above. Thank heavens that I'm far
too much of a gentleman to discuss such a delicate subject with a lady
of your tender sensitivities, especially when I spy the first spelling
error that I've ever seen you make. (It's "Queensberry", love, not
"Queenberry.) In any event, the Marquis, was incorrect in calling Wilde
a somdomite and you remain one helluva good writer. So witty. So
clever.
As a consolation, if you know anything about bizarre sexual practices of
the rich and famous or any spicy anecdotes about nymphomaniacs of the
past or present, fact or fiction, living or dead, then you most
assuredly have my ear -- both of them if necessary. If you think that
this might be a little shocking for some members of the group, you may
e-mail me privately. Just don't omit any of those delicious little
details described at great length in your inimitable style.
Regards,
Lecherous Mick
(Hey, little Miss, two of Joyce's favorite words in Ulysses were
"coxcomb" and "codpiece." You know the definition of "coxcomb", but I
defy you to define "codpiece" in a post to the group. Define it in
simple terms and not in those boring dictionary definitions. Dare you
attempt such a formidable linguistic labor, or are you doomed forever to
be just another gifted, liberated lady who enjoys a snappy Harlequin
romance in the evening along with her peppermint tea and Fanny Farmer
chocolates, and who would never, ever, write anything that might rattle
the literary status quo.)
Steven J. Weller
> (Hey, little Miss, two of Joyce's favorite words in Ulysses were
> "coxcomb" and "codpiece." You know the definition of "coxcomb", but I
> defy you to define "codpiece" in a post to the group. Define it in
> simple terms and not in those boring dictionary definitions. Dare you
> attempt such a formidable linguistic labor, or are you doomed forever to
> be just another gifted, liberated lady who enjoys a snappy Harlequin
> romance in the evening along with her peppermint tea and Fanny Farmer
> chocolates, and who would never, ever, write anything that might rattle
> the literary status quo.)
Can anybody play?
**********
SPOILER
**********
A codpiece is basically a medeivel crotch-pouch; sort of an
externally-worn jock strap that emphasizes the male member in tights.
Often made in a contrasting color to the tights, they became more and
more exagerated (in size and, ahem... protrusion) over the years, until
they finally became an object of scorn and ridicule. I remember one
writer who spoke humorously of a nobleman's codpiece, requiring several
bolts of cloth and iron braces, etc.
The sporin (the furry sack that hangs at crotch level outside of a
kilt*) is related, and the modern equivalent is probably the speedo.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven
*What does a Scotsman wear under his kilt?
"Your wife's lipstick, laddie..."
Tom McDonough
It's not for nothing that they call Weller the font of useless
knowledge. I don't think Joyce himself could have penned a better
description. A nobleman's codpiece that required several bolts of cloth
and some iron!! Wow, man, that's -- what I mean is that's--that's ---.
Forget it.... What a tragedy that the codpiece, like the detachable
collar, knickers, and the straw hat, is gone forever from the
male wardrobe..... (Several bolts of cloth and some iron, you say?
Damn Sam!!!)
Regards,
Envious of 16th century nobleman
(I think I'll have my tailor make me a codpiece which is green, white,
and orange on one side, and red, white, and blue on the other. If he
tells me that my codpiece will require an inch less than two bolts of
cloth, I shall strangle him to death with his own measuring tape.)
slbarger
saying;
"Why, what a ruthless thing is this in him, for the rebellion of a codpiece
to take away the life of
a man!" (Measure for Measure).
For more interesting quips, made to order, visit:
http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/shake_rule.html
derek hall
> Forget it.... What a tragedy that the codpiece, like the detachable
> collar, knickers, and the straw hat, is gone forever from the
> male wardrobe.....
Hey, speak for yourself, buddy. Just because your wardrobe has
degenerated into an unsightly collection of baseball caps, baggy
skateboard shorts, brightly patterned boxers and the odd cummerbund,
doesn't mean the rest of us have abandoned style and the capacity to
dress for any occasion when called upon. I can think of recent
circumstances when a straw hat and codpiece were de rigeur, and as for
the knicker collection - well, name a starlet and I'll let you borrow a
pair of hers for the weekend.
Listen, McDonough, you're a man of the world. Perhaps. So you must
realise that nothing strikes a greater blow to one's confidence than
being seen in the company of admirers while stacked with the wrong
attire, be it on the beach or in the bordello, but if you are adequately
self-assured in your favourite rags you can easily make all around you
feel like they are the ones dressed bad. It goes without saying that
such habits will have more than just a few young things flashing their
breasts and imposing on the calm of your bedroom, so while you always
look pukka, there's the added risk of a hefty dose of the clap now and
then. Always blame this on someone else as soon as possible, and I would
recommend visiting as many doctors as you can in a week and giving each
of them the name of at least three women whose acquaintance you no
longer require or who owe you cash.
It should be obvious that when you do this you won't be taken seriously
if you slouch into the physician's consulting chambers with fluorescent
shorts paraded high above the waistband of your skateboard kit and your
pierced nipples catching on the potplants. Personally, I feel the
codpiece is about to make a huge comeback, although I think the frilled
collar should still be reserved for evening wear. Beaches, on the other
hand, demand full nudity, something the more backward amongst us are
slow to realize.
Have a good weekend and for heaven's sake man, dress up.
Yours sincerely,
Jack Flash
Well-heeled and polished
> (I think I'll have my tailor make me a codpiece which is green, white,
> and orange on one side, and red, white, and blue on the other. If he
> tells me that my codpiece will require an inch less than two bolts of
> cloth, I shall strangle him to death with his own measuring tape.)
There you go, that's the spirit.
D C Harris
----------
In article <24273-3BA...@storefull-116.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
com...@webtv.net (Tom McDonough) wrote:
> Well now, Geoff, my cocky, smug epicurean and connoisseur of all things
> artistic, I note that Paula the pistol, a/k/a the Dallas dynamo, has
> knocked you flat on your intellect with her brief bio of Whistler.
> Allow me to give you a couple of good clouts while you're down:
Master of rhetoric Tom, but how can a piece of boring web trash be
'epicurean?' I just looked epicurean it up in a dictionary - it took me an
hour to find it but it was worth it. At the start of what could be an
early burgeoning multiplicity of similes, you generous description
could be likened to calling a dog turd fragrant. Heard the one about
a guy who had a clever dog? It was named Fido initially, but the crafty
canine was so clever its owner renamed him 'Teacher.' Then the crafty canine
became even more creative, so its name was changed to 'Headmaster'
at which point it sat down and never did a damn thing. I am sure verbal
designation changes the nature of a human. Anyone ever met a nasty girl
called Jennifer? Maybe calling Web Trash 'epicurean' is a typical stroke
of genius in your part, part of your plan to make a dull world brighter.
> A real tough one for you. It's common
> knowledge that Wilde was a homosexual, but what is the name -- single
> word-- of the unusual sexual practice through which he received his
> gratification?
Must have been bisexual, lovely wife and two kids. Fancy him being
a bugger!
Joe Myers
[snips]
> I just looked epicurean it up in a dictionary - it took me an
> hour to find it but it was worth it.
An hour? Here's a time-saving tip for you, Dreck. The words in a
dictionary are in *alphabetical* order! You remember your alphabet song,
don't you?
Joe Myers
"Next, we'll learn *colors*!
Steven J. Weller
com...@webtv.net (Tom McDonough) writes:
> It's not for nothing that they call Weller the font of useless
> knowledge.
Thank God for usenet! Finally, a place where this ridiculous backlog
of nonense has some value. Prior to going online, I was just annoying.
--
Cliff Claven, in
Norm Peterson's Body
Steven
ps - Suzy..."farm woman panties?"
Tom McDonough
>Not to even mention corsets, binders, and
>farm woman panties.
>Suzy (go ahead and fantasize)
"Farm woman panties"?? Wow!!! Oh Suzy, do tell us more.
Regards,
Curious clergyman
(Jesus, a thread that starts out as a bit of a tribute to Gary Pollard
is corrupted into a discussion of codpieces and unusual ladies'
undergarments. Only in MWS.)
Joe Myers
>
> "Farm woman panties"?? Wow!!! Oh Suzy, do tell us more.
>
> Regards,
> Curious clergyman
>
> (Jesus, a thread that starts out as a bit of a tribute to Gary Pollard
> is corrupted into a discussion of codpieces and unusual ladies'
> undergarments. Only in MWS.)
I dunno. I don't think the image of Pollard in unusual ladies'
undergarments is much of a stretch.
Joe Myers
"In fact, I'd bet there
roominess in the crotch."
Michael Dines
> Personally, I feel the
> codpiece is about to make a huge comeback,
A bit pointless if it only made a tiny comeback, of course.
D C Harris
----------
In article <9orbpp$2on$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, "Joe Myers"
<very...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "D C Harris" <brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> [snips]
>
>> I just looked epicurean it up in a dictionary - it took me an
>> hour to find it but it was worth it.
>
> An hour? Here's a time-saving tip for you, Dreck. The words in a
> dictionary are in *alphabetical* order! You remember your alphabet song,
> don't you?
Oh, you went to a school for retards eh?
Michael Dines
> Michael Dines <michaeldines@NO_SPICED_HAMcableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> >We prefer to think that 'defense' is the American spelling for
> >'defence'.
>
> Given the Latin and French spellings, we prefer to think
> of that as Ironic.
>
Yes, but we went to war with Rome and France for the right to spell
defence with a 'c' (and drive on the left, have splittable infinitives,
put the adjective in front of the noun, make films that nobdy wants to
watch even though they haven't got subtitles) ... and that's what makes
Britons grate.