This is what Bob Sloan wants to see more of
Bill Oliver
A young Marine and his cover man cautiously enter a room just recently
filled with insurgents armed with Ak-47's and RPG's. There are three
dead, another wailing in pain. The insurgent can be heard saying,
"Mister, mister! Diktoor, diktoor(doctor)!" He is badly wounded, lying
in a pool of his own blood. The Marine and his cover man slowly walk
toward the injured man, scanning to make sure no enemies come from
behind. In a split second, the pressure in the room greatly exceeds
that of the outside, and the concussion seems to be felt before the
blast is heard. Marines outside rush to the room, and look in horror as
the dust gradually settles. The result is a room filled with the barely
recognizable remains of the deceased, caused by an insurgent setting
off several pounds of explosives.
The Marines' remains are gathered by teary eyed comrades, brothers in
arms, and shipped home in a box. The families can only mourn over a
casket and a picture of their loved one, a life cut short by someone
who hid behind a white flag.
But no one hears these stories, except those who have lived to carry
remains of a friend, and the families who loved the dead. No one hears
this, so no one cares.
From "A Marine Writes Home"
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008650.php
billo
Dr Zen
wrote:
So shoot them all just in case.
Especially the kids. Because they might be blowing up the marines who
have absolutely no fucking business being there in the first place in
a dozen years or so.
Zen
Bob (this one)
...partisan, vile, malicious, pig-shit vituperation. Standard MO for
him. Ugly, self-satisfied arrogance bordering on the psychopathic.
Disgusting display of specimen-quality mean-spiritedness capsuling all
the venomous hatred he so, so often spews. For his Jesus... and his
Spirit that tells him how to function in the company of civilized
people and for his eternal soul.
Caterwailing fraud, preening and strutting like some demented Miss
America tossing figurative curls and scorning, demeaning. Zero-sum
philistine. Falsity personified. Outright liar, hater, obsessive reviler.
And that's the *good* news about him...
Pastorio
William Penrose
wrote:
>The Marines' remains are gathered by teary eyed comrades, brothers in
>arms, and shipped home in a box.
Clearly, the point of posting this is that someone is to blame. Let's
list the possibilities:
1. The marine, who walked into the room without taking proper
precautions, having slept through boobytrap class.
2. The insurgent, who was wounded and wanted to strike one more blow
for Allah before dying.
3. The insurgent's comrades, who wired him with the explosives.
4. Right-wing Islamic cult leaders, who exhorted the guerrillas to
defend their nation.
5. A right-wing Christian cult leader, who sent the troops into
somebody's country for no discernable purpose, and lied in order to do
it.
6. The Marine Corps, which did not train the marine properly.
7. God.
8. Liberals.
The answer, of course, is 8. Was that the point?
Bill Penrose
Ejucaided Redneck
ignoring whatever training he may have received, but it ain't worth
repeating.
I do like it when a wingnut figuratively foams at the mouth as you do in
the title of this thread, as the mental midget Haddad did when he
accused me of spitting on veterans (after his spectacularly unbelievable
tale unfolded), as the paranoid whack-a-doo Lutz did when he accused me
of advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
I'm real busy here, and nearly every day nearly decide the thing to do
is lay off Usenet for a while, that the couple hours a day spent reading
and replying mostly to fuckwits isn't worth it.
But threads like this keep me coming back.
--
Like peasants everywhere in the history
of the world ours can't figure out why
they're getting poorer. Their sons join
the army to get work being shot at.
-- Jim Harrison ("Easter Morning")
--
http://www.bobsloansampler.com:
Fiction, poetry, essays, MP3s, radio & TV interviews
Chapter 1 of "Home Call," a novel released July 1st 2004
3 Stories from "Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories From Appalachia,"
& two new stories
And new photos
Latest Herald-Leader Column: http://tinyurl.com/4js3z
fundoc
"Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:10ppiqg...@corp.supernews.com...
> ...partisan, vile, malicious, pig-shit vituperation. Standard MO for
> him. Ugly, self-satisfied arrogance bordering on the psychopathic.
>
> Disgusting display of specimen-quality mean-spiritedness capsuling all
> the venomous hatred he so, so often spews. For his Jesus... and his
> Spirit that tells him how to function in the company of civilized
> people and for his eternal soul.
>
> Caterwailing fraud, preening and strutting like some demented Miss
> America tossing figurative curls and scorning, demeaning. Zero-sum
> philistine. Falsity personified. Outright liar, hater, obsessive reviler.
>
> And that's the *good* news about him...
>
> Pastorio
In the interest of raising the level of intellectual discourse in this alleged
writing droup, I offer the following syntactical observation:
"Pig-shit," "psychopathic," "venomous," "hatred," "spew," and "philistine" are
all interesting and exciting words; and in the hands of even the most
simpleminded typist can sometimes result in lively prose. And yet in the hands
of an incredibly dreary and awful fuckhead like Pastorio, those same words
result in: nothing. In order to open a Pastorio post in the hope of finding
eloquence one must be as optimist as a parent who diapers a toddler with canvas
in the hope that it may shit a Vermeer.
Ejucaided Redneck
Ejucaided Redneck wrote:
>
> Bill Oliver wrote a half-assed fictionalized description of a Marine ignoring whatever training he may have received, but it _still_ ain't worth repeating.
Ps: Does this mean you won't be buying a lot of my books to distribute
at Xmas gifts?
--
If he was to preach today
like he preached in Galilee,
they would lay Jesus Christ
in his grave all over again.
-- Woody Guthrie, speaking
of the conservatives" of his day
William Penrose
<rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I'm real busy here, and nearly every day nearly decide the thing to do
>is lay off Usenet for a while, that the couple hours a day spent reading
>and replying mostly to fuckwits isn't worth it.
>
>But threads like this keep me coming back.
Me, too. It's like a sickness, isn't it? I don't feel much better
afterward. The idiots are still in charge of the asylum. And nothing
said on an obscure newsgroup means a crap to anyone.
Bill Penrose
Wendy Chatley Green
<rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
:Bill Oliver wrote a half-assed fictionalized description of a Marine
:ignoring whatever training he may have received, but it ain't worth
:repeating.
You missed the attribution; it was at the bottom of billo's
post:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008650.php
You'll welcome to think it "half-assed" and "fictionalized",
but at least aim your thoughts at the piece's author.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@INVALID.lycos.com
Ray Haddad
and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>I do like it when a wingnut figuratively foams at the mouth as you do in
>the title of this thread, as the mental midget Haddad did when he
>accused me of spitting on veterans (after his spectacularly unbelievable
>tale unfolded), as the paranoid whack-a-doo Lutz did when he accused me
>of advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
Well, Bob, I wrote to you and told you something in e-mail that you
later used here on MW. That tidbit was never, ever posted here so
you can deny it all you want, baby, but you are a liar.
I don't really trouble my self with such matters these days but you
made an honest request, or so I thought, back then and I gave you a
first hand accounting.
Perhaps it was too much for me to believe that a left leaning
journalist would have integrity but somehow I actually thought you
might remember it after you asked me for the account. I shouldn't be
surprised that a liberal columnist in Kentucky would lie.
That's what led me to believe two things about you, Bob. You're a
liar and a coward. Most honest people accused thus on a newsgroup
forum would be screaming libel at this point instead of gloating
over my sudden silence. But not you. You are just too ignorant for
words. It must be going through your mind now. Did he save those
messages I wrote to him? Did he save the ones he sent me? Did I
really write something here that was only in the e-mail and never
made public before? Can he sue me for libel?
Don't worry, Bob. I'm not the lawsuit kind of guy. The fact is that
no matter how much you bluster or how much you moan, you and I know
the real story. All of your denials here mean nothing in the grand
scheme of life. I know and you know. What an awful thing for you to
have to do, Bob. You have to deny the truth here just to save some
sort of imagined "USENET face" in front of people who you will
probably never meet. What an odd dilemma you find yourself in, too.
If you remain silent, will I gloat like you do? Will I constantly
remind others of your lies and dishonesty?
This is why I believe that your original request for proof of GIs
who were badly received actually becomes a salve for your actions.
You must have been one of those GI hating people who spat on
returning soldiers. Does it make you sleep better knowing that no
one captured you on film?
Ray
Bob (this one)
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:58:03 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>
>
>>I do like it when a wingnut figuratively foams at the mouth as you do in
>>the title of this thread, as the mental midget Haddad did when he
>>accused me of spitting on veterans (after his spectacularly unbelievable
>>tale unfolded), as the paranoid whack-a-doo Lutz did when he accused me
>>of advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
>
Many lines of the usual Haddad Horseshit hosed, and the most
astonishing continuation yet....
> You must have been one of those GI hating people who spat on
> returning soldiers. Does it make you sleep better knowing that no
> one captured you on film?
Haddad the fuckwit of cosmic vacuity seems to have forgotten that Bob
was one of those returning military people. Speculative innuendo
purely for the sake of trying to inflict bullshit hatred because of
having been shown to be the stalwart asshole he is.
Pastorio
ing
>
> You missed the attribution; it was at the bottom of billo's
> post:
>
> http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008650.php
>
> You'll welcome to think it "half-assed" and "fictionalized",
> but at least aim your thoughts at the piece's author.
>
I'd *assume* that since Billo posted that
diatribe, it's HIS (Billo's) view as well.
(else-wise why post it?) ... so, if ER understood
the post the same as I did, he's (ER), perfectly
within his rights to aim his thoughts toward the
poster of those "halfassed", "fictionialized"
views, whom-so-ever's they are. IMO of course and
with all the approptriate genuflections to the
self-appointed pendantic woman of MW.
Sheesh, Wendy. Get familiar with a little honesty
within your reading-self, already. Is there any
genuine right-winger on this group that doesn't
fuck up occasionally?
ing
fundoc
"Ejucaided Redneck" <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:419CE2AB...@mindspring.com...
> I'm real busy here, and nearly every day nearly decide the thing to do
> is lay off Usenet for a while, that the couple hours a day spent reading
> and replying mostly to fuckwits isn't worth it.
>
> But threads like this keep me coming back.
Pull the other one Jethro. You're can barely take a shit without posting a
notice of it here --
"Golly bubba, I'm so excited: I got me an article published in an ezine and had
to tell a bunch of strangers about it."
"Goshdurnit, I'll be on farm report out of Pixley from 9:01 to 9:05; y'all tune
in to the wireless box."
"Well I jes come back from the outhouse war I bin reading me a book by this
queer fella David Brock, woo doggy, it's a humdinger."
-- as an excuse to spam your stupid self-published homoerotic Barney Fife fan
fiction:
http://www.peckerwoodsampler.com:
Fiction, non-fiction, poetry, essays, articles, librettos, screenplays, term
papers, editing, proofreading, typing, MP3s, MPEGS, AVIs, TXT files, radio,
newspaper & TV interviews, astronauting, doctoring, hogs slaughtered, gutters
cleaned, septic tanks pumped, leaves raked, lawns mowed, shit shoveled, ditches
dug, hell for half a cord of hardwood you can fuck me in the ass. Also, chapter
1 of "Hog Heaven," an book I durned near wrote some of. Plus 3 stories from
"Green Acres and Blue Balls: Stories from the Lexington Bus Station"; photos
available. Also subscriptions to the Herald-Leader w/free delivery.
http://tinyurl.com/4js3z
Pathetic fucking goober. You're not fooling anybody.
Wendy Chatley Green
:Wendy Chatley Green wrote:
:
:>
:> You missed the attribution; it was at the bottom of billo's
:> post:
:>
:> http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008650.php
:>
:> You'll welcome to think it "half-assed" and "fictionalized",
:> but at least aim your thoughts at the piece's author.
:>
:
:I'd *assume* that since Billo posted that
:diatribe, it's HIS (Billo's) view as well.
:(else-wise why post it?) ... so, if ER understood
:the post the same as I did, he's (ER), perfectly
:within his rights to aim his thoughts toward the
:poster of those "halfassed", "fictionialized"
:views, whom-so-ever's they are. IMO of course and
:with all the approptriate genuflections to the
:self-appointed pendantic woman of MW.
I like correct attributions. I also like authors to get the
credit (and the brickbats) that their work deserves.
Billo may agree with the sentiments expressed, but he did not
write that piece; someone else did.
:
:Sheesh, Wendy. Get familiar with a little honesty
:within your reading-self, already. Is there any
:genuine right-winger on this group that doesn't
:fuck up occasionally?
The mistake was Bob's. When did he become a "right-winger"?
Ray Haddad
and "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> instead replied:
Nah. I didn't forget. He already claimed to instantly go left wing
upon his return. This probably explains his support of that traitor,
Kerry.
Coming from you, the master of 2 inch pork chops, the assessment of
my posts is notably one sided and, as always, incorrect. But then,
Bob, you have been known to pick a fight with me for the sake of
making yourself look stupid and then disappearing for days.
Welcome back, oh pig cooker. How's that recipe show going?
Ray
Ejucaided Redneck
> Most honest people accused thus on a newsgroupforum would be screaming
> are just too ignorant for words. It must be going through your mind now. Did he
> save those messages I wrote to him? Did he save the ones he sent me? Did I
> really write something here that was only in the e-mail and never
> made public before? Can he sue me for libel?
Sue away, fuckwit.
The reason nobody gives a shit about your claims is they're bogus,
transparently so.
> Don't worry, Bob. I'm not the lawsuit kind of guy.
I really think you _should_ sue me, Haddad, for calling you a
transparent liar whose falsehoods wouldn't pass muster at the Legion on
a real _drunk_ night.. Really: sue and sue and sue.
> This is why I believe that your original request for proof of GIs
> who were badly received actually becomes a salve for your actions.
> You must have been one of those GI hating people who spat on
> returning soldiers. Does it make you sleep better knowing that no
> one captured you on film?
I sleep fine, Haddad, and I think it's hilarious that you claim a
professional photographer or videographer holding a camera saw it happen
to _you_ and didn't care enough about their job to turn the fucking
thing _on_.
Towse
> Ray Haddad wrote:
>> You must have been one of those GI hating people who spat on
>> returning soldiers. Does it make you sleep better knowing that no
>> one captured you on film?
>
> Haddad the fuckwit of cosmic vacuity seems to have forgotten that Bob
> was one of those returning military people. Speculative innuendo purely
> for the sake of trying to inflict bullshit hatred because of having been
> shown to be the stalwart asshole he is.
My vet brother in his hippie day, in the early seventies up in the Santa
Cruz Mountains, was in the grocery store one day in his raggedy old Navy
issue jacket, beard, hair down past his shoulders.
A pompous stout said to him, "Do you know how many people have died to
give the likes of you the right to wear that jacket?"
He answered, "This jacket? No one died. The Navy gave this jacket to me
new."
The guy shut up.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>
Dr Zen
Be fair. I think for his first go at a love letter it showed a lot of
promise.
Zen
Dr Zen
Well, not everybody all the time. Presumably the editor of the local
paper is wondering who the whining prick who writes that boring column
is.
Zen
ing
<.....>
> Well, Bob, I wrote to you and told you something in e-mail that you
> later used here on MW.
So, what was it? What did he use here in m.w.
that *wasn't* posted in your post to m.w.?????
What the hell was it that he said HERE that was so
secret, only between you and him??? Ain't no
secret -- waht the hell was it?
> That tidbit was never, ever posted here so
> you can deny it all you want, baby, but you are a liar.
Prove it. What was the *tidbit* he used here in
MW, that was never *ever* posted here by you, but
was only contained in your secretive e-mail to
him? the part that makes your point credible?
What WAS it? If he posted it, we already know the
details -- so there's no point now in holding the
info back. What WAS it, so we can all go back and
check against the posts?
>
> I don't really trouble my self with such matters these days
Really. I guess that's why you're spinnin your
wheels so fast, this sec, no doubt.
> but you
> made an honest request, or so I thought, back then and I gave you a
> first hand accounting.
>
> Perhaps it was too much for me to believe that a left leaning
> journalist would have integrity
Gawd, you're SO generous. Like you could even
attempt to BE a journalist - leftwing or right -
even in your dreams.
> but somehow I actually thought you
> might remember it after you asked me for the account. I shouldn't be
> surprised that a liberal columnist in Kentucky would lie.
What a fucking arrogant asshole you are.
>
> That's what led me to believe two things about you, Bob. You're a
> liar and a coward.
Post the e-mail you sent him. It wasn't that long
ago, surely!
> Most honest people accused thus on a newsgroup
> forum would be screaming libel at this point instead of gloating
> over my sudden silence. But not you.
That's because he's not a fool and he's not lying.
He's gloating over your sudden silence because you
DON'T have the goods to back up your point. If he
e-mailed you -- post the goddam e-mail or mail it
to Gekko or Stan or Hope (or somebody you trust)
and let them decide if it's legit or not. The fact
is you don't have the e-mail because there WASN'T
one.
> You are just too ignorant for
> words. It must be going through your mind now. Did he save those
> messages I wrote to him? Did he save the ones he sent me? Did I
> really write something here that was only in the e-mail and never
> made public before? Can he sue me for libel?
Oh Gawd. You are just *too* pathetic.
>
> Don't worry, Bob. I'm not the lawsuit kind of guy.
i.e. Ray means by this: "I have no proof".
> The fact is that
> no matter how much you bluster or how much you moan, you and I know
> the real story.
So do some of the rest of us. 'Cause we've watched
YOU in action over the last couple of years. We're
nodding and grinning, watching you try to spin
this one. You, Ray, couldn't admit you were wrong
if your life depended on it. You'd die first.
that's how stupid you are. If you got the e-mail
you sent to ER, post it here (I'm sure he'll give
your permission) -- show it to us, tell us what he
said that you said to him in that e-mail, that he
posted here -- find it -- or else just the shut
the fuck up and admit, you were wrong in your
attack on him. Let your God (the one of your
choice of course), and the Republican party (same
thing) lead you in the right direction.
Post the e-mail you sent him, Ray. I challenge you
to do it.
<snipped the rest of Ray's pathetic scrambling,
and ultimate failure, to claim some teensy bit of
dignity in this whole gigantic joke>
ing
gekko
days, except that upon that day, ing <ing.b...@sympatico.ca>
wrote in news:nhdnd.29878$rc.17...@news20.bellglobal.com:
Reminds me of me innit.
--
gekko
Type fast, think slow. -- From "A Hacker's Oath"
ing
> For some inexplicable reasons, ing <ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> :Wendy Chatley Green wrote:
> :
> :>
> :> You missed the attribution; it was at the bottom of billo's
> :> post:
> :>
> :> http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008650.php
> :>
> :> You'll welcome to think it "half-assed" and "fictionalized",
> :> but at least aim your thoughts at the piece's author.
> :>
> :
> :I'd *assume* that since Billo posted that
> :diatribe, it's HIS (Billo's) view as well.
> :(else-wise why post it?) ... so, if ER understood
> :the post the same as I did, he's (ER), perfectly
> :within his rights to aim his thoughts toward the
> :poster of those "halfassed", "fictionialized"
> :views, whom-so-ever's they are. IMO of course and
> :with all the approptriate genuflections to the
> :self-appointed pendantic woman of MW.
>
> I like correct attributions. I also like authors to get the
> credit (and the brickbats) that their work deserves.
>
> Billo may agree with the sentiments expressed, but he did not
> write that piece; someone else did.
I actually don't know what's or who's a
"right-winger" or a "left-winger" anymore, Wendy
... nor do I give a shit, truth to tell. I was
taking my clue from the header, supposedly chosen
and written by Billo. It says "This is what Bob
Sloan wants to see more of".
In deliberately using this header, Billo, it seems
to me, (please do correct me if you think I'm
wrong), is trying to make a point *in this venue*,
using someone else's writing, and trying to
connect (or knock) views held by Sloan. Could I be
forgiven for thinking this? Yes or no. Simple
question.
> :Sheesh, Wendy. Get familiar with a little honesty
> :within your reading-self, already. Is there any
> :genuine right-winger on this group that doesn't
> :fuck up occasionally?
>
> The mistake was Bob's. When did he become a "right-winger"?
I personally am not aware of Bob's political
inclincations, other than what I read here. Never
personally met the man.
In addition, IMO, Bob, in his response, did not
fuck up. He responded as he saw fit - honestly and
openly, according to what was communicated to him
and the rest of us readers. He took what Billo
posted, (even though the quote was written by
someone else) as Billo's POV, in trying to make
Billo's point. How could ER not do that -- the
header of this thread says it all. The header even
contains ER's real name. Ya understand? That's
where I'm coming from ducks - just trying to
follow the dots, is all.
Then I get to thinking. Holy Jesus H. Christ.
I'd hate to be living in the Statest these days.
Seens to me you Yanks are so fucking protective
and on edge -- scared to friggin death, it seems
to me, of anybody saying (or even slightly
implying or imputing) anything negative or, Christ
knows, even questioning, about your political
situation. I don't understand why you're so
goddam wary. What are you so damn sensitive about????
I mean, holy shit. Your guy won, Wendy. Hooray for
you. You should be happy. You got four more years
with him to prove everybody else wrong. If you're
so confident in all this -- what's the problem?
Tell the rest of us who tend to question your
choices, to fuck off and give us the Bronx cheer,
you and you're guy earned the right to do that --
and we'll talk to you again -- in a couple of
years - we'll see how you're farin' then and maybe
pick up the conversation from a different
viewpoint. 'K?
Meantime, have a happy Thanksgiving -- all best to
you and yers and hope your fruit cake is as good
as folks round here say it is. Fact is, the world
WILL fucking survive, no matter what.
ing
Bob (this one)
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:50:18 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> instead replied:
>
>
>>Ray Haddad wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:58:03 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I do like it when a wingnut figuratively foams at the mouth as you do in
>>>>the title of this thread, as the mental midget Haddad did when he
>>>>accused me of spitting on veterans (after his spectacularly unbelievable
>>>>tale unfolded), as the paranoid whack-a-doo Lutz did when he accused me
>>>>of advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
>>
>>Many lines of the usual Haddad Horseshit hosed, and the most
>>astonishing continuation yet....
>>
>>>You must have been one of those GI hating people who spat on
>>>returning soldiers. Does it make you sleep better knowing that no
>>>one captured you on film?
>>
>>Haddad the fuckwit of cosmic vacuity seems to have forgotten that Bob
>>was one of those returning military people. Speculative innuendo
>>purely for the sake of trying to inflict bullshit hatred because of
>>having been shown to be the stalwart asshole he is.
>
>
> Nah. I didn't forget.
<LOL> So you have *no* excuse. Great job...
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
> "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:10ppiqg...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>...partisan, vile, malicious, pig-shit vituperation. Standard MO for
>>him. Ugly, self-satisfied arrogance bordering on the psychopathic.
>>
>>Disgusting display of specimen-quality mean-spiritedness capsuling all
>>the venomous hatred he so, so often spews. For his Jesus... and his
>>Spirit that tells him how to function in the company of civilized
>>people and for his eternal soul.
>>
>>Caterwailing fraud, preening and strutting like some demented Miss
>>America tossing figurative curls and scorning, demeaning. Zero-sum
>>philistine. Falsity personified. Outright liar, hater, obsessive reviler.
>>
>>And that's the *good* news about him...
>>
>>Pastorio
>
> In the interest of raising the level of intellectual discourse in this alleged
> writing droup,
Your participation, of course, guarantees it won't happen. But lovely
seeing you and your irrelevant concerns for form instead of actual
"intellectual discourse." Or is it not about matters "syntactical?"
> I offer the following syntactical observation:
Do look up "syntactical." Start with "syntax" it's smaller and
shouldn't tax your demonstrably meager resources nearly as much.
> "Pig-shit," "psychopathic," "venomous," "hatred," "spew," and "philistine" are
> all interesting and exciting words;
Oh, I'm crushed that you didn't consider "caterwailing" and "reviler"
interesting words. They seem so, um, ineffably wordish.
> and in the hands of even the most
> simpleminded typist can sometimes result in lively prose. And yet in the hands
> of an incredibly dreary and awful fuckhead like Pastorio, those same words
> result in: nothing.
When the receiver can only discern static from the ether, static it
will all be.
> In order to open a Pastorio post in the hope of finding
> eloquence one must be as optimist as a parent
And every bit as "syntactical."
> who diapers a toddler with canvas
> in the hope that it may shit a Vermeer.
"Syntactical," huh...? <LOL>
Really, you can do better than this slim offering.
Pastorio
Alex Jay Berman
Not true.
For all the bullshit and flames (funny story: Today's (well,
yesterday's, now) Philadelphia Inquirer had an article about using
courtesy and politeness to avoid online flaming.
Said article by one Reid Goldsborough ...), there are things said
which DO mean a lot. There are friendships kindled, and carings
exchanged.
Wouldn't be here if it weren't for that.
Alex Jay Berman
Wendy Chatley Green
Ing:
I don't care about billo's opinions in this thread. I don't
care about Bob's opinions in this thread. I don't care about yours,
either. I haven't commented about anything anyone has said on this
subject.
I only corrected the attribution about the authorship of the
piece quoted by billo.
Anything else you add to my action is caused by your own
baggage. You're welcome to call me names, make assumptions,
whatever--so long as you realize what you're doing.
Wendy
For some inexplicable reasons, ing <ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
:Wendy Chatley Green wrote:
:
:
Bill Oliver
Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Bill Oliver wrote a half-assed fictionalized description of a Marine
>ignoring whatever training he may have received, but it ain't worth
>repeating.
>
Well, no. He did not.
>I do like it when a wingnut figuratively foams at the mouth as you do in
>the title of this thread, as the mental midget Haddad did when he
>accused me of spitting on veterans (after his spectacularly unbelievable
>tale unfolded), as the paranoid whack-a-doo Lutz did when he accused me
>of advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
>
Oh, by the way, Bob, you have never admitted that the terrorists
actually *do* this kind of thing. I have provided the names
of the Marines killed by feigned surrender. Oh, I know. They
don't count. They're just dead Marines -- and the only good
Marine is a dead Marines.
But your insistence that this doesn't happen is getting pretty
ridiculous. Admit that it happens, and either admit you
don't give a shit and don't lose a minute's sleep over their
deaths, or admit that these Marines have to make split second
decisions about "wounded" and "surrendered" terrorists
that may -- and have -- meant death for the Marine.
Further, your insistence that the terrorists, while absolutely
orgasmic about torturing and killing aid workers, contract workers,
and civilians just aren't the kind to do that to soldiers
is simply silly. And it is pure pro-terrorist propaganda.
Here's the kind of society *you* are rooting for:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1359782_1,00.html
billo
Ejucaided Redneck
William Penrose wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:58:03 -0500, Ejucaided Redneck
> <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm real busy here, and nearly every day nearly decide the thing to do
> >is lay off Usenet for a while, that the couple hours a day spent reading
> >and replying mostly to fuckwits isn't worth it.
> >
> >But threads like this keep me coming back.
>
> Me, too. It's like a sickness, isn't it?
Not really. It's procrastination for me. I've got things I ought to be
doing that aren't as easy or as much fun as poking BO or Haddad. But
deadlines are looming so I'll probably leave them alone for a while.
> I don't feel much better afterward. The idiots are still in charge of the asylum. And
> nothing said on an obscure newsgroup means a crap to anyone.
The only reason to post to a newsgroup is to be amused. It ain't like
it's real life.
--
"I think of it as a party held in very very
large house. In one room people are
drinking espresso and discussing translations
of Rilke, while in another they're sucking
nitrous out of a garbage bag and setting fire
to a couch."
-- Tom Fawcett on Usenet
Ejucaided Redneck
Actually I never saw more than the snippet BO posted. When I went to
the site all I saw was a _long_ series of ads that were trying to sell
me a "sports kilt" or convince me to send money to the "John Ashcroft
Center for Public Affairs," flu remedies, I dunno what all. And it
never did stop loading... I use a dial-up modem and finally gave up.
But you're right, instead of appending to the default "BO wrote. . ."
beginning of the message, it would have been more accurate to add "BO
posted. . ."
Still, "BO wrote. . ." is considerably less outrageous and dishonest
than suggesting I want to see kids killed. . .
And whomever wrote the piece conceived a scene that's pretty
unbelievable.
--
Do Americans of good conscience really
believe that we are making the United States
more secure by bombing and killing the people
of Fallujah?
-- Helen Thomas
Bill Oliver
Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Still, "BO wrote. . ." is considerably less outrageous and dishonest
>than suggesting I want to see kids killed. . .
>
Not at all. You have no problem jumping in to condemn those
kids without investigation, and claiming that they are wrong
for not following the Geneva Conventions to the letter when
dealing with terrorists who *do* fake surrender, fake death,
torture and behead prisoners, and commit atrocities in the
cities they control. But of course, all of the latter is
just peachy because they are "desperate" and any and all
atrocities are excused. However, when it comes to
an American, it's better dead than commit an impropriety.
After all, a dead Marine isn't such a bad thing, is it?
These are the people you are condemning, Bob. They
are real. They are not your political constructs:
http://www.kevinsites.net/2004_05_30_archive.html
>And whomever wrote the piece conceived a scene that's pretty
>unbelievable.
>
He's a Marine, Bob. He's there. He's not sitting at
home in his armchair clapping every time an American
gets killed and despairing when they kill the enemy.
billo
fundoc
> > In the interest of raising the level of intellectual discourse in this
alleged
> > writing droup,
>
> Your participation, of course, guarantees it won't happen.
Yes, I do cut quite a swath. Especially impressive considering the infrequency
of my posting. Perhaps if you weren't so feeble rhetorically you might have some
influence as well.
I've taken the liberty of snipping the remainder of your post. Not in the
interest of bandwidth, lord knows there's enough of that to go around, but
because it was, true to form, so fucking boring.
<ZZZnip>
Ejucaided Redneck
Towse wrote:
> My vet brother in his hippie day, in the early seventies up in the Santa
> Cruz Mountains, was in the grocery store one day in his raggedy old Navy
> issue jacket, beard, hair down past his shoulders.
>
> A pompous stout said to him, "Do you know how many people have died to
> give the likes of you the right to wear that jacket?"
>
> He answered, "This jacket? No one died. The Navy gave this jacket to me
> new."
>
> The guy shut up.
You mean the one called a "pea coat" because when you get out of the
Navy it's still your'n?
--
The Devil made me do it the first time.
Second time I done it on my own.
-- Billy Joe Shaver ("Black Rose")
Ray Haddad
and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>The only reason to post to a newsgroup is to be amused. It ain't like
>it's real life.
Does this mean you're dead?
Ray
Bob (this one)
Nah. It means you're fictitious.
No, seriously...
Pastorio
Ejucaided Redneck
No, it means you're an idiot.
--
I wasn't mad at nobody."
--Huey Long's explanation of
why he refused to participate
in WW I
Ejucaided Redneck
Bill Oliver wrote:
> Oh, by the way, Bob, you have never admitted that the terrorists
> actually *do* this kind of thing.
Of course I did.
> I have provided the names
> of the Marines killed by feigned surrender. Oh, I know. They
> don't count. They're just dead Marines -- and the only good
> Marine is a dead Marines.
That's even more obscene than Royer's gay fantasies. You ought to be
ashamed of yourself.
> But your insistence that this doesn't happen is getting pretty
> ridiculous. Admit that it happens, and either admit you
> don't give a shit and don't lose a minute's sleep over their
> deaths, or admit that these Marines have to make split second
> decisions about "wounded" and "surrendered" terrorists
> that may -- and have -- meant death for the Marine.
You're a liar.
> Further, your insistence that the terrorists, while absolutely
> orgasmic about torturing and killing aid workers, contract workers,
> and civilians just aren't the kind to do that to soldiers
> is simply silly. And it is pure pro-terrorist propaganda.
Another lie.
> Here's the kind of society *you* are rooting for:
Just once, for maybe ten years, I'd like to live in a society that
doesn't mindlessly send kids off to die for no good reason.
Ask your Jesus how He feels about war-cheerleaders.
--
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to
protect some lousy investment of the bankers.
There are only two things we should fight for.
One is the defense of our homes and the other
is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason
is simply a racket...
--- MajGen Smedley D. Butler, USMC
Alan Hope
>Ray Haddad wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:46:14 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>> >The only reason to post to a newsgroup is to be amused. It ain't like
>> >it's real life.
>> Does this mean you're dead?
>No, it means you're an idiot.
If you drop an egg into a glass of water, and it floats, that means
Ray's an idiot.
If it sinks to the bottom, it also proves he's an idiot.
Try it at home.
--
AH
gekko
Hope <not.al...@mail.com>, who went on in
news:vjvup05csmncc7b6o...@4ax.com to bemoan:
> If you drop an egg into a glass of water, and it floats, that means
> Ray's an idiot.
What sort of egg? Whole, or broken? Boiled, poached, fried,
scrambled, raw, soft-boiled? Small? Large? Extra Large? Green?
--
gekko
Give me the strength to change the things I can, the grace to accept
the things I cannot, and a great big bag of money.
Bill Oliver
Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Bill Oliver wrote:
>
>> Oh, by the way, Bob, you have never admitted that the terrorists
>> actually *do* this kind of thing.
>
>Of course I did.
>
No. You have merely *repeated* that they do not.
>> I have provided the names
>> of the Marines killed by feigned surrender. Oh, I know. They
>> don't count. They're just dead Marines -- and the only good
>> Marine is a dead Marines.
>
>That's even more obscene than Royer's gay fantasies. You ought to be
>ashamed of yourself.
>
No, Bob. I'm ashamed of you.
>> But your insistence that this doesn't happen is getting pretty
>> ridiculous. Admit that it happens, and either admit you
>> don't give a shit and don't lose a minute's sleep over their
>> deaths, or admit that these Marines have to make split second
>> decisions about "wounded" and "surrendered" terrorists
>> that may -- and have -- meant death for the Marine.
>
>You're a liar.
>
I wish I were. However, it is *you* who has *repeated* the
canard that such is not a threat to soldiers in Iraq.
>> Further, your insistence that the terrorists, while absolutely
>> orgasmic about torturing and killing aid workers, contract workers,
>> and civilians just aren't the kind to do that to soldiers
>> is simply silly. And it is pure pro-terrorist propaganda.
>
>Another lie.
>
Not at all. You have made the point *twice.*
>> Here's the kind of society *you* are rooting for:
>
>Just once, for maybe ten years, I'd like to live in a society that
>doesn't mindlessly send kids off to die for no good reason.
>
And you still can't seem to answer the question. How many
Marines have to die to satisfy your sense of propriety?
Merely stating you wish they weren't there in the first
place doesn't remove them, and it doesn't remove your
condemnation of them.
How many, Bob?
billo
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> In article <419F4054...@mindspring.com>,
> Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Bill Oliver wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, by the way, Bob, you have never admitted that the terrorists
> >> actually *do* this kind of thing.
> >
> >Of course I did.
> No. You have merely *repeated* that they do not.
Cite?
> >> I have provided the names
> >> of the Marines killed by feigned surrender. Oh, I know. They
> >> don't count. They're just dead Marines -- and the only good
> >> Marine is a dead Marines.
> >
> >That's even more obscene than Royer's gay fantasies. You ought to be
> >ashamed of yourself.
> >
>
> No, Bob. I'm ashamed of you.
War cheerleaders --especially those who wear a cross along with their
polystyrene flags-- never have a clue about what they're saying. Take
it apart for them and they deny it.
You fit that like it was a role you were raised for.
> >> But your insistence that this doesn't happen is getting pretty
> >> ridiculous. Admit that it happens, and either admit you
> >> don't give a shit and don't lose a minute's sleep over their
> >> deaths, or admit that these Marines have to make split second
> >> decisions about "wounded" and "surrendered" terrorists
> >> that may -- and have -- meant death for the Marine.
> >
> >You're a liar.
> >
>
> I wish I were. However, it is *you* who has *repeated* the
> canard that such is not a threat to soldiers in Iraq.
Show me.
> >> Further, your insistence that the terrorists, while absolutely
> >> orgasmic about torturing and killing aid workers, contract workers,
> >> and civilians just aren't the kind to do that to soldiers
> >> is simply silly. And it is pure pro-terrorist propaganda.
> >
> >Another lie.
> >
>
> Not at all. You have made the point *twice.*
Show me.
> >> Here's the kind of society *you* are rooting for:
> >
> >Just once, for maybe ten years, I'd like to live in a society that
> >doesn't mindlessly send kids off to die for no good reason.
> And you still can't seem to answer the question. How many
> Marines have to die to satisfy your sense of propriety?
> Merely stating you wish they weren't there in the first
> place doesn't remove them, and it doesn't remove your
> condemnation of them.
And you can't get off your snuff film fixation.
Dead youngsters, of whatever color or uniform or flag or belief system
are the antithesis of "propriety."
The American kids getting chewed on by the dogs of war tend to be
working class youngsters, who enlisted in hope of getting an education,
funds for college, all the things all of them ought to have found
available without hiring themselves out to kill other mothers' sons.
I've never "condemned" a GI, but I'd not mourn the loss of any of the
witless Bonzo-faced cretins who send them to do so.
> How many, Bob?
Fuck off, you lying hypocrite.
You won't read Usenet posts for content, try the Beatitudes.
--
Doesn't anything socialistic make you
want to throw up? Like great public
schools or health insurance for all?
-- Kurt Vonnegut
1948
"Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:10pv5n3...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <419F4054...@mindspring.com>,
> Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Bill Oliver wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, by the way, Bob, you have never admitted that the terrorists
> >> actually *do* this kind of thing.
> >
> >Of course I did.
> >
>
> No. You have merely *repeated* that they do not.
>
>
> >> I have provided the names
> >> of the Marines killed by feigned surrender. Oh, I know. They
> >> don't count. They're just dead Marines -- and the only good
> >> Marine is a dead Marines.
> >
> >That's even more obscene than Royer's gay fantasies. You ought to be
> >ashamed of yourself.
> >
>
> No, Bob. I'm ashamed of you.
What's funny here is that the ejaculated redneck--a homosexual apologist of
the Left--besides slandering me unjustly by claiming that I have homosexual
fantasies, is referring to those homosexual fantasies as obscene.
Homosexuality is, in fact, obscene; and it's always amusing to see liberals
such as "ejaculated" contradict their own *tolerant* rhetoric by slamming
the very perverts they claim to support.
They are a hoot; and that's what puts the BS in NPRBS.
--dob1948
Ray Haddad
and "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad wrote:
This tells me much about you and the illiterate redneck pal of
yours.
Are all the hard core idiots on MW named Bob or Robert?
No, seriously.
Ray
Ray Haddad
and gekko <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> instead replied:
>'Greasy, grimey gopher guts, and me without my spoon,' lamented Alan
>Hope <not.al...@mail.com>, who went on in
>news:vjvup05csmncc7b6o...@4ax.com to bemoan:
>
>> If you drop an egg into a glass of water, and it floats, that means
>> Ray's an idiot.
>
>What sort of egg? Whole, or broken? Boiled, poached, fried,
>scrambled, raw, soft-boiled? Small? Large? Extra Large? Green?
One of yours, Gekko. Got eggs?
Ray
Bob (this one)
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:31:52 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> instead replied:
>
>
>>Ray Haddad wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:46:14 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>>>
>>>>The only reason to post to a newsgroup is to be amused. It ain't like
>>>>it's real life.
>>>
>>>Does this mean you're dead?
>>
>>Nah. It means you're fictitious.
>
> This tells me much about you and the illiterate redneck pal of
> yours.
Both Bob and I have written actual published books. How about you? How
many have you written? Articles we were paid for? Broadcast commentary?
> Are all the hard core idiots on MW named Bob or Robert?
No. They're named Ray. Duh!
> No, seriously.
If you're going to imitate me, then try to get some content in so it's
more accurate.
Pastorio
Ejucaided Redneck
<snippage>
> > >That's even more obscene than Royer's gay fantasies. You ought to be
> > >ashamed of yourself.
> > >
> >
> > No, Bob. I'm ashamed of you.
>
> What's funny here is that the ejaculated redneck--a homosexual apologist of
> the Left--besides slandering me unjustly by claiming that I have homosexual
> fantasies, is referring to those homosexual fantasies as obscene.
>
> Homosexuality is, in fact, obscene; and it's always amusing to see liberals
> such as "ejaculated" contradict their own *tolerant* rhetoric by slamming
> the very perverts they claim to support.
You don't get it.
You're _incapable_ of thinking about homosexual people --or any sex, so
far as you've evidenced in your posts-- in a way that's not obscene.
Other people can, and do it all the time, but there's a poison in your
mind that makes you different. It's the difference between
"pornography" and "erotica," which also escapes you.
The same poison shows through in racist posts about your alleged
neighbors, permeates pretty much everything you type that doesn't focus
on cats.
You're a real sicko, you are, a Typhoid Mary spreading toxins everywhere
you step. Worse really: at least Mary _knew_ she was sick.
--
Drink has always been the
writer's "black lung."
--Jim Harrison
Bob (this one)
> 'Greasy, grimey gopher guts, and me without my spoon,' lamented Alan
> Hope <not.al...@mail.com>, who went on in
> news:vjvup05csmncc7b6o...@4ax.com to bemoan:
>
>>If you drop an egg into a glass of water, and it floats, that means
>>Ray's an idiot.
>
> What sort of egg? Whole, or broken? Boiled, poached, fried,
> scrambled, raw, soft-boiled? Small? Large? Extra Large? Green?
Or no egg. It works every time, too. And no glass necessary. Or water.
Pastorio
pandora
"Ejucaided Redneck" <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:419F3A2D...@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Ray Haddad wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:46:14 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> > and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
> >
> > >The only reason to post to a newsgroup is to be amused. It ain't like
> > >it's real life.
> >
> > Does this mean you're dead?
>
> No, it means you're an idiot.
Hasn't this already been established?
Gram
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> "Ejucaided Redneck" <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:419F3A2D...@mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > Ray Haddad wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:46:14 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> > > and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
> > >
> > > >The only reason to post to a newsgroup is to be amused. It ain't like
> > > >it's real life.
> > >
> > > Does this mean you're dead?
> >
> > No, it means you're an idiot.
>
> Hasn't this already been established?
Over and over, but Ray's like, "slow," and needs frequent reminding.
--
As nightfall does not come at once, neither does
oppression. In both instances there is a twilight
when everything remains seemingly unchanged.
And it is in such twilight that we all must be most
aware of change in the air - however slight - lest
we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
-- Justice William O. Douglas
Ray Haddad
and "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:31:52 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> instead replied:
>>
>>>Ray Haddad wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:46:14 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>>and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>>>>
>>>>>The only reason to post to a newsgroup is to be amused. It ain't like
>>>>>it's real life.
>>>>
>>>>Does this mean you're dead?
>>>
>>>Nah. It means you're fictitious.
>>
>> This tells me much about you and the illiterate redneck pal of
>> yours.
>
>Both Bob and I have written actual published books. How about you? How
>many have you written? Articles we were paid for? Broadcast commentary?
To all of the above, pshaw! I live the dream, not talk about it.
But, thanks for playing. You and Bob go on and beat your chests
while I live off the spoils of my work past, present and future.
Isn't that special?
>> Are all the hard core idiots on MW named Bob or Robert?
>
>No. They're named Ray. Duh!
Weak, Bob. Very weak. You really do need some new material.
>> No, seriously.
>
>If you're going to imitate me, then try to get some content in so it's
>more accurate.
Bob, if you check Giggle, you'll find that I've been around a few
more decades than you using that particular comment. I like it. I
always have. If you don't like me "imitating" you, change your
comment to something else. When I see you here moaning about it, I
know I'm under your skin. You deserve no less.
Ray
Bill Oliver
In article <419F9E72...@mindspring.com>,
Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Bill Oliver wrote:
>>
>> In article <419F4054...@mindspring.com>,
>> Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Bill Oliver wrote:
>> >
>> >> Oh, by the way, Bob, you have never admitted that the terrorists
>> >> actually *do* this kind of thing.
>> >
>> >Of course I did.
>
>> No. You have merely *repeated* that they do not.
>
>Cite?
>
No problem Bob. When I mentioned this threat you replied:
[you]
>> >Geneva Conventions and "rules of war" exist for very selfish reasons.
>> >The rule is "You do it to us, and that'll justify our doing it to you."
>> >Any American trooper captured after Abu Ghraib faces a very brief and
>> >bleak future.
>>
[me]
>> Compared to, of course, the more drawn out torture and beheading he
>> would have received before it.
>
[you]
>Far as I can tell, no US serviceman has beheaded in Iraq or anywhere
>else. The only reference to such a thing I could find was to a Marine
>named Hassoun who later turned up safe and sound in a third country.
>> >> I have provided the names
>> >> of the Marines killed by feigned surrender. Oh, I know. They
>> >> don't count. They're just dead Marines -- and the only good
>> >> Marine is a dead Marines.
>> >
>> >That's even more obscene than Royer's gay fantasies. You ought to be
>> >ashamed of yourself.
>> >
>>
>> No, Bob. I'm ashamed of you.
>
>War cheerleaders --especially those who wear a cross along with their
>polystyrene flags-- never have a clue about what they're saying. Take
>it apart for them and they deny it.
>
>You fit that like it was a role you were raised for.
>
Sorry, Bob. Trying to attack my Christianity, while always fulfilling
for people like you, is merely a diversion. The fact is that you
condemned the Marine without bothering to wait for an investigation,
you have denied the threats the Marine faces, and you have refused
to provide an alternative for *that* Marine or for anybody on the
ground. Blathering on about politicians will not cut it, Bob.
See your quote above.
>
>Show me.
See your quote above.
>> >> Here's the kind of society *you* are rooting for:
>> >
>> >Just once, for maybe ten years, I'd like to live in a society that
>> >doesn't mindlessly send kids off to die for no good reason.
>
>> And you still can't seem to answer the question. How many
>> Marines have to die to satisfy your sense of propriety?
>> Merely stating you wish they weren't there in the first
>> place doesn't remove them, and it doesn't remove your
>> condemnation of them.
>
>And you can't get off your snuff film fixation.
>
Actually, no. For instance, there's no mention of
such a thing in the paragraph you bring it up in.
You are the one who keeps bringing it up. Over and
over and over and over again. If there's a "snuff
film fixation" here, it's yours.
>
>> How many, Bob?
>
>Fuck off, you lying hypocrite.
>
Uh huh. Bob, every time I ask you an operational question, you
blather on about politicians. Here's a clue. In spite of your
fantasies, it's the Marines who are dodging bullets. It's the
Marines who have to worry about feigned surrender. It's the
Marines who have to worry about booby-trapped bodies. And you
can't address *them.* You only condemn them.
You claim you do not condemn them. Right after you condemn them.
Perhaps you forget writing, in your condemnation:
>Yeah well, the BBC didn't take those pictures, y'know? Proud American
>"warriors" <cough> did.
What was that <cough> about, Bob? Your bile get caught in
your throat?
Perhaps you forget writing:
>Shooting an unarmed wounded man is a bit above "swatting a fly."
>
>But you miss the real import of this (as you miss so much else).
>
>Geneva Conventions and "rules of war" exist for very selfish reasons.
>The rule is "You do it to us, and that'll justify our doing it to you."
>Any American trooper captured after Abu Ghraib faces a very brief and
>bleak future. Shooting down the aforementioned unarmed, wounded
>prisoner guarantees it. If, say, another Jessica Lynch sort of capture
>happens, the Shrubbist myth-makers won't have the opportunity to stage a
>faked rescue the rescued later describes as an utter lie. She --or he--
>will be dead long before then.
Ah, yes, "Shrubbist myth-makers" and "faked rescues" and <cough> "warriors."
In fact, Bob, those *are* Proud American warriors. And I am proud of them.
They are damned fine people, and damned good warfighters. And while you
may <cough> hold them in <cough> contempt. I do not.
And when I suggest you wait for to see what the investigation shows, you
reply:
>That's really what it all comes down to: whatever an American GI does
>while making a "split second decision" is fine with you.
>
>Some "doctor."
Yeah, it's much better to form a lynch mob. Why wait to find out what
*really* happened. No need when you hold these "Proud American <cough>
warriors" in such contempt.
You should be ashamed.
Once again, Bob. Since you are so quick to condemn the *Marines*
on the ground, let's stick with them instead of blathering on
about the politicians. How many of those "Proud American <cough>
warriors" you hold in such contempt need to die to assuage
your sense of <cough> propriety?
billo
Ray Haddad
and "pandora" <pan...@peak.org> instead replied:
>"Ejucaided Redneck" <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:419F3A2D...@mindspring.com...
>>
>> No, it means you're an idiot.
>
>Hasn't this already been established?
Aw, Marg. Until now you were doing so well with that "I never do
anything until someone else does" fantasy of yours.
Why did you feel compelled to leap in here? Hmm? Could it be that
you just like to take swipes now and again pretending to remain
above it all?
Nah. That couldn't be it.
Ray
Ray Haddad
and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>pandora wrote:
>>
>> "Ejucaided Redneck" <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:419F3A2D...@mindspring.com...
>> >
>> > Ray Haddad wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:46:14 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> > > and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>> > >
>> > > >The only reason to post to a newsgroup is to be amused. It ain't like
>> > > >it's real life.
>> > >
>> > > Does this mean you're dead?
>> >
>> > No, it means you're an idiot.
>>
>> Hasn't this already been established?
>
>Over and over, but Ray's like, "slow," and needs frequent reminding.
Didn't you recently claim you had no time for MW and were not going
to reply any more? Can't stop yourself from lying, Bob?
You're a poor excuse for a man, Bob. You lie about my contacting you
then reveal right here in MW that you had information from that
<ahem> "missing" e-mail which you later broadcast here.
Man, if that's not the dumbest thing that a journalist could do, I
have no idea what is. I'm really having a good laugh at your
dishonesty and pride in it. Well done, idiot.
Ray
Ejucaided Redneck
> Didn't you recently claim you had no time for MW and were not going
> to reply any more? Can't stop yourself from lying, Bob?
Can't stop yourself from failing to comprehend the written word, can
you, Hadji?
I said I was thinking about dropping mw for a while. Still am,
actually. But I had a good day today --had two deadlines creeping up on
me, but I got the words done-- so I have time to poke at you and BO from
time to time.
> You're a poor excuse for a man, Bob. You lie about my contacting you
> then reveal right here in MW that you had information from that
> <ahem> "missing" e-mail which you later broadcast here.
You're a poor excuse period, Hadj, but feel free to tell me what
information I "revealed."
C'mon man, what might it be? You crow about it like a banty rooster
that thinks _he_ laid an egg.
That's a good simile, don'tcha find?
> Man, if that's not the dumbest thing that a journalist could do, I
> have no idea what is. I'm really having a good laugh at your
> dishonesty and pride in it. Well done, idiot.
Prove I'm a liar, Hadj.
For that matter, prove I'm a "journalist," a claim I've certainly never
made.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will
be wrapped in the American flag.
Huey Long, Louisiana Governor and Senator, 1930s.
Ejucaided Redneck
> [you]
> >Far as I can tell, no US serviceman has beheaded in Iraq or anywhere
> >else. The only reference to such a thing I could find was to a Marine
> >named Hassoun who later turned up safe and sound in a third country.
Y'got me, BOob
I said I couldn't find a reference to any GI being beheaded, apart from
the Hassoun guy, who's safe at the moment. Still can't, for that
matter.
> See your quote above.
Christ, _you_ see it. Aren't American doctors supposed to be able to
read English pretty well?
Shooting unarmed wounded men because they _might_ blow themselves up is
a piss poor policy for any armed forces.
> You claim you do not condemn them. Right after you condemn them.
> Perhaps you forget writing, in your condemnation:
>
> >Yeah well, the BBC didn't take those pictures, y'know? Proud American
> >"warriors" <cough> did.
>
> What was that <cough> about, Bob? Your bile get caught in
> your throat?
That <cough> was about the criminals running that prison, BO. You think
Americans on and off the field, in and out of uniform-- aren't going to
pay a helluva price for that bit of madness?
Oh.
Wait.
You thought that was excusable too.
> Ah, yes, "Shrubbist myth-makers" and "faked rescues" and <cough> "warriors."
You oughta read the book Lynch co-authored with Rick Bragg.
> In fact, Bob, those *are* Proud American warriors. And I am proud of them.
> They are damned fine people, and damned good warfighters. And while you
> may <cough> hold them in <cough> contempt. I do not.
The people who took those photos in Abu Ghraib are beneath contempt
Go look at the images again, BOob and tell me somehow those are
justified.
Look at the snuff film too.
Explain to me how _it_ was justified
And you really oughta read the Beatitudes. They're good for you.
--
I have recently been examining all the known
superstitions of the world, and I do not find in
our particular superstition (Christianity) one
redeeming feature. They are all alike founded
upon fables and mythologies. The Christian God
is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive,
capricious, and unjust.
--- Thomas Jefferson
Bob (this one)
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:04:38 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> instead replied:
>
>>Ray Haddad wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:31:52 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>and "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> instead replied:
>>>
>>>>Ray Haddad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:46:14 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>>>and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The only reason to post to a newsgroup is to be amused. It ain't like
>>>>>>it's real life.
>>>>>
>>>>>Does this mean you're dead?
>>>>
>>>>Nah. It means you're fictitious.
>>>
>>>This tells me much about you and the illiterate redneck pal of
>>>yours.
>>
>>Both Bob and I have written actual published books. How about you? How
>>many have you written? Articles we were paid for? Broadcast commentary?
>
> To all of the above, pshaw!
I guess this non response means you haven't written anything or you'd
have bellowed as usual.
> I live the dream, not talk about it.
> But, thanks for playing. You and Bob go on and beat your chests
> while I live off the spoils of my work past, present and future.
> Isn't that special?
<LOL> Sure is. And I'd like to spread some of that dream around my
rosebushes. Help them to grow big and strong and very green.
Your dream seems to be doing magic tricks at birthday parties and
sitting near books you don't read. <G> Spoils, indeed. What work would
that be, Haddad-O the Great?
It would appear that Bob and I have actual credentials to present
where you present a bouquet of pshaw. It's hard being *absolutely*
outclassed, Ray, or so I've heard. We'll take up a collection for you.
Maybe pick up a good, used cranial index and a considerably higher IQ
than you currently sport, maybe up near 100.
>>>Are all the hard core idiots on MW named Bob or Robert?
>>
>>No. They're named Ray. Duh!
>
> Weak, Bob. Very weak. You really do need some new material.
<LOL> I didn't want to overtax you, Zippo. And it did seem to be
exactly in the same league as your brilliant, incisive and insightful,
if slightly arch, barb. Bwah.
>>>No, seriously.
>>
>>If you're going to imitate me, then try to get some content in so it's
>>more accurate.
>
> Bob, if you check Giggle, you'll find that I've been around a few
> more decades than you using that particular comment. I like it. I
> always have. If you don't like me "imitating" you, change your
> comment to something else. When I see you here moaning about it, I
> know I'm under your skin. You deserve no less.
Ray, if you could begin to grasp the bemused contempt I hold you in,
it would force you to at least triple your cognitive capacities. I
wasn't talking about the parting shot, I meant the *whole thing*
Pastorio
Ray Haddad
and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad wrote:
>
>> Didn't you recently claim you had no time for MW and were not going
>> to reply any more? Can't stop yourself from lying, Bob?
>
>Can't stop yourself from failing to comprehend the written word, can
>you, Hadji?
>
>I said I was thinking about dropping mw for a while. Still am,
>actually. But I had a good day today --had two deadlines creeping up on
>me, but I got the words done-- so I have time to poke at you and BO from
>time to time.
>
>> You're a poor excuse for a man, Bob. You lie about my contacting you
>> then reveal right here in MW that you had information from that
>> <ahem> "missing" e-mail which you later broadcast here.
>
>You're a poor excuse period, Hadj, but feel free to tell me what
>information I "revealed."
It's OK, Bob. You know what it was since it came from outside of the
information I posted here. You know it. I know it.
>C'mon man, what might it be? You crow about it like a banty rooster
>that thinks _he_ laid an egg.
Compare my original post from way back when and then read what you
wrote. Even the most stupid reader can spot the difference. You
can't? Oh, dear.
>That's a good simile, don'tcha find?
And another red herring swims past. Don't deflect, mate. It does you
no good to hide.
>> Man, if that's not the dumbest thing that a journalist could do, I
>> have no idea what is. I'm really having a good laugh at your
>> dishonesty and pride in it. Well done, idiot.
>
>Prove I'm a liar, Hadj.
You already did, mate. You first stated that I never sent you a
message under any circumstances and then suddenly remember that you
got one, which you deleted. Oddly enough, that in itself is quite
enough. The fact that you answered me and even asked for a bit of
clarification later citing that here is really, unoriginally dumb of
you, Bob.
>For that matter, prove I'm a "journalist," a claim I've certainly never
>made.
Well, that explains it. You don't keep a journal. When your memory
fails you so often, perhaps you should. I'm just saying.
Ray
Ray Haddad
and "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:04:38 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> instead replied:
>>
>>>Ray Haddad wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:31:52 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>>and "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> instead replied:
>>>>
>>>>>Ray Haddad wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:46:14 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>>>>and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The only reason to post to a newsgroup is to be amused. It ain't like
>>>>>>>it's real life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Does this mean you're dead?
>>>>>
>>>>>Nah. It means you're fictitious.
>>>>
>>>>This tells me much about you and the illiterate redneck pal of
>>>>yours.
>>>
>>>Both Bob and I have written actual published books. How about you? How
>>>many have you written? Articles we were paid for? Broadcast commentary?
>>
>> To all of the above, pshaw!
>
>I guess this non response means you haven't written anything or you'd
>have bellowed as usual.
Hahahaha. I knew you'd come back with this belly bucking challenge.
Do you really think I'd be so stupid as to go bragging here? I have
no need, but, as you feel the need, go for it. You brag all about
those things, mate. Open yourself wide for all of your <snigger>
accolades you'll get for bragging here.
What a bonehead you are.
> > I live the dream, not talk about it.
>> But, thanks for playing. You and Bob go on and beat your chests
>> while I live off the spoils of my work past, present and future.
>> Isn't that special?
>
><LOL> Sure is. And I'd like to spread some of that dream around my
>rosebushes. Help them to grow big and strong and very green.
One would imagine that all of your work would mulch up nicely for
that without your having to find mine.
>Your dream seems to be doing magic tricks at birthday parties and
>sitting near books you don't read. <G> Spoils, indeed. What work would
>that be, Haddad-O the Great?
Good question, Bob. Do you want the long answer of the short one?
I'll give you the short answer. http://www.tinaja.com
Read about his means to ensure your livelihood and secure your
future has income. Mine keeps rolling in years after I earned it the
first time.
NO, SERIOUSLY. For all of your petty baloney, put it aside for just
a few minutes and read his suggestions. No one will be peeking over
your shoulder. I promise.
>It would appear that Bob and I have actual credentials to present
>where you present a bouquet of pshaw. It's hard being *absolutely*
>outclassed, Ray, or so I've heard. We'll take up a collection for you.
>Maybe pick up a good, used cranial index and a considerably higher IQ
>than you currently sport, maybe up near 100.
A collection is fine. I never turn down cash. How do you think I got
so rich? I accept PayPal, MasterCard and Visa. Use my regular
e-mail. Thanks for the donation.
>>>>Are all the hard core idiots on MW named Bob or Robert?
>>>
>>>No. They're named Ray. Duh!
>>
>> Weak, Bob. Very weak. You really do need some new material.
>
><LOL> I didn't want to overtax you, Zippo. And it did seem to be
>exactly in the same league as your brilliant, incisive and insightful,
>if slightly arch, barb. Bwah.
Hey, steal my material and use the mirror to throw it back at me. If
that's your entire volley, you lose.
>>>>No, seriously.
>>>
>>>If you're going to imitate me, then try to get some content in so it's
>>>more accurate.
>>
>> Bob, if you check Giggle, you'll find that I've been around a few
>> more decades than you using that particular comment. I like it. I
>> always have. If you don't like me "imitating" you, change your
>> comment to something else. When I see you here moaning about it, I
>> know I'm under your skin. You deserve no less.
>
>Ray, if you could begin to grasp the bemused contempt I hold you in,
>it would force you to at least triple your cognitive capacities. I
>wasn't talking about the parting shot, I meant the *whole thing*
That was your whole thing? Good grief. You give up easily.
Ray
Ejucaided Redneck
> >You're a poor excuse period, Hadj, but feel free to tell me what
> >information I "revealed."
>
> It's OK, Bob. You know what it was since it came from outside of the
> information I posted here. You know it. I know it.
I don't know it. Neither do you.
> >C'mon man, what might it be? You crow about it like a banty rooster
> >that thinks _he_ laid an egg.
>
> Compare my original post from way back when and then read what you
> wrote. Even the most stupid reader can spot the difference. You
> can't? Oh, dear.
Prove I'm a liar, Hadji.
While we wait for that, I'm just gonna continue to call you the liar
_you_ are whenever you bring up this weird notion I ever asked you for
correspondence about your fairy tales.
> >> Man, if that's not the dumbest thing that a journalist could do, I
> >> have no idea what is. I'm really having a good laugh at your
> >> dishonesty and pride in it. Well done, idiot.
> >
> >Prove I'm a liar, Hadj.
Trot some stuff out or hush about it.
> >For that matter, prove I'm a "journalist," a claim I've certainly never
> >made.
> Well, that explains it. You don't keep a journal. When your memory
> fails you so often, perhaps you should. I'm just saying.
No. I don't keep a journal. I do, however, write occasional opinion
pieces for a newspaper with a daily circulation of a quarter million.
You, dumbass that you are, decided that made me a "lying liberal
journalist" or something similar. You can no more prove I'm one of your
despised "liberal journalists" than you can prove any of these other
goofy claims you make.
On the other hand, it's easy to prove you're a dumbass. Don't even need
Google for it.
--
"I believe in a voluntary, free spirited,
open ended program of procreative racial
deconstruction - everybody has to keep doing
everybody until we are all the same color."
---Bullworth
gekko
See, now, Chris.tine. Here's some spinning at its finest.
Mr. Sloan is interested ONLY in presenting those facts and views that
demonstrate he feels the war in Iraq, and the politicians who
promoted it and brought it to us are evil things. Even though the
spin he puts on it all impugns some very fine people, and ignores
some very tragic realities. In his eagerness to put a political spin
on it and push his political agenda, he seizes on the instance of a
handful of youthful, malicious Guardsmen playing awful, dirty games
-- representative NOT of the military, but of the seedier, dirtier
bits of humanity in my mind. He uses that example, and one other:
the example of a scared, recently wounded Marine, one who'd just seen
a fellow soldier killed by a booby-trapped insurgent who shot a
wounded Iraqi in the head. He takes those two examples and spins
them up to represent all that he finds evil about the war, and in so
doing impugns the entire military. He paints ONLY scenes of the dirt
and the scum and the unknown. He takes Billo's words and spins them
even further into the dirt.
Dr. Oliver is interested ONLY in countering the perceived view of Mr.
Sloan. He presents ONLY those facts that question Sloan's views, and
slimes Sloan in the process, suggesting that, because Sloan denies
that soldiers are beheaded, because Sloan has impugned some soldiers,
Sloan is sliming ALL of the military, and Sloan feels that soldiers
are expendable.
Spin, spin. Both sides spinning, one to shove a political view out
there, the other to show the balance that the first is missing.
The first is not served by presenting balance, though. If you happen
to agree that the war is bad, an unnecessary evil promoted by a
warmongering government, then you'd be likely to agree that Sloan's
lopsided presentation is righteous. It's a small price to pay for
the larger good, yes?
The second is not served by presenting balance. If you happen to
*disagree* that the Marine being slimed by Sloan should be tried
before all the facts are known, if you happen to *dislike* the
implications that the military is dirtied by the actions of the few,
if you happen to *believe* that the war is even a little bit
justifiable, you'd prefer to spin in the opposite direction, and not
allow the other side any points.
Both sides have "righteousness" on their sides, as far as they
believe. Both sides believe that ethics is served by spinning.
What d'ya think?
--
gekko
The goal of science is to build better mousetraps. The goal of
nature is to build better mice.
Bob (this one)
Well, yes, I did based on history. You do so often that I figured one
more wouldn't be out of character. But it was your stupid assertion
that Bob and I are illiterate. We can prove otherwise. You?
> I have no need, but, as you feel the need, go for it.
So credentials=bragging? Or accomplishments=bragging?
> You brag all about those things, mate. Open yourself wide for all
> of your <snigger> accolades you'll get for bragging here.
Oh it wasn't for accolades, merely the demonstration. You fail. Nice
try to make it into bragging, though. So you're excused from actually
backing up your words.
>> Your dream seems to be doing magic tricks at birthday parties and
>> sitting near books you don't read. <G> Spoils, indeed. What work
>> would that be, Haddad-O the Great?
>
> Good question, Bob. Do you want the long answer of the short one?
Looks like no answer. Huge website coming up. No answer, though.
> I'll give you the short answer. http://www.tinaja.com
I tried to open about a dozen of his files and kept getting a file
error message. Tried it in Netscape and IE. But I did click around the
website and read much of what he says.
> Read about his means to ensure your livelihood and secure your
> future has income. Mine keeps rolling in years after I earned it
> the first time.
>
> NO, SERIOUSLY. For all of your petty baloney, put it aside for just
> a few minutes and read his suggestions. No one will be peeking
> over your shoulder. I promise.
I see a lot of engineering stuff that I *know* is over your head. I
see more stuff that has no direct commercial value. What exactly did
you take away from this site to make you so wealthy? And keep all that
money rolling is. I believe you're rolling in money.
No, seriously...
Pastorio
Ray Haddad
and "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> instead replied:
>I see a lot of engineering stuff that I *know* is over your head. I
>see more stuff that has no direct commercial value. What exactly did
>you take away from this site to make you so wealthy? And keep all that
>money rolling is. I believe you're rolling in money.
>
>No, seriously...
I'm retired from engineering now but my training was EE (Electronics
Engineering) (http://tinyurl.com/3rzg6) and Don Lancaster's
(http://www.tinaja.com) site is mostly about that topic. There's a
book he wrote that I can't recommend highly enough if you want to
earn income that lasts beyond the initial earning of that income.
The Incredible Secret Money Machine:
http://www.tinaja.com/ismm01.html
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/ismmintr.pdf
You can download the introduction from the second link above in PDF
format but consider buying the book later. In it, he describes ways
of doing things that create lots of small but guaranteed amounts of
residual income. It's not just about making money in engineering,
which is certainly easy enough to do, but about using all resources
available to earn income.
The other item there that is very useful for generating income
quickly is the Book on Demand resource link. There's nothing to buy
on that page. All the information you need to publish your own books
on demand is there. BOD is basically printing a book when one is
ordered and not having large amounts of inventory around.
Book On Demand:
http://www.tinaja.com/bod01.asp
Information on binding techniques, demand printing with permanence
in mind, and suggestions on how to sell your books without having to
use book shops are scattered through the site.
About my qualifications as writer, just read what I write instead of
focusing on the oneupmanship. Call me naive, but I actually believe
you are able to consider this banter a game of sorts instead of
something serious.
No, seriously.
Ray
Ray Haddad
and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>Prove I'm a liar, Hadji.
No need, illiterate redneck. You do a fine job all by yourself.
Ray
Alan Hope
>What's funny here is that the ejaculated redneck--a homosexual
You'll drag it into any thread, under any pretext, won't you?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>You're a poor excuse for a man, Bob. You lie about my contacting you
>then reveal right here in MW that you had information from that
><ahem> "missing" e-mail which you later broadcast here.
Why don't you post the email, Ray? Get gekko to show you how to fake
headers. Go on. Do it if you have it.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>I'm retired from engineering now but my training was EE (Electronics
>Engineering) (http://tinyurl.com/3rzg6) and Don Lancaster's
>(http://www.tinaja.com) site is mostly about that topic. There's a
>book he wrote that I can't recommend highly enough if you want to
>earn income that lasts beyond the initial earning of that income.
Don Martin, surely?
Don Martin science:
http://www.nachshon.org.il/~itzs/Don%20Martin/html/cave2.htm
--
AH
Ray Haddad
and Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com> instead replied:
That's exactly why it doesn't matter, Alan. But, the illiterate
redneck knows the truth and that's all that does matter.
Ray
Ray Haddad
and Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad goes:
You have NO idea how true that can be.
Don was a genius.
Ray
Alan Hope
I agree. So basically you're fucked unless you come up with something.
--
AH
pandora
> pandora wrote:
> >
> > "Ejucaided Redneck" <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:419F3A2D...@mindspring.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Ray Haddad wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:46:14 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> > > > and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
> > > >
> > > > >The only reason to post to a newsgroup is to be amused. It ain't
like
> > > > >it's real life.
> > > >
> > > > Does this mean you're dead?
> > >
> > > No, it means you're an idiot.
> >
> > Hasn't this already been established?
>
> Over and over, but Ray's like, "slow," and needs frequent reminding.
If that is true, I feel extreme pity.
Gram
Bob (this one)
<<<<< snip some actual information >>>>>
> About my qualifications as writer, just read what I write instead of
> focusing on the oneupmanship. Call me naive, but I actually believe
> you are able to consider this banter a game of sorts instead of
> something serious.
Ray, it looks like this to me. Serious reply.
You're an ideologue who routinely demonizes anyone who doesn't hold
the same viewpoint as you. You have taken an extreme political
position and deal with everyone as either on your side or against you.
It has to be a zero-sum universe for you.
And you seek arguments. You search them out. You leap in and gloat
when anyone of your political stripe does something notable - which
almost always is some sort of triumph (as you see it) over the demons
on the other side of the fence. And there's virtually always a fence.
Example being the whole Bush Kerry vote thing. Bush won, but not by
much. Yes, Bush pulled more votes than any other presidential
candidate in any previous election, but so did Kerry. You weren't able
to concede that and tried to deal with what I wrote as though I had
denied that Bush won. It was a silly position to take and merely made
you look the clown. For the sake of ideology.
Your logic is often merely cementing the excuses for the positions
you've already taken. Nothing moves you from the ideology to anything
approaching a more human view. Liberals are bad. Period. Conservatives
are good. Period. You've tried to pin that "liberal" label on me in
the heat of the exercise. If you actually believe that, you're wrong.
And if you don't believe it but are just using it as a catchall fuck
you, you're wrong. That kind of attitude is why the country is as
divided as it is.
I don't see qualifications as a writer if they're to include anything
beyond the mere fact of stringing words. You employ spurious logic,
distorted assertions, and evasions when you're at the margin of being
forced to concede a point. You can craft a serviceable enough
sentence, but too often they're transparently self-serving rather than
offering information or anything useful. Ann Coulter can make some of
the most amazingly vicious, clever - merely clever - sentences. But
she's a lousy writer because she's glibly dishonest in the use of that
capacity.
You make claims and don't back them up. Good example is the thing
you've got going with Sloan now. You've called him a liar and insist
that you sent something to him and he says you didn't. You've offered
pejorative after pejorative and hot air. Instead, just post the stuff
that would support your claims and be done with it. Or shut up.
While, yes, this is a sort of playland, some people come through in
ways I can't accept. There are people here I wouldn't have in my home
and I'm absolutely sure it works in reverse as well. It's no big deal
given that the likelihood of ever running into them where I can't just
get up and leave the room is small. There are others I admire and
enjoy. Some of the better writers are Hope, UV, fundoc, Zen, Maughan,
Chris.tine, Penrose, Sloan... Why do I count them that way? They write
interestingly, involvingly, intelligently and often, when they have
nothing much to say, shut up. Unlike Cleo and Geno and Burr and,
often, you.
There's a difference between banter and outright pejoration. Banter
assumes a modicum of wit. A measure of restraint. Scoring on the right
target. Too often, you just crank up the insults with no regard to
their validity. Like I told Wayne years ago, for an insult to have any
meaning, it has to be based in truth. I can dismiss insults about my
capacity to write because it's been proven by having many different
editors buy it. Claims to be a writer based on what's posted here are
too weak to credit.
Serious reply.
Pastorio
Ray Haddad
and "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad wrote:
>
><<<<< snip some actual information >>>>>
>
>> About my qualifications as writer, just read what I write instead of
>> focusing on the oneupmanship. Call me naive, but I actually believe
>> you are able to consider this banter a game of sorts instead of
>> something serious.
>
>Ray, it looks like this to me. Serious reply.
Go for it. I expect no less particularly when all of your posts
state something about being serious. Hard to tell, normally. I
accept your statement above as proof that this was a serious reply.
>You're an ideologue who routinely demonizes anyone who doesn't hold
>the same viewpoint as you. You have taken an extreme political
>position and deal with everyone as either on your side or against you.
>It has to be a zero-sum universe for you.
Oh, hardly. I've had some serious disagreements with Gekko about
abortion and while I find most of what you write to be interesting,
I don't agree with your politics nor your nanny mentality. Mind you,
some people ARE too ignorant of facts and resource to watch out for
their own health but your presumption of stupidity is very
condescending.
I don't always stand rigid. I answer questions when put to me but
often the ideologues of the other side decide for me what I wrote.
If you have any doubt about what I mean or wrote, just ask.
Recently, I stated that I was in favor of same sex marriage. Why
would I express this? Because I think it's an easy solution to a
rather inflammatory problem. Just look away if it bothers you.
That's not exactly a far right wing notion but when I wrote that, I
was accused of lying. LYING? About my opinion? I was called
homophobic in the same thread as I continuously offered the exact
same opinion each time.
I also stated complete opposition to the Constitutional Amendment in
a thread which you were involved. I constantly stated my opposition
to it while the accusations of my being an idiot flew left and right
while I was told I know nothing about the Constitution.
>And you seek arguments. You search them out. You leap in and gloat
>when anyone of your political stripe does something notable - which
>almost always is some sort of triumph (as you see it) over the demons
>on the other side of the fence. And there's virtually always a fence.
Why not? Discussion can be a learning experience. You call them
arguments and I regard them as discussion. Those two things are not
irreconcilable, as you well know. As I see it? Do you note above
what you just did? You told me what I mean or what I thought. That's
a very good trick and I'd love for you to teach me that one. As a
magician, I'd pay you LOTS of money for the secret to reading minds.
Wives can do it but they just deny it.
>Example being the whole Bush Kerry vote thing. Bush won, but not by
>much. Yes, Bush pulled more votes than any other presidential
>candidate in any previous election, but so did Kerry. You weren't able
>to concede that and tried to deal with what I wrote as though I had
>denied that Bush won. It was a silly position to take and merely made
>you look the clown. For the sake of ideology.
It was hyperbole and deliberately provoking. But so was your
original post. A win is a win but you seem to be willing to
compromise that by minimizing the win.
When Clinton beat George Bush Sr, I was disappointed probably much
like Kerry supporters are now. I never went to the extremes of
trying to extrapolate some sort of victory from that defeat. I
simply did my personal reconciliation with the loss and moved on
working towards offering a viable candidate four years later. So did
most Republicans. I don't remember reading or hearing about any
despondent Republicans needing counseling, psychotherapy or
committing suicide over the loss.
We're just different in our thinking.
>Your logic is often merely cementing the excuses for the positions
>you've already taken. Nothing moves you from the ideology to anything
>approaching a more human view.
I'd say my support of gay marriage and acts of generosity in my
daily life prove that to be wrong but they seem to go largely
unnoticed or simply mocked with derision. I am a registered marrow
donor and a regular blood donor. When I mention those things,
someone comes along and makes fun of them. I don't think it's my
right wing buddies doing that. Perhaps you can recall who they were.
Let's see how this one flies. Who will come along and deride me for
this one? During the Mexico City earthquake in 1985, I donated two
units in one setting. One unit of whole blood and one of plasma. I
worked every year for 20+ years for the American Red Cross to help
encourage people to donate blood. I do that now in Australia for the
Australian Red Cross. I don't really want recognition for it but to
prove to you that I am human and concerned for my fellow humans, I
offer this as first hand testimony to my actions. In other word, the
only reason for my mention of this is because you commented in an
off hand way about my humanism.
>Liberals are bad. Period. Conservatives
>are good. Period. You've tried to pin that "liberal" label on me in
>the heat of the exercise. If you actually believe that, you're wrong.
>And if you don't believe it but are just using it as a catchall fuck
>you, you're wrong. That kind of attitude is why the country is as
>divided as it is.
I know you to be moderate to left of center, Bob. Labeling you as a
liberal may have angered you but if you walk like a duck, you are a
duck. When you take a liberal or left wing point of view, the label
fits. I don't believe you are rigidly a left wing ideologist any
more than I know myself to be firmly right wing all the time.
Sometimes, I'm downright left wing. I can accept that you'd label me
a right winger since that is closer to my overall stance.
>I don't see qualifications as a writer if they're to include anything
>beyond the mere fact of stringing words. You employ spurious logic,
>distorted assertions, and evasions when you're at the margin of being
>forced to concede a point. You can craft a serviceable enough
>sentence, but too often they're transparently self-serving rather than
>offering information or anything useful. Ann Coulter can make some of
>the most amazingly vicious, clever - merely clever - sentences. But
>she's a lousy writer because she's glibly dishonest in the use of that
>capacity.
Bob, this is USENET, not the paying world of writing. You may
probably have read my paid writing and never even realized it. You
just never know.
>You make claims and don't back them up. Good example is the thing
>you've got going with Sloan now. You've called him a liar and insist
>that you sent something to him and he says you didn't. You've offered
>pejorative after pejorative and hot air. Instead, just post the stuff
>that would support your claims and be done with it. Or shut up.
There's the problem in a nutshell, Bob. Your world is one way or
"shut up." Consider for a moment the evidence you CAN see. The long
ago exchange right here on MW where Bob asked me for first hand
commentary about my experience. I didn't offer it here save to give
a brief synopsis. I did, in fact, send him a more detailed retelling
via e-mail and he did, in fact, reply. I later informed him via
e-mail of an error he made when he inadvertently posted his
brother's telephone number and e-mail address on MW. He didn't
delete that message without reading it, either. Instead, he replied
stating that his brother didn't do newsgroups so it was probably not
a problem.
Let's suppose I were to post all of the references that I have
regarding the exchange. It wouldn't matter one whit. Bob could just
as easily switch from calling me a liar to accusing me of fraud. So,
as I have noted all along, only Bob and I know the truth. I'm
content to leave it at that. Clearly, you and he are not. Take it up
with Bob Sloan in e-mail and maybe you'll be privy to a different
version of events away from the public eye. Maybe he'll be more
forthcoming if he doesn't have to make a public concession to the
incident.
You see, I'm willing to let it drop but Bob keeps bringing it up in
posts he makes where I am not even involved. He keeps it seething in
the back of his messages and now and again refers to it when he
lumps all of his adversaries together. Were it not for that, the
issue would be long dead.
>While, yes, this is a sort of playland, some people come through in
>ways I can't accept.
That's impossible, you realize. Since they are what they are, you
MUST accept them. You don't have to like them and I do understand
that to be your real meaning here. But, because of your wording, it
changes the actuality of the situation. You have to accept people as
they are just like anyone here does.
>There are people here I wouldn't have in my home
>and I'm absolutely sure it works in reverse as well. It's no big deal
>given that the likelihood of ever running into them where I can't just
>get up and leave the room is small.
There's no restriction on who I would or would not meet in person or
have in my home from this newsgroup. The reason is logical in the
extreme and perhaps not entirely wise. I see most here as being of
means and not criminal. If they were, they'd not be using computers
on a newsgroup. They'd be posting SPAM trying to get us to sign up
for this or that agency and taking our money for no services. Those
people get ferreted out quickly so the rest have a high probability
of being exactly as perceived.
>There are others I admire and
>enjoy. Some of the better writers are Hope, UV, fundoc, Zen, Maughan,
>Chris.tine, Penrose, Sloan...
My list included the same folk but is much longer. Expand your
horizons, Bob. Embrace all who write here and accept their
challenges to your mind. Grow with the disagreements treating them
as learning instruments instead of looking at them as jousts. You
can have it both ways, you know. You can joust while learning and
gaining in understanding.
>Why do I count them that way? They write
>interestingly, involvingly, intelligently and often, when they have
>nothing much to say, shut up. Unlike Cleo and Geno and Burr and,
>often, you.
Ok. I like your writing when you aren't agitated. I do. You wrote
about the turkey and salmonella a couple of days ago and I had to
agree except that I just leave the bird in longer to ensure the
beast is cooked. Rather than make that comment, I just looked at
what you wrote and realized your concern. I chose not to turn it
into the next field of honor for a joust. I was pretty convinced
that you'd no allow my comment to stand without it blossoming into
warfare.
>There's a difference between banter and outright pejoration. Banter
>assumes a modicum of wit. A measure of restraint. Scoring on the right
>target. Too often, you just crank up the insults with no regard to
>their validity. Like I told Wayne years ago, for an insult to have any
>meaning, it has to be based in truth. I can dismiss insults about my
>capacity to write because it's been proven by having many different
>editors buy it. Claims to be a writer based on what's posted here are
>too weak to credit.
I'll not discuss this beyond making this simple few statements. I
have written since 1972 using a pseudonym for personal reasons. No
one except the bank which accepts my payments knows that name is the
same as mine and that's the way it will remain. Since 1991, I have
written under both names.
>Serious reply.
Serious answer. I'd have a beer with you any day, Bob. But, I'd
prefer a good class of Bourbon and Branch Water. Over ice, please?
Yes, seriously.
Ray
Ejucaided Redneck
Still shootin;' blanks, eh Hadji?
--
Well, I told him who I was
and told him I was working steady
And I really should be gettin' on my way
That part about me bein' who I was did not impress him
He said, "The judge'll be here any day."
-- Tom T. Hall ("A Week in a Country Jail")
Chris.tine
> See, now, Chris.tine. Here's some spinning at its finest.
(snip snip snip snap)
> Mr. Sloan is interested ONLY in presenting those facts and views that
> demonstrate he feels the war in Iraq, and the politicians who
> promoted it and brought it to us are evil things. . .
>
> Dr. Oliver is interested ONLY in countering the perceived view of Mr.
> Sloan. He presents ONLY those facts that question Sloan's views, and
> slimes Sloan in the process. .
>
> Spin, spin. Both sides spinning, one to shove a political view out
> there, the other to show the balance that the first is missing.
>
> The first is not served by presenting balance, though.
> The second is not served by presenting balance.
> Both sides have "righteousness" on their sides, as far as they
> believe. Both sides believe that ethics is served by spinning.
>
> What d'ya think?
I've said it before, I think, but I do so love to repeat myself!
"Balancing" opposing sides just maintains polarity.
You can weight the responses on a number of balances--fairness,
accuracy, quantity, and argumentation skill, for example. If you did
that, would the two still be "equal" to you?
Values seem to be at play more than ethics. One writer seems to value
loyalty to the government more and the other seems to value individual
human life more.
So how each of us sees the debate depends on which writer's values are
closer to our own.
I think that one writer is attempting to show the other a different
perspective in hopes of modifying his viewpoint. I think the other is
writing to gain the approbation of people who are already on "his
side." Likely the later will be more successful than the former.
And no one moves off of square one.
And you? What do you think?
Chris.tine
Chris.tine
> Homosexuality is, in fact, obscene; and it's always amusing to see liberals
> such as "ejaculated" contradict their own *tolerant* rhetoric by slamming
> the very perverts they claim to support.
Here in Wisconsin, it's not the heterosexals or the homosexuals you
have to worry about. It's the ammosexuals.
One of them went bonkers this weekend in a dispute about a tree stand.
So he used his deer hunting rifle, a SKS semiautomatic assault rifle,
to express his displeasure.
Five dead, 3 injured. I think that's over the legal limit, even for
Meteor, WI.
I think he must have been watching basketball.
Of course, the guy was a foreigner. Entered the state illegaly from
Minnesota. You gotta watch them Minnesotans, fer sure.
Chris.tine
gekko
> And you? What do you think?
With respect to the topic of whether spin can be divorced from the
concept of "ethical" or "unethical", I'd say that it _can_ so be
divorced from that, irrespective of how one sees the debate, and
whether one's spin results in moving any position _if_ the spinners
in question are spinning from a position they consider ethical.
Whether the observer or recipient of the spin considers it an ethical
move or not is, of course, as you say. It depends.
As for how I see the two positions: I consider Mr. Sloan's spin to
be an attempt to get people to agree with his point of view, and Dr.
Oliver's to be an attempt to shine the harsh light of ridicule on Mr.
Sloan's one-sidedness. I think the result is that those who are
inclined to agree with Mr. Sloan will agree with him. Those inclined
to disagree with him will disagree with him and congratulate Billo on
his skill. Those who tend to see many sides to the issues will
either wring their hands or cheer them both on as being entertaining
as all get out. But then, I'm bringing some broader experiences with
those two to play, here, and my ability to be objective in this is
almost non-existant.
Apropos of nothing, do you find it odd that I just finished
researching the origins of "Bobs your uncle" and am now about to go
wander off in search of "all get out"?
--
gekko
Children seldom misquote you. In fact, they usually repeat word for
word what you shouldn't have said.
Alan Hope
>As for how I see the two positions: I consider Mr. Sloan's spin to
>be an attempt to get people to agree with his point of view, and Dr.
>Oliver's to be an attempt to shine the harsh light of ridicule on Mr.
>Sloan's one-sidedness.
There you have it, folks. Two goats butting horns. One is doing it for
good reasons, the other not.
That's yer definition of spin, right there.
--
AH
Bill Oliver
Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Bill Oliver wrote:
>
>> [you]
>> >Far as I can tell, no US serviceman has beheaded in Iraq or anywhere
>> >else. The only reference to such a thing I could find was to a Marine
>> >named Hassoun who later turned up safe and sound in a third country.
>
>Y'got me, BOob
>
Yes, in fact, I did. Your apologies for Islamofascist
terrorists and your liberal lynch mob rantings against
a Marine putting his life on the line for us betray you.
billo
gekko
> One is doing it for
> good reasons, the other not.
>
> That's yer definition of spin, right there.
>
Good job.
Dr Zen
wrote:
>"1948" <d...@DeQla.net> wrote in message news:<10pv9k8...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>> Homosexuality is, in fact, obscene; and it's always amusing to see liberals
>> such as "ejaculated" contradict their own *tolerant* rhetoric by slamming
>> the very perverts they claim to support.
>
>Here in Wisconsin, it's not the heterosexals or the homosexuals you
>have to worry about. It's the ammosexuals.
>
>One of them went bonkers this weekend in a dispute about a tree stand.
>So he used his deer hunting rifle, a SKS semiautomatic assault rifle,
>to express his displeasure.
>
So what?. Guns don't kill people. If he hadn't had that assault rifle,
he would have used his bare hands to mass-strangle his neighbours.
>Five dead, 3 injured. I think that's over the legal limit, even for
>Meteor, WI.
>
>I think he must have been watching basketball.
>
>Of course, the guy was a foreigner. Entered the state illegaly from
>Minnesota. You gotta watch them Minnesotans, fer sure.
>
Anyone who entrusts Americans with deadly weapons isn't fit to write a
constitution.
Zen
Ray Haddad
and Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> instead replied:
>Anyone who entrusts Americans with deadly weapons isn't fit to write a
>constitution.
Deadly weapons were the reason for Americans HAVING a Constitution,
Zen. Kicked those Redcoats clean off the continent, we did. They had
to go after Canada after that. Canada lost.
Ray
Ejucaided Redneck
You appear to have some special sort of dyslexia where words mean
something altogether different to you than to anyone not so afflicted.
The people you call "Islamofascist terrorists" are capable of barbaric
behavior.
We all knew that before we invaded Iraq, and it's foolish for anyone to
pretend their barbarism is a surprise.
They're also fighting a foreign army of occupation which is unprepared
and unable to deal with that sort of war.
Everyone _ought_ to have known that before the US invaded and occupied.
Shooting unarmed, wounded prisoners is criminal.
--
The tyranny of the ignoramuses
is insurmountable and assured
for all time.
Albert Einstein
Dr Zen
<rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Bill Oliver wrote:
>>
>> In article <41A029F3...@mindspring.com>,
>> Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >Bill Oliver wrote:
>> >
>> >> [you]
>> >> >Far as I can tell, no US serviceman has beheaded in Iraq or anywhere
>> >> >else. The only reference to such a thing I could find was to a Marine
>> >> >named Hassoun who later turned up safe and sound in a third country.
>> >
>> >Y'got me, BOob
>> >
>>
>> Yes, in fact, I did. Your apologies for Islamofascist
>> terrorists and your liberal lynch mob rantings against
>> a Marine putting his life on the line for us betray you.
>
>You appear to have some special sort of dyslexia where words mean
>something altogether different to you than to anyone not so afflicted.
>
>The people you call "Islamofascist terrorists" are capable of barbaric
>behavior.
>
>We all knew that before we invaded Iraq, and it's foolish for anyone to
>pretend their barbarism is a surprise.
>
>They're also fighting a foreign army of occupation which is unprepared
>and unable to deal with that sort of war.
>
>Everyone _ought_ to have known that before the US invaded and occupied.
>
>Shooting unarmed, wounded prisoners is criminal.
>
Psst, 'Neck. Headchopping lunatics = mostly Islamists, some foreign.
Insurgents = mostly Iraqis fighting occupation. Spot difference and
report to us.
Zen
Dr Zen
The *French* are the reason for America having a constitution. Not
that you're grateful.
Zen
pandora
"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:rnj4q059g0m9gud0c...@4ax.com...
Gram
> --
> AH
>
>
Ray Haddad
and Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> instead replied:
>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:27:47 +0800, Ray Haddad
><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:16:00 +1000, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>and Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> instead replied:
>>
>>>Anyone who entrusts Americans with deadly weapons isn't fit to write a
>>>constitution.
>>
>>Deadly weapons were the reason for Americans HAVING a Constitution,
>>Zen. Kicked those Redcoats clean off the continent, we did. They had
>>to go after Canada after that. Canada lost.
>
>The *French* are the reason for America having a constitution.
We know. Ellis Island and all that.
Ray
Chris.tine
> Apropos of nothing, do you find it odd that I just finished
> researching the origins of "Bobs your uncle" and am now about to go
> wander off in search of "all get out"?
Not in the least Even though they are both mainly of interest to those
with a conservative ideology. . .
Olly Olly Oxen Free,
Chris.tine
Ray Haddad
and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>The only reason to post to a newsgroup is to be amused. It ain't like
>it's real life.
Did you forget all about this, Bob? Are you still pretending that
you don't believe this to be real life?
--
Ray
Ejucaided Redneck
Usenet is _not_ real life, Haddud.
But boorish stupidity is quite real.
--
Time will wound all heels
And it ain't pretty.
--- Chris Smither ("Your Winsome Smile")
--
http://bobsloansampler.com/
Now available: "Nobody Knows, Nobody Sees"
Herald-Leader Column: http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/14945607.htm
MISSING MOUNTAINS: http://www.windpub.com/books/missing.htm
Ray Haddad
and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:46:14 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
>>
>> >The only reason to post to a newsgroup is to be amused. It ain't like
>> >it's real life.
>>
>> Did you forget all about this, Bob? Are you still pretending that
>> you don't believe this to be real life?
>
>Usenet is _not_ real life, Haddud.
So you're dead then. Another Bob passes.
>But boorish stupidity is quite real.
You demonstrate that daily, Bob. Since you're dead, I expect no
reply from your cadaver.
--
Ray