OT: Sorry if this offends Republicans
Jr@Ease
_________________________
Republican National Committee Convention Schedule 2004
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CONVENTION SCHEDULE
New York, NY
6:00 PM Opening Prayer led by the Reverend Jerry Falwell
6:30 PM Pledge of Allegiance
6:35 PM Burning of Bill of Rights (excluding 2nd Amendment)
6:45 PM Salute to the Coalition of the Willing
6:46 PM Seminar #1: Getting Your Kid a Military Deferment
7:30 PM First Presidential Beer Bong
7:35 PM Freedom Fries served
7:40 PM EPA Address #1: Mercury: It's What's for Dinner
8:00 PM Vote on which country to invade next
8:10 PM Call EMTs to revive Rush Limbaugh
8:15 PM John Ashcroft Lecture: The Homos Are After Your Children
8:30 PM Round table discussion on reproductive rights (men only)
8:50 PM Seminar #2: Corporations: The Government of the Future
9:00 PM Condi Rice sings "Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man"
9:05 PM Second Presidential Beer Bong
9:10 PM EPA Address #2: Trees: The Real Cause of Forest Fires
9:30 PM break for secret meetings
10:00 PM Second Prayer led by Cal Thomas
10:15 PM Carl Rove Lecture: Doublespeak Made Simple
10:30 PM Rumsfeld Lecture/Demonstration: How to Squint and Talk Macho
Even When You Feel Squishy Inside
10:35 PM Bush demonstration of trademark "deer in headlights" stare
10:40 PM John Ashcroft Demonstration: New Mandatory Kevlar Chastity
Belt
10:45 PM Clarence Thomas reads list of black Republicans
10:46 PM Third Presidential Beer Bong
10:50 PM Seminar #3: Education: A Drain on Our Nation's Economy
11:10 PM Hilary Clinton Pinata
11:20 PM John Ashcroft Lecture: Evolutionists: A Dangerous New Cult
11:30 PM Call EMTs to revive Rush Limbaugh again
11:35 PM Blame Clinton
11:40 PM Laura serves milk and cookies
11:50 PM Closing Prayer led by Jesus Himself
12:00 AM Nomination of George W. Bush as Holy Supreme Planetary
Overlord
John P
Brwencino
Don Harstad
Not bad!
Don H.
C.W. Cale
Cover your tracks and deny everything! (That's what they do!)
-- C.W. Cale, Liberal Catholic (double threat!)
-- http://www.cwcale.com/Davidindex.html
Rae
I'll bet we could come up with a pretty good one for us Democrats, too.
Cheers,
Rae
- who has pretty much had it with both parties ;-)
Beth Tindall
"Rae" <rae...@comcast.nospam.net> wrote
> *snicker*
>
> I'll bet we could come up with a pretty good one for us Democrats, too.
> Cheers,
> Rae
or, as the old joke goes, "I don't belong to an organized political party.
I'm a Democrat."
Beth
Joan
There are more of us out there, Charlie, than most people think.
Joan in GB-W
Brwencino
>
>There are more of us out there, Charlie, than most people think.
>Joan in GB-W
That's nice to hear, but somewhat perplexing. Why you would want to wrap up
humanism (which I take it you mean by the word "Liberal") with the
authoritarianism and repression of the Catholic or any other
orthodox/fundamental religion, is hard to understand. Yes, yes, I know that
the Church and other religions have done some good things in their thousands of
years histories, but Mussolini got the trains running on time and was tough on
the Mafia too. Unless, of course, you mean that you like the cookies and
camradie and don't pay much attention to the other repressive stuff. Maybe you
do it to hedge against the hereafter--lots of luck!
know how this works@cox.net elf
"Brwencino" <brwe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040514122045...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >>-- C.W. Cale, Liberal Catholic
> >
> >There are more of us out there, Charlie, than most people think.
> >Joan in GB-W
>
> That's nice to hear, but somewhat perplexing. Why you would want to wrap
up
> humanism (which I take it you mean by the word "Liberal") with the
> authoritarianism and repression of the Catholic or any other
> orthodox/fundamental religion, is hard to understand.
Well, as a point of history, originally "humanism" was a movement within the
Roman Catholic Church. The movers and shakers (so to speak) of the
Protestant Reformation were all humanists, or recieved much of their
education from humanists.
So the Catholic Church has something of a historicaly valid title to
"humanism".
Yes, yes, I know that
> the Church and other religions have done some good things in their
thousands of
> years histories, but Mussolini got the trains running on time and was
tough on
> the Mafia too. Unless, of course, you mean that you like the cookies and
> camradie and don't pay much attention to the other repressive stuff.
Well, you might be amazed at how many church goers listen politely to
whatever the priest/preacher says - and then go do what they think is right
regardless of what said priest/preacher said, or what authority he claims to
have.
Maybe you
> do it to hedge against the hereafter--lots of luck!
I suspect your metaphysical conclusions are less certain than you suppose
also.
ciao
elf
C.W. Cale
To my way of thinking...
"Liberal" and "Conservative" were derived from the amounts of
legislation they are perceived as wishing to impose on the masses.
Liberal gov't. means regulation of society in order to make sure that
the weakest members are taken care of by, if not the social contract,
then by public administration. Conservative gov't. is more laissez
faire, market driven (which hides their crimes) type of gov't. The
Church (and by The Church I mean Rome) is the most liberal in it's rules
and regs. against well, damn near everything.
HOWEVER; current AMERICAN thinking has transferred the meaning of
"Liberal" the be liberally accepting of others and Liberally open in
their beliefs. -and the AMERICAN Catholic Church tries very hard to be
inclusive of everyone as well, so either way Liberal Catholic makes
perfect sense.
It's the Conservative Right that would like to believe all Liberals are
godless humanists. Many of us are neither godless nor humanists.
If you have to fit me into a pigeonhole I wish you luck.
-- C.W. Cale
-- http://www.cwcale.com/
"I won't be going to hell, because Jesus finds me hilarious!"
C.W. Cale
> http://www.villagevoice.com/sutton/
> http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0419/fiore.php
>
> Cheryl
"Wow! Wotta country"
-Yakov Smirnoff
-- Charlie
-- http://www.cwcale.com/Davidindex.html
Jr@Ease
wrote:
>t's the Conservative Right that would like to believe all Liberals are
>godless humanists. Many of us are neither godless nor humanists.
Causing the thread to drift a bit, I've noticed that (primarily)
Republicans, in the most recent wave of political advertising, have
taken to proudly applying the label "conservative" to themselves,
while derogatorily applying the label "liberal" to their opponents,
but I have not noticed the opposite. It's as if Republicans think that
liberal is a bad thing, as opposed to simply a description of a
different viewpoint, like leprosy is a bad thing, and not just the
description of a disease. I have not seen Democrats trying to paint
their opponents as conservative, with the same sort of negative
implications, (my original, tongue-in-cheek post in this thread
notwithstanding).
Jane alluded to this in the past, IIRC.
John P
know how this works@cox.net elf
"C.W. Cale" <cali...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yKKdnU8BJ8e...@comcast.com...
>
> It's the Conservative Right that would like to believe all Liberals are
> godless humanists. Many of us are neither godless nor humanists.
>
> If you have to fit me into a pigeonhole I wish you luck.
I try not to pigeonhole anyone, but I assure you that you *are* a humanist,
as is is almost everyone living, at least in the industrialized west.
"Humanism, as molded by the Florentine crisis, produced a pattern of conduct
and thought which was not to remain limited to Florentine humanists. From
that time on there would exist a kind of Humanism which endeavored to
educate a man as a member of his society and state; a Humanism which refused
to follow the medieval precedent of looking upon the Rome of the emperors as
the divinely guided preparation for a Christian "Holy Empire" and the center
of all interest in the ancient world; a Humanism which sought to learn from
antiquity by looking upon it not melancholically as a golden age never again
to be realized, but as an exemplary parallel to the present, encouraging the
moderns to seek to rival antiquity in their vernacular languages and
literatures and in many other fields. Whereas such an approach to the past
and to the present had nowhere been found before 1400, it became inseparable
from the growth of Humanism during the Renaissance. "
[http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mosaic/chapter7/source195.html]
=======
". . . classical literature was regarded merely as a means of education;
it was known through secondary sources only, and the Church saw in the
worldly conception of life that had prevailed among the ancients an
allurement to sin. On the rise of secularism these views underwent a change,
especially in Italy. In that country the body politic had grown powerful,
the cities had amassed great wealth, and civic liberty was widespread.
Worldly pleasure became a strong factor in life and freer play was given to
sensory impulse. The transcendental, unworldly concept of life, which had
till then been dominant, now came into conflict with a mundane, human, and
naturalistic view, which centred on nature and man. These new ideas found
their prototypes in antiquity, whose writers cherished and extolled the
enjoyment of life, the claims of individuality, literary art and fame, the
beauty of nature. Not only ancient Roman culture but also the hitherto
neglected Greek culture was taken up by the movement. The new spirit broke
away from theology and Church. The principle of free, scientific inquiry
gained ground. It was quite natural that the value of the new ideal should
be exaggerated while the medieval national culture was undervalued.
It is customary to begin the history of Humanism with Dante (1265-1321), and
Petrarch (1304-74). Of the two Dante, by reason of his poetic sublimity, was
undoubtedly the greater; but, as regards Humanism Dante was merely its
precursor while Petrarch initiated the movement and led it on to success."
* * *
"Pius II (1458-64) was a Humanist himself and had won fame as poet, orator,
interpreter of antiquity, jurist, and statesman; after his election,
however, he did not fulfil all the expectations of his earlier associates,
although he showed himself in various ways a patron of literature and art.
Sixtus IV (1471-84) re-established the Vatican Library, neglected by his
predecessors, and appointed Platina librarian. "Here reigns an incredible
freedom of thought", was Filelfo's description of the Roman Academy of
Pomponio Leto (d. 1498), an institute which was the boldest champion of
antiquity in the capital of Christendom. Under Leo X (1513-21) Humanism and
art enjoyed a second golden age. Of the illustrious circle of literati which
surrounded him may be mentioned Pietro Bembo (d. 1547) -- famous as a writer
of prose and poetry, as a Latin and Italian author, as philologist and
historian, and yet, in spite of his high ecclesiastical rank, a true
worldling. To the same group belonged Jacopo Sadoleto, also versed in the
various branches of Latin and Italian culture. The chief merit of Italian
Humanism, as indeed of Humanism in general, was that it opened up the real
sources of ancient culture and drew from these, as a subject of study for
its own sake, the classic literature which till then had been used in a
merely fragmentary way. Philological and scientific criticism was
inaugurated, and historical research advanced."
[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07538b.htm]
ciao
elf
Janet Puistonen
<snip interesting stuff>
I suggest that you might want to read Iains Pears' Dream of Scipio, if you
haven't already. I think it would appeal to you.
--
Janet
Dear Artemesia! Poetry's a Snare:/Bedlam has many Mansions:have a
care:/ Your Muse diverts you, makes the Reader sad:/ You think your
self inspir'd; He thinks you mad.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.680 / Virus Database: 442 - Release Date: 5/9/04
Brwencino
>Roman Catholic Church. The movers and shakers (so to speak) of the
>Protestant Reformation were all humanists, or recieved much of their
>education from humanists.
Maybe so, but pretty hard to see. The Protestant Reformation? Wasn't that led
by Martin Luther, the guy who refined persecution of Jews in Germany to a fine
point in preparation for the mid 20th Century and a cuttie named Adolph? A
pretty weird definition of humanism if you ask me.
>Well, you might be amazed at how many church goers listen politely to
>whatever the priest/preacher says - and then go do what they think is right
I am certain that is true with liberals, but that's my point, why bother with
the fiction? Just being soc., or pleasing the folks?
>I suspect your metaphysical conclusions are less certain than you suppose
>also.
My point is that I don't have any metaphysical conclusions, but I am certainly
not about to accept a fictionalized version created and continued as a feel
good control mechanism. I have no problem if it helps you, it just seems that
at some point, actually many points, it contradicts rational humanism with
which I thought Liberals identified. I understand that Pres. Bush really
believes (really he does) that God annointed him to be President of the U.S.
and leader of the "free world", so religion for him fits like a glove. But,
for you?
Mark Alan Miller
"Janet Puistonen" <box...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%o9pc.39084$L8.1...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> elf wrote:
> <snip interesting stuff>
>
> I suggest that you might want to read Iains Pears' Dream of Scipio, if you
> haven't already. I think it would appeal to you.
I would second that recommendation, heartily. I wish Jane would, also, if
she hasn't. It's not a book I would recommend to most people because it is
densely philosophical, but I found it thoroughly remarkable and
entertaining. And Pears writes the most gorgeous prose.
Mark Alan Miller
Mark Alan Miller
>
> >Well, you might be amazed at how many church goers listen politely to
> >whatever the priest/preacher says - and then go do what they think is
right
>
> I am certain that is true with liberals, but that's my point, why bother
with
> the fiction? Just being soc., or pleasing the folks?
But if you are raised Catholic, and are instilled with the beliefs of that
church and its history, then there is no alternative. Catholicism is the
one. You can't just switch your allegiances to another church that has more
agreeable leadership. So a lot of Catholics follow their consciences and
ignore the Pope. Nothing new in that.
Mark Alan Miller
raised Catholic, but it didn't stick
ian
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 13:33:49 -0500, "C.W. Cale" <cali...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>t's the Conservative Right that would like to believe all Liberals are
>>godless humanists. Many of us are neither godless nor humanists.
>
>
>
> Causing the thread to drift a bit, I've noticed that (primarily)
> Republicans, in the most recent wave of political advertising, have
> taken to proudly applying the label "conservative" to themselves,
> while derogatorily applying the label "liberal" to their opponents,
> but I have not noticed the opposite.
Its also dishonesty in labelling from a crowd thats more than max-ed out
the nation's credit card. How they can square this kind of recklessness
with conservative thinking is beyond me. Especially when the only fiscal
control in view is coming from the people they call 'liberal'. The only
part thats true is the first syllable, 'con'.
Ian
Brwencino
>church and its history, then there is no alternative. Catholicism is the
>one. You can't just switch your allegiances to another church that has more
>agreeable leadership. So a lot of Catholics follow their consciences and
>ignore the Pope. Nothing new in that.
>
>Mark Alan Miller
>raised Catholic, but it didn't stick
Too bad, lots of guilt here, but that's a large part of what organized religion
is all about.
C.W. Cale
> "C.W. Cale" <cali...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:yKKdnU8BJ8e...@comcast.com...
>
>
>>It's the Conservative Right that would like to believe all Liberals are
>>godless humanists. Many of us are neither godless nor humanists.
>>
>>If you have to fit me into a pigeonhole I wish you luck.
>
>
> I try not to pigeonhole anyone, but I assure you that you *are* a humanist,
> as is is almost everyone living, at least in the industrialized west.
Okay okay I believe you! Good points all 'round!
I guess anyone who makes their own way spiritually or allows an open
mind to consider or observe what others believe in order to seek a
higher understanding of their lot in life would be more humanist than
spiritualist? Or have I tanked your concept all together? :(
-- Charlie
-- http://www.cwcale.com/Davidindex.html
JaneHadd
>humanism (which I take it you mean by the word "Liberal")
No, I don't think they were meaning to equate "liberal" and "humanist."
In its earliest known form in Western civilization, humanism IS Catholic.
Christian humanist was a movement the Christian Church comprising the end of
the high middle ages to the beginning of the Counterreformation. You call it
the Renaissance.
As to liberal--its use in most of the world means what we tend to mean in
the US by libertarian. In that sense, not all liberals are humanists in any
sense and not all humanists in any sense are liberals.
Used as the word is used in the US, not all humanists in any sense are
liberals in any sense and vice versa.
Liberal Catholics tend to be Catholics who a) are theoogically orthodox but
believe that governments should not legislate against sin or b) are
theologically heterodox in that they dissent from some basic Church teachings
on faith or morals.
In neither sense of the term "liberal Catholic" does a liberal Catholic need
to be in any way humanist.
Jane (being picky) Haddam
JaneHadd
>led
>by Martin Luther, the guy who refined persecution of Jews in Germany to a
>fine
>point in preparation for the mid 20th Century and a cuttie named Adolph? A
>pretty weird definition of humanism if you ask me.
Humanism was originally the movement in theology that discarded the
Scholastic emphasis on investigating the nature of God and turned instead to
thinking about questions about the relationship of God to man. Hence the name
"humanism"--about humans and their relationship with God, rather than about
what God himself was like.
> have no problem if it helps you, it just seems that
>at some point, actually many points, it contradicts rational humanism with
>which I thought Liberals identified.
Ah, now you see--you've added the word "rational."
I don't know of anything called 'rational humanism.' There is certainly
something called RATIONALISM, but people who believe in God in at least some
senses can be rationalists.
Then there is secular humanism, which is a rather particular philosophy with
which even a lot of rationalist atheists don't agree, and 'religious" humanism,
which is the kind proposed by John Dewey and the humanist Progressives.
You can be a rationalist atheist and reject the various modern humanisms,
and you can certainly be a liberal and reject them.
>I understand that Pres. Bush really
>believes (really he does) that God annointed him to be President of the U.S.
>and leader of the "free world", so religion for him fits like a glove. But,
>for you?
You really shouldn't jump to conclusions.
I'm an atheist. In fact, rather a vocal one.
But I don't see the point in throwing around words and concepts you don't
completely understand.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>the weakest members are taken care of by, if not the social contract,
>then by public administration. Conservative gov't. is more laissez
>faire, market driven (which hides their crimes) type of gov't.
No.
Originally, it's liberals who were laissez faire--that's why the movement
for social provision was called the Progressive movement, NOT the liberal
movement. "Liberal" is still used that way in many parts of Europe, so when
you see a European politician described as "liberal," you'd better check,
because half the time he's advocating free markets as well as freedom of
everything else.
Nor can conservatives in this country be called in favor of "laissez faire."
They're not. Conservatives, historically and now, are in favor of LOTS of
social regulation. That's why they want to ban gay marriages, criminalize
abortion, limit birth control to married couples, etc. Social control is what
conservatives are all about.
They're not in favor of laissez faire in economics, either, no matter what
they say. They love corporate welfare, and they love regulations targetted to
favor some businesses over others in any given field.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>liberal is a bad thing, as opposed to simply a description of a
>different viewpoint, like leprosy is a bad thing, and not just the
>description of a disease.
Oh, absolutely--they've also wildly redefined the word "liberal."
In spite of all the noise about social issues, what it's REALLY about is
"those elitist people on the Coasts who look down on good Americans like us."
It's become entirely visceral.
Jane (would somebody PLEASE tell the Republicans of Iowa that a Volvo is
a Ford) Haddam
JaneHadd
>> haven't already. I think it would appeal to you.
>
>I would second that recommendation, heartily. I wish Jane would, also, if
>she hasn't. It's not a book I would recommend to most people because it is
>densely philosophical, but I found it thoroughly remarkable and
>entertaining. And Pears writes the most gorgeous prose.
>
>Mark Alan Miller
It's--what? A novel?
What does this guy do?
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>> as is is almost everyone living, at least in the industrialized west.
Okay--but using "humanist" in that way isn't terribly helpful EXCEPT when
you're talking about the differences between the West and the Islamic nations.
Because most Muslims countries are NOT places where most people are
humanists, and that's what I mean when I say that it's about religion.
Jane Haddam
Mark Alan Miller
"JaneHadd" <jane...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040515111757...@mb-m12.aol.com...
It's a novel. He's the guy who also wrote An Instance of the Fingerpost,
and a charming series about an art investigation squad in Rome. But he is
also an art historian by training, and a remarkable writer of considerable
range. The art squad books are scholarly, but also very funny and lightly
romantic. Fingerpost is a grim, multiple POV novel about 17th century
England and its political and religious scheming, mixed in with a bit of
primitive medicine. Dream of Scipio is set in a town in Provence in three
centuries, the 5th, the 11th, and the 20th. The three stories are loosely
linked by a manuscript originally penned by a 5th century bishop, then found
by an 11th century monk, and found again by a 20th century scholar. All
three of these characters face terrible moral dilemmas and make very
different decisions (or fail to make decisions, in some cases). It's theme
is the application of philosophy to the messy business of life, especially
the often messier matter of love. It's an intellectual mystery not unlike
Eco.
Mark Alan Miller
Brwencino
>>I understand that Pres. Bush really
>>believes (really he does) that God annointed him to be President of the U.S.
>>and leader of the "free world", so religion for him fits like a glove. But,
>>for you?
>
> You really shouldn't jump to conclusions.
>
> I'm an atheist. In fact, rather a vocal one.
>
> But I don't see the point in throwing around words and concepts you don't
>completely understand.
>
> Jane Haddam
I am shocked. If Jane Haddam is an atheist, I guess I will have to reexamine
my atheism! And here I thought I was talking to Ann Coulter, my, my! You
know, "you can't be an Muslim and a humanist." Sounds right out of the Dogma
of Ann.
JaneHadd
>my atheism! And here I thought I was talking to Ann Coulter, my, my! You
>know, "you can't be an Muslim and a humanist." Sounds right out of the Dogma
>of Ann.
Well, it might, but that's not what I said.
Actually, come to think of it, it doesn't sound like Coulter at all. She'd
just advise nuking them.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>centuries, the 5th, the 11th, and the 20th. The three stories are loosely
>linked by a manuscript originally penned by a 5th century bishop, then found
>by an 11th century monk, and found again by a 20th century scholar.
Okay, I like the premise a lot.
Jane Haddam
Brwencino
>>of Ann.
>
> Well, it might, but that's not what I said.
>
> Actually, come to think of it, it doesn't sound like Coulter at all. She'd
>just advise nuking them.
>
> Jane Haddam
>
Yes, perhaps she is just more honest about her anti-Arab views than most who
hold those views. You might want to read the Haaretz interview of Labor Party
Knesset member Benny Morris (appeared about 3-6 months ago) for similar views.
Joan
>believe that governments should not legislate against sin or b) are
>theologically heterodox in that they dissent from some basic Church teachings
>on faith or morals.
>
> In neither sense of the term "liberal Catholic" does a liberal Catholic
>need
>to be in any way humanist.
>
> Jane (being picky) Haddam
Thank you for verbalizing so well what I could not. Now, folks, don't be
telling me that because I disagree with some of the stands of my church I
should leave it. If that be the case, I would have left this country the day
Shrub didn't win the election.
Joan in GB-W
JaneHadd
>hold those views. You might want to read the Haaretz interview of Labor
>Party
>Knesset member Benny Morris (appeared about 3-6 months ago) for similar
>views.
So...let's see.
Saying the following:
>>>Because most Muslims countries are NOT places where most people are
humanists, and that's what I mean when I say that it's about religion.>>>
is anti-Arab?
So when I say that most Christian countries of the High Middle Ages were
countries where most people were not humanists--I'm being anti-Christian?
Please note, that above is what I DID say, which has nothing to do with
whether "Muslims" "can" be humanists.
But in order to be a humanist, you have to meet at least a small set of
criteria.
First off is that you refer questions of law and morality to the human
example.
If there is a conflict that between what reason tells you should be illegal
or immoral, and what revelation tells you about the same, you opt for what
reason tells you.
But Shari'a law is based on exactly the contrary assumption--that if there
is such a conflict, individuals and societies must come down on the side of
revelation.
SO unless you're telling me that Shari'a is oppressively imposed on all the
Muslim countries where it is established, and that ALMOST ALL of them contain a
majority which rejects not only Shari'a itself but its intellectual
foundations...
Then most Muslim countries are NOT places where most people are humanists.
Which, once again, says nothing at all about whether "Muslims" "can" be
humanist.
And it's anti-Arab only if honest observation is anti-Arab.
Jane Haddam
Mark Alan Miller
>
> But in order to be a humanist, you have to meet at least a small set of
> criteria.
>
> First off is that you refer questions of law and morality to the human
> example.
>
> If there is a conflict that between what reason tells you should be
illegal
> or immoral, and what revelation tells you about the same, you opt for what
> reason tells you.
Right, just the opposite of the fundamentalists who continue to claim that
gay people are making a "choice", that it is a "lifestyle", contrary to all
evidence on the matter I am revolted by the organizations of black
ministers acting shocked and offended that gay people claim gay marriage,
indeed all gay rights issues, are legitimate civil rights, that because we
weren't enslaved it just isn't the same. Of course, some so-called civil
rights leaders have pulled the same crap with respect to Asian-Americans, so
I shouldn't be surprised.
Mark Alan Miller
Brwencino
I don't know what any of your rant has to do with reading Benny Morris's
interview in Haartz, which I still suggest that you do.
I would love to see your justification of his views, it would be quite
interesting. Of course, maybe you will disagree with him, who knows?
Bruiser Brody
> Republicans, in the most recent wave of political advertising, have
> taken to proudly applying the label "conservative" to themselves,
> while derogatorily applying the label "liberal" to their opponents,
> liberal is a bad thing, as opposed to simply a description of a
> different viewpoint, like leprosy is a bad thing, and not just the
> description of a disease.
Good comparison. Many of us on the right feel that modern liberalism
is a disease. ;)
> I have not seen Democrats trying to paint
> their opponents as conservative, with the same sort of negative
> implications, (my original, tongue-in-cheek post in this thread
> notwithstanding).
Nah, they just use "code words" like racist, homophobe, xenophobe,
fascist, greedy bastard, war-monger, liar, and Hitler.
Greg
Jr@Ease
wrote:
>> Causing the thread to drift a bit, I've noticed that (primarily)
>> Republicans, in the most recent wave of political advertising, have
>> taken to proudly applying the label "conservative" to themselves,
>> while derogatorily applying the label "liberal" to their opponents,
>> but I have not noticed the opposite. It's as if Republicans think that
>> liberal is a bad thing, as opposed to simply a description of a
>> different viewpoint, like leprosy is a bad thing, and not just the
>> description of a disease.
>
>Good comparison. Many of us on the right feel that modern liberalism
>is a disease. ;)
I see the smiley, but you made my point, anyway.
>
>> I have not seen Democrats trying to paint
>> their opponents as conservative, with the same sort of negative
>> implications, (my original, tongue-in-cheek post in this thread
>> notwithstanding).
>
>Nah, they just use "code words" like racist, homophobe, xenophobe,
>fascist, greedy bastard, war-monger, liar, and Hitler.
>
I didn't see any ads where Democrats called any Republican any of
those names, including Bush. To the contrary, some of the worst
negative ads were in the Republican primary, where Republicans were
slinging mud at other Republicans, each trying to out-conservative the
other.
But that was just Pennsylvania. The PA attorney general race was
particularly nasty, on the Republican side.
But I'm not sure you got my point, Greg. Did you understand that what
I was trying to relate was how Republicans have wrapped themselves in
the benign "conservative" mantle, while somehow causing the "liberal"
label to be used as a pejorative, rather then each label being
designated as simply the opposite of the other?
Liberals are no longer those people with particular political views.
They are evil incarnate, to the point that it is no longer necesary to
say "so and so believes in <insert liberal belief>". One need only say
"he's a liberal", and everyone goes "Oh no!" and crosses themselves.
>Greg
John P
MRFeathers
>fascist, greedy bastard, war-monger, liar, and Hitler.
>
Be fair, Greg, there are also code words used by the right to refer to the
left.
Mary
JaneHadd
>gay people are making a "choice", that it is a "lifestyle", contrary to all
>evidence on the matter
Interesting.
The thing is, as I understand what Jefferson would have called natural
rights, it shouldn't matter if homosexuality is innate or chosen--that's
literally not an issue. What two (or more) adults do with each other with full
consent of the will is the business of government only at the point where it
physically endangers nonconsenting parties. And since nobody else's rights are
conditioned on what they do or do not do with other consenting adults, gay
people's access to equality of condition under the law can't be conditioned on
that premise, either.
If you see what I mean.
Every time I see one of those conservative Christian sites with "you can
change if you want to!" written all over them, I want to grab somebody by the
shirt collar and go: IT'S NONE OF YOUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS.
But...my point again, about how conservatism does not champion laissez
faire in anything.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>interview in Haartz, which I still suggest that you do.
>I would love to see your justification of his views, it would be quite
>interesting. Of course, maybe you will disagree with him, who knows?
>
>
I haven't read the interview. I don't know what he is. I'm not much
interested.
What I find interesting is that when I did indeed show you evidence that you
had not simply misquoted me, but outright lied about what I said--you didn't
answer at all.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>will just have to sling mud without me.
Oh, goodness!
So--you misquote me, slander me, refuse to admit you misquoted me, accuse me
of "slinging mud" (what was that about how I was defaming Muslims?)--and then
cut and run?
Well, yes.
That fits.
Give it up. When you can take responsibility for yourself like a grownup,
you might be worth talking to.
Jane Haddam
Brwencino
> Give it up. When you can take responsibility for yourself like a grownup,
>you might be worth talking to.
>
> Jane Haddam
Gotta have the last word Jane? Well why don't you run away to your web site
and post another rant like you have done before? Good thing you dont' have a
common cold.
JaneHadd
>and post another rant like you have done before? Good thing you dont' have a
>common cold.
>
Oh, come now.
You're just throwing up a lot of sand and nonsense to try to hide the fact
that you owe me an apology, which you do.
To be good at insults you have to be original--and you're not.
Apologize and get it over with.
Jane Haddam
Crowfoot
> what conservatives are all about.
>
> They're not in favor of laissez faire in economics, either, no matter what
> they say. They love corporate welfare, and they love regulations
> targetted to favor some businesses over others in any given field.
>
> Jane Haddam
I agree. In my veiw, all the blather about letting "market forces"
determine outcomes and polices, and fostering competition, is complete
nonsense and outright lies. The kind of control conservatives are after
is not only social but economic, since the goal of their whole game is
monopoly (total "market share") for their own business, death to any
rivals.
Suzy
--
Crowfoot
JaneHadd
>determine outcomes and polices, and fostering competition, is complete
>nonsense and outright lies. The kind of control conservatives are after
>is not only social but economic, since the goal of their whole game is
>monopoly (total "market share") for their own business, death to any
>rivals.
>
>Suzy
>
>--
>Crowfoot
Well, I was thinking about conservatives in government--
And I don't buy the monopoly line, even though every MBA talks like that's
what he's talking about. It's like getting psyched up for a game or a test.
Most of them know monopoly is death.
But conservatives in GOVERNMENT aren't interested in monopoly so much as
they're interested in keeping their friends safe. They often have friends at
several companies in the same field. They don't want ANY of their people to go
down--either by being swallowed by one of the others or being bumped by people
from below.
So they rig the regs--"deregulation" means "getting rid of regulations that
give pain to large companies" while "keeping regulations that keep the cost of
entering the industry or growing from a small concern to a big one."
That's how the last big communications bill worked--sorry, I'm tired and
can't remember the year. But the deal was that large companies were rid of a
lot of the regs that stopped them from getting bigger, at the same time that
the regs that made it expensive to enter the market were kept in place or made
steeper, thereby keeping out competition from below.
But monopolies? No. Too many of their friends would get hurt in a world
where just one company survived.
Jane Haddam
Charles Bishop
Well, no. I don't know what kind of control conservative are after, but
market forces, unseen hand, et al are very good at providing the things
people want. Government tweaking the markets, whether conservative or
liberal (US defs.) make it harder.
charles
Brwencino
> Oh, come now.
>
> You're just throwing up a lot of sand and nonsense to try to hide the fact
>that you owe me an apology, which you do.
>
> To be good at insults you have to be original--and you're not.
>
> Apologize and get it over with.
>
> Jane Haddam
Gotta have the last work, dont' you. Let's see how long you keep at it. If
you are waiting for an apology you have an infinite wait.
Brwencino
But no major group of Christians anywhere now claims that heretics should
die for their heresy--none, zero, zilch. Certainly not John Ashcroft or George
Bush, and not the Vatican, either.
No major group of Christians anywhere claims--or, for that matter, ever has
claimed--that Christians may not be ruled by infidels, ever.
The first is a position held by large Muslim communities, not just a few
radical fringes, and the second is held by most Muslims, even most of those who
come to live in the West.
Jane Haddam
So, this from someone who thinks that Muslims can be humanists?
Gosh, I hope I did not misquote you. Go on have the last word again, this is
getting to be fun!
JaneHadd
Uh, huh.
Okay--please tell me where in any of that I said that no Muslim could be a
humanist?
Because I don't see it. Not anywhere.
As to what I DID say--
>>>>But no major group of Christians anywhere now claims that heretics should
>die for their heresy--none, zero, zilch. Certainly not John Ashcroft or
>George
>Bush, and not the Vatican, either.
This is true. If you believe that it is not true, PLEASE present evidence.
And remember the word "major" above.\
Five hundred years ago, lots of major Christian bodies believed that
heretics should die for their heresy--Christianity changed. That's a matter of
history.
But, please, if the Vatican or the Church of England is demanding to be
allowed to burn heretics on the front lawn, show me.
>
>No major group of Christians anywhere claims--or, for that matter, ever has
>claimed--that Christians may not be ruled by infidels, ever.
>
Again, this is true, if you think that this is not true, present evidence.
>The first is a position held by large Muslim communities, not just a few
>radical fringes, and the second is held by most Muslims, even most of those
>who
>
>come to live in the West.
And this is also true. If you think it isn't, present evidence.
In what way is ANY of this "anti-Arab"?
Is it "anti-Christian" to say that Catholic Christians hold it to be true
that the bread and wine is changed at communion to the actual body and blood of
Christ?
Is it "anti-Christian" to say that evangelical Protestants oppose legalized
abortion, or that fundamentalist Protestants believe that the world was created
in six days and through evolution?
Islam is a religion at a particular moment in its intellectual and cultural
history. It's what it is. Saying so is not "anti-Arab' any more than saying
that "half of all Americans don't think it's worthwhile to vote in presidential
elections" is anti-American.
Jane Haddam
Brwencino
>
><snip>
>
>Are you some kid that Jane gave a bad grade to?
>
>
>
>
>
>Naomi D.
Nope, just think some of her ideas are off base and there is way too much
hubris there for any one person. Besides, I am having fun!
JaneHadd
>
>
>
>
>
>Naomi D.
ROFLMAO.
I flunked six of them this term, too.
Jane Haddam
Brwencino
Still gotta have the last word? Can't let it go?
JaneHadd
>themselves.
> Still gotta have the last word? Can't let it go?
>
I wish you WOULD let my words speak for themselves.
Instead, you misquote me, mischaracterize what I've said, claim I mean
something I've given no evidence of meaning, and refuse to back up anything you
say.
So I've got two choices.
Either you're so immature you're simply unable to face apologizing to me--
Or you intend to misquote me, which is worse.
Give it up.
You owe me an apology.
Jane Haddam
Brwencino
>>themselves.
>> Still gotta have the last word? Can't let it go?
>>
Ditto.
JaneHadd
My, my. I thought you were having fun.
You owe me an apology. You lied, and then you tried to cover your lie.
Come on, sweetie, fess up.
Jane Haddam
Brwencino
Brwencino
>>
>> Jane Haddam
>
>
Mary Shafer
<cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>
> > Well, no. I don't know what kind of control conservative are after, but
> > market forces, unseen hand, et al are very good at providing the things
> > people want. Government tweaking the markets, whether conservative or
> > liberal (US defs.) make it harder.
>
> I've always found mysterious but beneficial market forces, unseen
> hands, etc., far harder to believe in than, say, Bigfoot, or aliens
> kidnapping people.
>
> Complicated mathematical models of economic theories, those I know exist.
> But I don't think the 'forces' they assume or describe are as yet
> particularly well understood. That makes it rather diffcult to assume
> anything about their nature, including whether or not they provide what
> 'people' (which ones?) want.
There's one force I understand and so do you. You may not realize you
do, though
It's what fills the shelves at the supermarket day in and day out with
food at a reasonable price. No one plans that, no one schedules when
and how much to plant and to harvest. No one tells the wholesaler
when to buy from the farmer and sell to the supermarket or at what
prices. But each supplier and each wholesaler, acting to maximize his
own profit, does what needs to be done to make it happen.
That's the invisible hand of the marketplace. It provides what we
want, when we want it, for a price we're willing to pay. No one plans
it or sets it up or anything. It's magic.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
Greenbanks
>> Gotta have the last work, dont' you. Let's see how long you keep at it.
>What an odd comment from someone who seems unable to leave without the
>last word.
>Cheryl
I was thinking the same thing.... maybe I should have the last word, instead.
M'Lou
JaneHadd
>isn't some phantom force making it all happen. It's all based on human
>plans and actions.
>
>--
>Cheryl
>
I think you're being too literal--Adam Smith didn't think there was actually
some phantom force, he was proposing a metaphor.
It's like "order" in the universe--there are a lot of people out there who
are convinced there must be a God because the universe looks orderly and
rational to them. Therefore, they think, SOMETHING must be ordering it.
But nothing needs to be--it's just the interaction of a set of forces
without will or consciousness.
It's the same with markets--markets work so well they look as if they must
be designed, and the name we give to that fact is 'the invisible hand."
But Smith didn't think there actually was a hand, or a force, or a
consciousness.
The question is--if you leave markets alone, will they in fact produce
optimum order, with "optimum" being defined as 'what most people want."
And the answer is yes, for MOST things--but not for all.
Health insurance really won't work on a market model for a whole slew of
reasons--a free market in health insurance services results in a mess even
worse than the one we've got now. Think of all health insurance run by the
rules of the individual market, where if you get sick the insurance company can
drop you BECAUSE you got sick.
Other things, though, work very well, and would not work better if they
were changed instead to a model based on centralized or expert control.
Of course, what bugs a lot of people about what happens in free markets is
that the majority turn out to want things the minority thinks they shouldn't
want--Big Macs, for instance, or pink flamingo lawn ornaments or chain hotels
and bookstores instead of the quirky, individual kind.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>last word.
>
>Cheryl
Snort.
Nah, he's just trying to deflect attention from the fact that he lied about
what I said so that he doesn't have to apologize for it.
But--I think I'm going to make this more interesting.
Jane Haddam
mrfea...@aol.ccom
Hm, do you think so? Oops! Sorry!
Mary
JaneHadd
>not enough people want it. I don't care how many people eat in MacDonald's
>or put pink flamingos on their lawns, I want cotton clothing as well as
>polyester, preferably in my size and favourite styles and in local stores,
>lots of funding for CBC, and bigger libraries and more bookstores.
>
>Cheryl (a minority, yet again, among the patrons of local businesses)
With me it's television--one of the reasons I don't watch television is that
every single show I've ever really liked, with the exception of West Wing, has
gone off the air in a season. Or less.
Yes, of course, if you're a member of a small minority, you're not going to
get what you want from the market.
On the other hand, that's how businesses are born--somebody identifying a
need that isn't being fulfilled, usually because it's something that person
wants and can't get.
Jane Haddam
mrfea...@aol.ccom
Cheryl, join me in the balcony? I have popcorn.
Mary
JaneHadd
>>>
>>> Jane Haddam
>>
>>
>I love when she begs!
>
You do?
Oh, good.
I BEG of you to relieve yourself of your abysmal ignorance and your
delusions of grandeur and start behaving like a grown up.
It's the end of the term, my book is in, I've got some downtime here.
And Mr. or Ms. B is a familiar type I've come to think of as the Ignorant
Atheist.
The Ignorant Atheist infests most atheist orgs, especially at meetings and
social hours, driving sane atheists off to have coffee at the nearest Church
Social.
The FIRST characteristic of the Ignorant Atheist is that he knows
absolutely nothing about religion. He's got a rant and a half about everything
from the Bible to Roman Catholic teaching on sexuality, and he knows nothing
about any of it. So our Wencino didn't know what a humanist was, and had no
clue whatsoever as to the history of the word. My guess is that he also knows
absolutely nothing about the principle of the primacy of conscience, because if
he did he wouldn't have been able to indulge in his silly lectures on
Catholicism. When it comes to religions outside the tradition he's been living
in--for instance, Islam--he's worse than clueless. He's never read the Koran.
He doesn't know who Averroes and Avicenna were. His basic motivation is a form
of disguised anti-Semitism--the Jews are on our side, so they must be bad, and
if they're bad then the other side, meaning the Arabs, must be good, so Islam
is going to be whatever he wants it to be.
The SECOND characteristic of the Ignorant Atheist is the fact that he's an
atheist mostly because he thinks it gives him the right to tell other people
how stupid and ignorant they are. His thinking is, if anything, worse than
simplistic. Atheism=smart. Theism=stupid. You'd think that given his
ignorance level (see above), he'd have caught on by now, but he hasn't, because
he doesn't want to. Our Wencino hasn't told us anything about his resume, but
my guess is that it's considerably thinner than the one that belongs to, say,
Alvin Plantinga. Or Jim Burchaell. He'd be left in the dust by any run of the
mill faculty member at Notre Dame, but he doesn't care, because--well, it's
obvious. That guy is a Catholic. He MUST be stupid.
The THIRD characteristic of the Ignorant Atheist is that he's so full of
himself, he just can't seem to pay attention. So, in spite of the fact that
he's been on this list for years, Wencino was apparently unaware that I'm an
atheist, and that Elf is neither a Christian nor a Catholic, either. And yet
I've been very vocal about my atheism and Elf hasn't been shy about his
beliefs.
The FOURTH characteristic of the Ignorant Atheist is that he's dogmatic to
a degree that would have made Torquemada blush. He speaks in pronouncements.
He feels no need to present evidence for anything he says, and if he's pressed
to produce such evidence he falls back on name-calling and more dogmatic
pronouncements. He can't apologize when he's wrong, because there's no room in
his dogmatism for him to be wrong, and besides atheists are smart and theists
are stupid, so he can't possibly really be wrong, because whoever he's arguing
with doesn't know anything anyway. He goes completely nuts when you point out
to him that his anti-religious rants are biased and uninformed. If you're
saying something GOOD about religion or religious people, you must be religious
yourself, or--as I was once called by an Ignorant Atheist in another context--a
"mole" meant to worm your way into the secular movement in order to destroy it.
The world is absolutely black and white--except if you point out to him that
he's thinking that way, he'll accuse you of racism for using that particular
figure of speech. He's abandoned religion but not Religion, and he spends most
of his time wallowing in the irrational in order never to face the truth about
himself.
End of rant.
Jane
Bruiser Brody
> >fascist, greedy bastard, war-monger, liar, and Hitler.
>
> I didn't see any ads where Democrats called any Republican any of
> those names, including Bush. To the contrary, some of the worst
> negative ads were in the Republican primary, where Republicans were
> slinging mud at other Republicans, each trying to out-conservative the
> other.
The Dems don't need to run those types of ads when they've got the
mass media and the leftist activists to do it for them, John.
Conservatives have been smeared in the media and by activists for
years now and this president is no different.
> But that was just Pennsylvania. The PA attorney general race was
> particularly nasty, on the Republican side.
>
> But I'm not sure you got my point, Greg. Did you understand that what
> I was trying to relate was how Republicans have wrapped themselves in
> the benign "conservative" mantle, while somehow causing the "liberal"
> label to be used as a pejorative, rather then each label being
> designated as simply the opposite of the other?
Oh, I got your point about how the word "liberal" has been turned into
a term of derision, but I disagree that Dems and liberals are not and
have not been doing the same to "conservative". For years now, anyone
that has not toed the liberal line has been called racist, homophobic,
sexist, xenophobic, jingoistic, eltist, and any other number of
slanderous terms. Now that the Dems are getting back some of what
they've been giving so much of over the years, they're crying foul
(not you, necessarily).
> Liberals are no longer those people with particular political views.
> They are evil incarnate, to the point that it is no longer necesary to
> say "so and so believes in <insert liberal belief>". One need only say
> "he's a liberal", and everyone goes "Oh no!" and crosses themselves.
I think a better question for the "true" liberals here on RAM and
everywhere else is this... was it the consrvative Republicans that
made "liberal" a dirty word, or was it the leftist activists like that
the Democratic party courted so heavily over the years that caused
Americans to view liberals as they now do? IMO, the Democratic party's
long cozy relationships with folks like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharption,
Patricia Ireland, and Andrea Dworkin, among others, has done more to
demonize them with the red states than anything the Republicans
could've ever done.
Greg
JaneHadd
>everywhere else is this... was it the consrvative Republicans that
>made "liberal" a dirty word, or was it the leftist activists like that
>the Democratic party courted so heavily over the years that caused
>Americans to view liberals as they now do?
It was conservatives.
The word "liberal" is now and has been for some time used by conservatives
not to mean any particular political ideas, but a style of life--back to that
Iowa ad about Volvo-driving, sushi-eating, NY Times-reading, etc. It's class
warfare, really--liberals are uppity elitist intellectuals on the coasts who
LOOK DOWN ON PEOPLE LIKE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
It's got nothing at all to do with political ideas, which is why somebody
like Dick goes to Kerry's web site, reads what's there and declares the man
must be lying, because it turns out he agrees with at least half of it--liberal
IDEAS are pretty mainstream (spend money on good public schools, save social
security, don't give tax breaks to people who outsource jobs overseas, what you
do in your own bedroom should be your own business), with mainstream being
defined as "what most people think."
> IMO, the Democratic party's
>long cozy relationships with folks like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharption,
>Patricia Ireland, and Andrea Dworkin, among others, has done more to
>demonize them with the red states than anything the Republicans
>could've ever done.
The Democratic Party has no relationship with Andrea Dworkin.
Her only close ties to a national political figure are to a REPUBLICAN--Ed
Meese. It was Meese who brought Dworkin to Congress as his star witness in an
attempt to get Congress to pass a federal law against "pornography," and it is
REPUBLICAN municipal administrations in the US who use her work in their
attempts to pass municipal ordinances that would ban pornography.
The Democrats rejected everything she was for.
As to the others--I think a relationship with them is far less egregious
than a relationship with the likes of Robertson, Falwell, Dobson and Wildmon.
With the added plus for the Democrats that Jackson, Sharpton and Ireland
don't make policy, or even influence it much, in Democratic administrations.
While the Bush administration has sold its soul to the religious right
nutcases in practically every way.
Jane Haddam
Joan
>every single show I've ever really liked, with the exception of West Wing,
>has
>gone off the air in a season.
>Jane Haddam
My sister told me that Brad Whitford gave the commencement address at her
son's graduation at the Univ.WI, Madison. I asked who Brad was and she told me
one of the cast on The West Wing. She added that she thought Pete's class got
a better speaker that did Concordia--over near Milwaukee. He, he. (And
Kathy's a Repbulican.)
Joan in GB-W
know how this works@cox.net elf
"Janet Puistonen" <box...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%o9pc.39084$L8.1...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> elf wrote:
> <snip interesting stuff>
>
> I suggest that you might want to read Iains Pears' Dream of Scipio, if you
> haven't already. I think it would appeal to you.
> --
Tks. Ordered today.
elf
ntn
I thought Brad Whitford played guitar for Aerosmith.
--
ntn
Brwencino
> End of rant.
>
> Jan
> End of rant.
>
> Jane
Jane will never stop ranting, nor will she ever get the last word on this
thread. How's your blood preasure Jane. Tell us again about the difference
between humiliation and torture of prisoners, especially when they are a
rabs.
Beth Tindall
instead.
> >M'Lou
>
>
> Hm, do you think so? Oops! Sorry!
> Mary
no!! I want the last word!!
Beth
JaneHadd
>thread. How's your blood preasure Jane. Tell us again about the difference
>between humiliation and torture of prisoners, especially when they are a
>rabs.
Tell me about humanism.
And my blood pressure is fine.
So--you think there's no difference between something that's done to you to
make you embarrassed or ashamed, and something that's done to you to put you in
severe PHYSICAL pain?
Forget Arabs--how about you?
I can pick up some great equipment to show you the difference.
Then you can apologize for lying about what I'd said.
Jane Haddam
Brwencino
>>between humiliation and torture of prisoners, especially when they are a
>>rabs.
>
> I can pick up some great equipment to show you the difference.
Oh, I am sure you can Jane, I am sure you can. On this we are in total
agreement.
JaneHadd
>agreement.
>
Very good.
Now, just apologize like a good boy and get it over with.
Jane Haddam
Brwencino
> Very good.
>
> Now, just apologize like a good boy and get it over with.
>
> Jane Haddam
>
Perhaps you should put a special order out for your torture equipment to induce
an apology. By the way, are you certain you have correctly identified my
gender?
mrfea...@aol.ccom
Andrew Barss
: The Dems don't need to run those types of ads when they've got the
: mass media and the leftist activists to do it for them, John.
: Conservatives have been smeared in the media and by activists for
: years now and this president is no different.
Hmmm. From my point of view, the smearing in the press has been directed
primarily at the Democrats.
-- Andy Barss
JaneHadd
>
>i'm in.
>
>
>-----------
>@vicki
Well, come right along, but it's going to be boring.
He never actually says anything except to either insult or attack people--and
not just me, either. He managed to attack Catholics AND atheists in this last
round.
Call him on it, and he just goes on doing it as if he hasn't been caught.
But, draw up a seat.
I'll be HAPPY to give him the last word, as long as that word is an apology
to me.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>induce
>an apology. By the way, are you certain you have correctly identified my
>gender?
>
Actually, I haven't identified your gender at all. That's why I called you
"Mr. or Ms." Wencino, which could be an alias or something too, for all I know.
If you mean why did I use "he" throughout, it was because I was talking in
the singular, and when you do that in English you use "he" as the default.
I'll call you 'she" from now on, if you like.
But I don't need to get my torture equipment.
You know you lied.
You just need to face up to it and apologize.
Jane Haddam
know how this works@cox.net elf
"Brwencino" <brwe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040517132438...@mb-m29.aol.com...
Well, unless there are two persons on your account sharing one email
address, you signed one email to rec.gambling.poker as "Barry the Amateur":
Not too many women go by "Barry" in my (perhaps too limited) experience.
And the voice in the emails I read was pretty uniform, so I kind of doubt
there are two people using that email address.
FWIW
elf
Janet Puistonen
>> Dream of Scipio is set in a town in Provence in three
>> centuries, the 5th, the 11th, and the 20th. The three stories are
>> loosely linked by a manuscript originally penned by a 5th century
>> bishop, then found by an 11th century monk, and found again by a
>> 20th century scholar.
>
> Okay, I like the premise a lot.
>
> Jane Haddam
It's a good book. Mark Alan and I both liked it a lot.
--
Janet
Dear Artemesia! Poetry's a Snare:/Bedlam has many Mansions:have a
care:/ Your Muse diverts you, makes the Reader sad:/ You think your
self inspir'd; He thinks you mad.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.680 / Virus Database: 442 - Release Date: 5/9/04
Brwencino
> I'll be HAPPY to give him the last word, as long as that word is an apology
>to me.
>
> Jane Haddam
Let's see--Jane calls me a liar, ignorant, anti-Semetic, other slurs too
numerous to remember or mention and makes unsupported allegations about my
gender and she wants an apology? Aint gonna happen. Sticks and stones will
break my bones, but names will never hurt me, so better get out your torture
devices Jane.
Janet Puistonen
>> Give it up. When you can take responsibility for yourself like a
>> grownup, you might be worth talking to.
>>
>> Jane Haddam
>
> Gotta have the last word Jane? Well why don't you run away to your
> web site and post another rant like you have done before? Good thing
> you dont' have a common cold.
I love it when someone who is clearly: a) trying to bait another person from
the shelter of anonymity, and b) bent on having the lst word her or himself,
pulls this kind of crap.
Lynn allen
> Brwencino wrote:
> >> Give it up. When you can take responsibility for yourself like a
> >> grownup, you might be worth talking to.
> >>
> >> Jane Haddam
> >
> > Gotta have the last word Jane? Well why don't you run away to your
> > web site and post another rant like you have done before? Good thing
> > you dont' have a common cold.
All right, all RIGHT!
Don't make me turn this newsgroup around!!
Lymaree