Charles Stross and the Destruction of Israel (was Macleod and the Destruction of Israel )
serg271
existance is wrong.
" Sometimes disproportionate response is exactly right, and for the
state of Israel disproportionate response will always seem right. What
is wrong is the existence of a state that can exist in no other way.
Its only hope of survival, spelled out clearly enough by Jabotinsky, is
to reduce the millions of people it has wronged to utter despair:"
Charlse Stross is defending MacLeod position (and Ahmadinejad too),
and nowhere he is saying that he disagree with MacLeod about Israel
existance. So can Stross answer, should in his opinion Israel exists or
no ? And if it should can it defend itself without "disproportionate
response" ? Answer like "MacLeod didn't mean it" would count as "Stross
completly agree with MacLeod but afraid to say so".
No 33 Secretary
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
serg271
No 33 Secretary wrote:
> Not even a very good troll. Amateur.
In this case not a troll. I want to hear the answer. Stross was one of
my favorite writers.
James Nicoll
Charles Stross is an anti-semite? That should be amusing.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
No 33 Secretary
@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
QED. Not even a very good troll. It's clear you are uninterested in the
subject matter, and seeking only attention.
I *know* trolls son, and you haven't got what it takes.
No 33 Secretary
@panix2.panix.com:
> In article <1156266639....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> serg271 <aocr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>No 33 Secretary wrote:
>>> Not even a very good troll. Amateur.
>>
>>In this case not a troll. I want to hear the answer. Stross was one of
>>my favorite writers.
>>
> Pardon me, but are you working your way toward claiming
> Charles Stross is an anti-semite? That should be amusing.
>
No, he's only trolling for attention. The reason why he gets it is
completely, totally unimportant. Only that he gets it.
And you fed him.
Mike Schilling
"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ecfe8c$35n$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <1156266639....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> serg271 <aocr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>No 33 Secretary wrote:
>>> Not even a very good troll. Amateur.
>>
>>In this case not a troll. I want to hear the answer. Stross was one of
>>my favorite writers.
>>
> Pardon me, but are you working your way toward claiming
> Charles Stross is an anti-semite? That should be amusing.
Is Charles Jewish, then? (I've been accused of anti-Semitism, after all.)
Stewart Robert Hinsley
<jdni...@panix.com> writes
>In article <1156266639....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>serg271 <aocr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>No 33 Secretary wrote:
>>> Not even a very good troll. Amateur.
>>
>>In this case not a troll. I want to hear the answer. Stross was one of
>>my favorite writers.
>>
> Pardon me, but are you working your way toward claiming
>Charles Stross is an anti-semite? That should be amusing.
>
thread. (The claimer may be in your killfile.)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
Me too, as it happens.
Ahasuerus
> Is Charles Jewish, then? [snip]
According to Charles' other Usenet posts (e.g.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.bi/msg/e16cc1b8f4047a25), his
parents were Jewish, but he is an "atheist, with occasional forays into
Discordianism".
--
Ahasuerus
Mike Schilling
"Ahasuerus" <ahas...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1156286448.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Jewish enough for Hitler, as the old saying goes.
Ahasuerus
> "Ahasuerus" <ahas...@email.com> wrote
> > Mike Schilling wrote: [snip]
> >>
> >> Is Charles Jewish, then? [snip]
> >
> > According to Charles' other Usenet posts (e.g.
> > http://groups.google.com/group/soc.bi/msg/e16cc1b8f4047a25), his
> > parents were Jewish, but he is an "atheist, with occasional forays into
> > Discordianism".
>
> Jewish enough for Hitler, as the old saying goes.
Well, sure, but then Hitler may have found a few other things about
Charlie even more objectionable -- see the post linked above :)
Of course, one can be "of Jewish origin" and an anti-Semite; or one can
be Jewish and strongly anti-Israel. It's a big world out there :)
--
Ahasuerus
Luke Webber
> Well, sure, but then Hitler may have found a few other things about
> Charlie even more objectionable -- see the post linked above :)
>
> Of course, one can be "of Jewish origin" and an anti-Semite; or one can
> be Jewish and strongly anti-Israel. It's a big world out there :)
But it's still not possible to be anti-Israel without being labelled an
anti-semite. 8^(
Luke
Robert Sneddon
Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Ahasuerus" <ahas...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:1156286448.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> According to Charles' other Usenet posts (e.g.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.bi/msg/e16cc1b8f4047a25), his
>> parents were Jewish, but he is an "atheist, with occasional forays into
>> Discordianism".
AFAIK his parents are still Jewish.
>Jewish enough for Hitler, as the old saying goes.
Relatives of his didn't make it out of Europe before the War and some
of them died at the hands of the Nazis.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
serg271
James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <1156266639....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> serg271 <aocr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >No 33 Secretary wrote:
> >> Not even a very good troll. Amateur.
> >
> >In this case not a troll. I want to hear the answer. Stross was one of
> >my favorite writers.
> >
> Pardon me, but are you working your way toward claiming
> Charles Stross is an anti-semite? That should be amusing.
>
irrational dislike of Israel.
Michael Grosberg
Well, you have an issue with Stross, you can email him. No reason to
post this on RASFW.
Robert Sneddon
serg271 <aocr...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>James Nicoll wrote:
>> Pardon me, but are you working your way toward claiming
>> Charles Stross is an anti-semite? That should be amusing.
>>
>No. I claiming he is anti-Israel. "Th tail wag dog" is a cue of
>irrational dislike of Israel.
I've yakked with Charlie a lot about stuff, including international
politics ("opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one."). My
opinion of his opinion about Israel is that he's not pro-Israel. This is
taken by black/white thinkers as him being anti-Israel and he being a
"self-hating Jew" because of this.
I used to be pro-Israel even though I was aware of its birth from
terrorism. I've latterly come to the conclusion I believe Israel may not
be sustainable where it is and with its ongoing policies towards its
neighbours. It's fine to say the Arabs must change their ways of
thinking and come to an accommodation with Israel, but there's not much
indication this is going to happen in the near future, and Israel only
has to lose big-time once for it to cease to exist.
serg271
Robert Sneddon wrote:
> In message <1156305815.8...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> serg271 <aocr...@yahoo.com> writes
> >
> >James Nicoll wrote:
>
> >> Pardon me, but are you working your way toward claiming
> >> Charles Stross is an anti-semite? That should be amusing.
> >>
> >No. I claiming he is anti-Israel. "Th tail wag dog" is a cue of
> >irrational dislike of Israel.
>
> I've yakked with Charlie a lot about stuff, including international
> politics ("opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one."). My
> opinion of his opinion about Israel is that he's not pro-Israel. This is
> taken by black/white thinkers as him being anti-Israel and he being a
> "self-hating Jew" because of this.
There is a difference between not being pro-Israel and being
anti-Israel. "disproportional rsponse" etc. could be counted as "not
being pro-Israel". Conspiracy theories about Israel lobby controlling
US ("the tail wag dog") and about intentional mistranslation of
Ahmadinejad is defenitly anti-Israel, and not appropriate for rational
person.
Michael Hellwig
> I *know* trolls son, and you haven't got what it takes.
>
now _that_ (the first part of that sentence) is an interesting way to
put it. "Know thyself" and all that. Still, well done.
--
Michael Hellwig aka The Eye olymp.idle.at admin
to contact me via email, use michael...@uni-ulm.de
don't hesitate to look at http://laerm.or.at
Robert Sneddon
serg271 <aocr...@yahoo.com> writes
>There is a difference between not being pro-Israel and being
>anti-Israel. "disproportional rsponse" etc. could be counted as "not
>being pro-Israel". Conspiracy theories about Israel lobby controlling
>US ("the tail wag dog") and about intentional mistranslation of
>Ahmadinejad is defenitly anti-Israel, and not appropriate for rational
>person.
Israel's political manipulations of the American government are not
"theory". Israel receives military support from America, both materiel
and financial in the same way Hezbollah receives support from Syria and
Iran. No-one in the American political scene has come forward to condemn
the bombing of many areas of Lebanon by Israeli forces which had little
or nothing to do with Hezbollah; complaints from European quarters about
these attacks were labelled as "anti-Semitism" by the US press. The
incident where a UN base was bombed by Israel seems to have fallen off
the US press' radar although it has had a major effect on the UN's
response to the border situation, in that France wants Chapter 7
authority to use force if it is to put serious numbers of troops into
Lebanon. That's not to allow them to attack Hezbollah, which has been
politically astute enough to leave the UN observers well alone over the
decades. That's to allow the UN forces to defend themselves against
Israeli forces that threaten to attack the UN positions "accidentally".
Ahmadinejad's statement about Israel fading away into history is pretty
clear; he's in fact quoting Ayatollah Khomenei's words about another
situation many years before (I think in reference to the Shah) and
putting them to the Israel situation now. Having the West condemn him
for his words makes him more and more popular at home in true demagogue
fashion so he does not moderate his tone. However, as Goering once asked
of the Pope, "How many divisions does he have?"
Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran. That word "president" does not
mean what you think it means; it's to a large extent a figurehead
position in Iran as it is in many other countries. He can't order a war
started, he is not Commander in Chief of the armed forces of Iran, he
has in fact little real power. What he is getting, thanks to the efforts
of the United States and some other Western countries, is a large mob
following in Iran who see him as standing up to the imperialist
oppressors of Islam, and he's milking it for all it's worth. That's more
dangerous, in my eyes.
serg271
Robert Sneddon wrote:
> In message <1156327024.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> serg271 <aocr...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >There is a difference between not being pro-Israel and being
> >anti-Israel. "disproportional rsponse" etc. could be counted as "not
> >being pro-Israel". Conspiracy theories about Israel lobby controlling
> >US ("the tail wag dog") and about intentional mistranslation of
> >Ahmadinejad is defenitly anti-Israel, and not appropriate for rational
> >person.
>
> Israel's political manipulations of the American government are not
> "theory". Israel receives military support from America, both materiel
> and financial in the same way Hezbollah receives support from Syria and
> Iran. No-one in the American political scene has come forward to condemn
> the bombing of many areas of Lebanon by Israeli forces which had little
> or nothing to do with Hezbollah; complaints from European quarters about
> these attacks were labelled as "anti-Semitism" by the US press
Israel recieve US support both political and material, but it's not
one-sided relations as "tail wag dog" theory represent. The price
Israel paying for it is very high - she follow slavishly any order of
US government, and US has right of veto on any Israel political move.
US military help is destructive for Israel own military industry, and
give US huge leverege, which US is not shy to use - like the later
refuse to deliver cluster-warhead rockets during the heat of the
fighting. It's more like drug addiction. US paying 3 billion and some
UN vetoes, for control of the country with 160 billion GDP, 170
thousand standing army and 9 billion military expenditures yearly.
Bargain price really.
About some US media sympathising with Isreal - Isreal on of the few
*not* anti-american countries in the world. So it's logical.
And About Ahmadinejad - he said what he said. To pretend that he did
not say it is either hypocricy or self-delusion.
Gerry Quinn
fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk says...
> Lebanon. That's not to allow them to attack Hezbollah, which has been
> politically astute enough to leave the UN observers well alone over the
> decades. That's to allow the UN forces to defend themselves against
> Israeli forces that threaten to attack the UN positions "accidentally".
Garbage (what else is new?). 47 members of the Irish army were killed
in Lebanon on UN peacekeeping duties. That's proportionately more of
the Irish army than the proportion of the US army lost in Iraq. They
were killed by all factions including Hezbollah.
Hezbollah used UN outposts as shields in the same fashion as they use
Lebanese civilians now.
< http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287936,00.html >
- Gerry Quinn
Charlie Stross
as <mscotts...@hotmail.com> declared:
Yes. And I have cousins who live in Jerusalem. And another branch of the
family that doesn't (having disappeared into the maw of Auschwitz
sixty-something years ago).
-- Charlie
Charlie Stross
The "tail wag dog" is a clue that there's something very weirdly flaky
about American foreign policy.
Tony Blair likes to kid himself that there's a "special relationship"
between the USA and Great Britain. There *is* a "special relationship"
with the USA, but the recipient isn't Tony Blair. Or Margaret Thatcher,
for that matter. (Where was the USS Nimitz when the UK had to re-take
the Falkland Islands?)
But that's just the blind spot in US politics. You asked about me:
In addition to being an antitheist, I'm an anti-nationalist. Too many
people have been killed by vicious lunatics invoking love of the
fatherland to allow me to indulge in wide-eyed patriotism of any kind.
Moreover, I'm an anti-racist. This is deep in the blood: it's something
I am required to be, in memory of those of my relatives who paid the
ultimate price for racism and nationalism.
There is a very nasty eliminationist, racist streak in the political
rhetoric of the muslim world -- cultivated by extremists who find an
external enemy (in their case, Israel) a valuable domestic political tool.
I can't support their calls for the elimination of Israel, because to do
so would be to betray my own core principles.
But I can't support Israel, either. A nation that bases its allocation
of citizenship rights on racial or ethnic identity and that employs
collective punishment as a tool for dealing with outsiders is repugnant.
So I'll just content myself by saying "a plague on racists and
nationalists everywhere", and you can read that as a blanket
condemnation of everyone on both sides of the Arab/Israeli conflict --
except for the pacifists. Of whom there are far too few.
-- Charlie
Charlie Stross
as <aocr...@yahoo.com> declared:
> About some US media sympathising with Isreal - Isreal on of the few
> *not* anti-american countries in the world. So it's logical.
1. There are quite a lot of countries that aren't anti-American.
2. When confronted with anti-X sentiment, it's worth asking whether X
has done anything to annoy the people concerned. I think in the case of
America, the answer is very often "yes". (But then, US foreign policy
has been broken by design ever since the 19th century. If not earlier.)
-- Charlie
Ahasuerus
> I want to hear the answer. Stross was one of my favorite writers.
There is a very good chance that hanging out on r.a.sf.w will result in
running into SF writers, some of whom you may have enjoyed in the past
and some of whom may hold views that you will find objectionable or
even repulsive. The two sets have been known to intersect, perhaps
surprisingly often.
It's a hobbytual hazard, as it were :-)
--
Ahasuerus
No 33 Secretary
news:1156314343....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Of course there's reason to post it here. This is a large, high traffic
group, full of people who will cheerfully swallow any hook that's dangled
in front of them. As has happened, despite how obvious the troll.
No 33 Secretary
news:slrneeob8d.67g....@fnanp.in-ulm.de:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:22:35 -0000, No 33 Secretary wrote:
>> I *know* trolls son, and you haven't got what it takes.
>>
>
> now _that_ (the first part of that sentence) is an interesting way to
> put it. "Know thyself" and all that. Still, well done.
>
Indeed. I am the resident expert. One of my few virtues is that I can
generally distract the amateurs (like this clown) in to a handful of
threads that are easily ignored.
No 33 Secretary
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I wonder if trollboy is fan of S & M Sterling.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>serg271 wrote:
>> I want to hear the answer. Stross was one of my favorite writers.
>
>There is a very good chance that hanging out on r.a.sf.w will result in
>running into SF writers, some of whom you may have enjoyed in the past
>and some of whom may hold views that you will find objectionable or
>even repulsive. The two sets have been known to intersect, perhaps
>surprisingly often.
'Course, there's a similar very good chance that you'll discover
authors by their posting in rasfw and turning out to be decent folks.
Five positive to my own library. No negatives yet.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Machines take me by surprise with great frequency." - Alan Turing
Gene Ward Smith
Charlie Stross wrote:
> Tony Blair likes to kid himself that there's a "special relationship"
> between the USA and Great Britain. There *is* a "special relationship"
> with the USA, but the recipient isn't Tony Blair. Or Margaret Thatcher,
> for that matter. (Where was the USS Nimitz when the UK had to re-take
> the Falkland Islands?)
To the astonishment and dismay of Galtieri, whose grasp of reality was
pretty well indicated by his belief that Thatcher was a wimp who would
never dare to respond militarily, the US did back the UK. They got all
the help they needed on Ascension Island, spy satellite results, and
Sidewinder missiles. All Galtieri got was some dithering and a comment
by Reagan that the Falklands weren't worth going to war over.
I'm left with one of my mental images of human stupidity being the huge
crowd in Buenos Aires jumping up and down like pogo sticks and cheering
after it was anounced that Argentina had just attacked the UK. That is
idiocy on a truly impressive scale.
Michael Grosberg
> >> No. I claiming he is anti-Israel. "Th tail wag dog" is a cue of
> >> irrational dislike of Israel.
> >
> > Well, you have an issue with Stross, you can email him. No reason to
> > post this on RASFW.
> >
> Of course there's reason to post it here. This is a large, high traffic
> group, full of people who will cheerfully swallow any hook that's dangled
> in front of them. As has happened, despite how obvious the troll.
While I admire your unrelenting crusade againt trolldom, I do believe
that some of those posters you are attacking are simple cluless jerks
who are unfamiliar with netiquette and common usenet practices.
Mike Schilling
Cased in point: I have always admired Ahasuerus for the pleasantness of his
demeanor, the encyclopedic nature of his knowledge of SF, and the aptness of
his observations, and this remains true even knowing that his puns are worse
than mine are.
No 33 Secretary
It's possible. The one that started this thread, however, isn't one of
them.
Charlie Stross
>>> Of course there's reason to post it here. This is a large, high
>>> traffic group, full of people who will cheerfully swallow any hook
>>> that's dangled in front of them. As has happened, despite how obvious
>>> the troll.
>>
>> While I admire your unrelenting crusade againt trolldom, I do believe
>> that some of those posters you are attacking are simple cluless jerks
>> who are unfamiliar with netiquette and common usenet practices.
>>
> It's possible. The one that started this thread, however, isn't one of
> them.
He's a regular lurker-under-bridges, then?
(Making notes for my killfile.)
-- Charlie
No 33 Secretary
$9d4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
No idea how long he's been around, but his style is fairly typical of the
lonely 12 year old the girls won't talk to.
>
> (Making notes for my killfile.)
>
I'm amazed I'm not in it.
serg271
Charlie Stross wrote:
> But I can't support Israel, either. A nation that bases its allocation
> of citizenship rights on racial or ethnic identity
And how "ethnic identity" is worse than place of birth ?
> and that employs collective punishment as a tool for dealing with outsiders is repugnant.
Have you expressed the same sentiments during NATO-Kosovo campain
against Serbia, in wich Britain took very active part ? Or you think
that NATO campain against Serbia, which included bombing bridges, car
plants, power plants , TV stations and killing 2500-5000 civilians,
was perfectly reasonable, because Serbs were oppressors themself and
should have been punished ? Are you finding your country repugnant ? Or
your moral rules should be applied only to Israel ?
No 33 Secretary
news:1156356733.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll
troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll
troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll
troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll
Son, you need lessons.
Charlie: I told you so.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote in news:sk0Hg.141592
>$9d4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
>> (Making notes for my killfile.)
>>
>I'm amazed I'm not in it.
You're a very frustrating case, you know -- you're one of the people
who makes me wish my newsreader had scorefiles instead of just
killfiles. I've had you in temporary killfiles several times, but I
always let them expire because of the frequency with which you make
worthwhile or entertaining posts -- better to wade through the crap
than miss them, I decided.
I don't think there's anyone else about whom I am so ambivalent.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The first issue of Helix is at http://www.helixsf.com
trike
Although I'm pro-Israel because they have as much a claim on the area
as anyone else and I trust them more than some of the other locals, I
think this issue will probably be moot in our lifetimes.
It's only a matter of time before someone nukes Jerusalem and Mecca, or
does something in a similar vein to those places. "Escalation" seems
to be the rule rather than the exception nowadays, and the stakes keep
getting higher all the time.
Doug
No 33 Secretary
news:md9pe2dka11kdrc22...@news.rcn.com:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:39:28 -0000, No 33 Secretary
> <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote in news:sk0Hg.141592
>>$9d4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>
>>> (Making notes for my killfile.)
>>>
>>I'm amazed I'm not in it.
>
> You're a very frustrating case, you know -- you're one of the people
> who makes me wish my newsreader had scorefiles instead of just
> killfiles. I've had you in temporary killfiles several times, but I
> always let them expire because of the frequency with which you make
> worthwhile or entertaining posts -- better to wade through the crap
> than miss them, I decided.
I hope you realize that in some cases, the differences between the crap
and the entertaining stuff is probably who it's directed at.
(Have you ever looked at Xnews instead of Agent? It's free at
http://xnews.newsguy.com/, and the interfact isn't all that different.
Does scoring in RegExes pretty well.)
>
> I don't think there's anyone else about whom I am so ambivalent.
>
I suspect that means I'm doing something right, but I can't, for the life
of me, figure out exactly what.
In Charlie's case, however, I'm really surprise I haven't had a permanent
place since the days when alt.peeves was active.
David Mitchell
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
> news:md9pe2dka11kdrc22...@news.rcn.com:
>
> I hope you realize that in some cases, the differences between the crap
> and the entertaining stuff is probably who it's directed at.
Absolutely, you're notaniceperson; but it's fun to watch you unleashed on
some of the muppets we get here occasionally.
Anyone know of a linux newsreader which can annotate posters, so I don't
have to use my ever decreasing supply of spare synapses to remember the
characteristics of the myriad people I read posts from?
--
=======================================================================
= David --- No, not that one.
= Mitchell ---
=======================================================================
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
>news:md9pe2dka11kdrc22...@news.rcn.com:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:39:28 -0000, No 33 Secretary
>> <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote in news:sk0Hg.141592
>>>$9d4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>>
>>>> (Making notes for my killfile.)
>>>>
>>>I'm amazed I'm not in it.
>>
>> You're a very frustrating case, you know -- you're one of the people
>> who makes me wish my newsreader had scorefiles instead of just
>> killfiles. I've had you in temporary killfiles several times, but I
>> always let them expire because of the frequency with which you make
>> worthwhile or entertaining posts -- better to wade through the crap
>> than miss them, I decided.
>
>I hope you realize that in some cases, the differences between the crap
>and the entertaining stuff is probably who it's directed at.
Some cases, yes. It's not actually all that common, though.
>(Have you ever looked at Xnews instead of Agent? It's free at
>http://xnews.newsguy.com/, and the interfact isn't all that different.
>Does scoring in RegExes pretty well.)
I tried XNews a long time ago, I think (it's possible I'm thinking of
another newsreader with a similar name), and didn't have any real
complaints, but I liked Agent better overall.
Mostly, I'm just used to Agent. I've been using it since Free Agent
was in beta and Agent itself didn't exist yet.
>> I don't think there's anyone else about whom I am so ambivalent.
>>
>I suspect that means I'm doing something right, but I can't, for the life
>of me, figure out exactly what.
Well, you're being entertaining when you want to be, I'd say.
>In Charlie's case, however, I'm really surprise I haven't had a permanent
>place since the days when alt.peeves was active.
I don't know your history with him, so...
Arthur Green
>
> Charlie Stross wrote:
>
>> But I can't support Israel, either. A nation that bases its allocation
>> of citizenship rights on racial or ethnic identity
>
> And how "ethnic identity" is worse than place of birth ?
Ethnic identity is, I believe, a more restrictive qualifier than birthplace
>> and that employs collective punishment as a tool for dealing with
>> outsiders is repugnant.
>
> Have you expressed the same sentiments during NATO-Kosovo campain
> against Serbia, in wich Britain took very active part ? Or you think
> that NATO campain against Serbia, which included bombing bridges, car
> plants, power plants , TV stations and killing 2500-5000 civilians,
> was perfectly reasonable, because Serbs were oppressors themself and
> should have been punished ? Are you finding your country repugnant ? Or
> your moral rules should be applied only to Israel ?
Okay - this is indulging in whataboutery. That is rarely a useful pursuit:
nationalists and unionists in Northern Ireland wasted many years trying to
match atrocity with atrocity.
Serg - you seem to think that Mr Stross owes you an explanation. He does
not. You have encountered an author whose works you enjoy, but that does
does not mean you are entitled to call him to account for what you see as
his crimes. He no more owes you an explanation than I do, or than you owe
me.
I haven't seen any posts from you other than on this topic. This
single-minded pursuit is heading you rapidly towards my killfile. Have you
anything to contribute that is relevant to this group?
--
- AG
No 33 Secretary
news:pan.2006.08.23...@edenroad.demon.co.uk:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:09:36 +0000, No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
>> news:md9pe2dka11kdrc22...@news.rcn.com:
>>
>> I hope you realize that in some cases, the differences between the
crap
>> and the entertaining stuff is probably who it's directed at.
>
> Absolutely, you're notaniceperson; but it's fun to watch you unleashed
on
> some of the muppets we get here occasionally.
Well, that was the point, yes. One just never knows where the crosshairs
will point next.
>
> Anyone know of a linux newsreader which can annotate posters, so I
don't
> have to use my ever decreasing supply of spare synapses to remember the
> characteristics of the myriad people I read posts from?
>
Linux. Ptui.
No 33 Secretary
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:09:36 -0000, No 33 Secretary
> <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
>>news:md9pe2dka11kdrc22...@news.rcn.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:39:28 -0000, No 33 Secretary
>>> <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote in news:sk0Hg.141592
>>>>$9d4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>>>
>>>>> (Making notes for my killfile.)
>>>>>
>>>>I'm amazed I'm not in it.
>>>
>>> You're a very frustrating case, you know -- you're one of the people
>>> who makes me wish my newsreader had scorefiles instead of just
>>> killfiles. I've had you in temporary killfiles several times, but I
>>> always let them expire because of the frequency with which you make
>>> worthwhile or entertaining posts -- better to wade through the crap
>>> than miss them, I decided.
>>
>>I hope you realize that in some cases, the differences between the
>>crap and the entertaining stuff is probably who it's directed at.
>
> Some cases, yes. It's not actually all that common, though.
Yeah, you're smarter than most.
>
>>(Have you ever looked at Xnews instead of Agent? It's free at
>>http://xnews.newsguy.com/, and the interfact isn't all that different.
>>Does scoring in RegExes pretty well.)
>
> I tried XNews a long time ago, I think (it's possible I'm thinking of
> another newsreader with a similar name), and didn't have any real
> complaints, but I liked Agent better overall.
Nothing wrong with that. Just thought I'd mention it, since I've used
both and (from what I recall) the interfaces are similiar, so it
shouldn't be too hard to switch. If you really wanted to.
>
> Mostly, I'm just used to Agent. I've been using it since Free Agent
> was in beta and Agent itself didn't exist yet.
I coulda sworn that Agent added Regex filtering a version of two back,
but since I don't use it any more I could well be wrong.
>
>>> I don't think there's anyone else about whom I am so ambivalent.
>>>
>>I suspect that means I'm doing something right, but I can't, for the
>>life of me, figure out exactly what.
>
> Well, you're being entertaining when you want to be, I'd say.
It's a question of *who* I'm entertaining at the moment.
>
>>In Charlie's case, however, I'm really surprise I haven't had a
>>permanent place since the days when alt.peeves was active.
>
> I don't know your history with him, so...
>
It's probably just as well. When alt.dot.fucking.peeves was at its best
was when it was the worst kind of cesspit.
No 33 Secretary
news:jipur3-...@winston.phraction.org:
> serg271 wrote:
>
>>
>> Charlie Stross wrote:
>>
>>> But I can't support Israel, either. A nation that bases its
>>> allocation of citizenship rights on racial or ethnic identity
>>
>> And how "ethnic identity" is worse than place of birth ?
>
> Ethnic identity is, I believe, a more restrictive qualifier than
> birthplace
>
>>> and that employs collective punishment as a tool for dealing with
>>> outsiders is repugnant.
>>
>> Have you expressed the same sentiments during NATO-Kosovo campain
>> against Serbia, in wich Britain took very active part ? Or you think
>> that NATO campain against Serbia, which included bombing bridges, car
>> plants, power plants , TV stations and killing 2500-5000 civilians,
>> was perfectly reasonable, because Serbs were oppressors themself and
>> should have been punished ? Are you finding your country repugnant ?
>> Or your moral rules should be applied only to Israel ?
>
> Okay - this is indulging in whataboutery. That is rarely a useful
> pursuit: nationalists and unionists in Northern Ireland wasted many
> years trying to match atrocity with atrocity.
Which is, of course, why trollboy chose that particular tactic. He can
provoke a response without saying *anything*, and can ensure the response
won't say *anything* as well. It's one of the most perfect trolls.
>
> Serg - you seem to think that Mr Stross owes you an explanation. He
> does not. You have encountered an author whose works you enjoy, but
> that does does not mean you are entitled to call him to account for
> what you see as his crimes. He no more owes you an explanation than I
> do, or than you owe me.
>
> I haven't seen any posts from you other than on this topic. This
> single-minded pursuit is heading you rapidly towards my killfile. Have
> you anything to contribute that is relevant to this group?
I'll bet you a steak dinner the real answer to that is "no," regardless
of what he says.
Luke Webber
[snip]
> There is a very nasty eliminationist, racist streak in the political
> rhetoric of the muslim world -- cultivated by extremists who find an
> external enemy (in their case, Israel) a valuable domestic political tool.
> I can't support their calls for the elimination of Israel, because to do
> so would be to betray my own core principles.
>
> But I can't support Israel, either. A nation that bases its allocation
> of citizenship rights on racial or ethnic identity and that employs
> collective punishment as a tool for dealing with outsiders is repugnant.
>
> So I'll just content myself by saying "a plague on racists and
> nationalists everywhere", and you can read that as a blanket
> condemnation of everyone on both sides of the Arab/Israeli conflict --
> except for the pacifists. Of whom there are far too few.
Well said. The biggest problem with Israel is that they went and dropped
it in the damned "holy land", right in the middle of a bunch of
wild-eyed religious fundamentalists. Conflict arose? Who'd have thought
that would happen? 8^(
But you can't wipe out history. You can't go back. If only they'd
realised that when they first set out to wind the clock back to Old
Testament days, the world would be a better place. They could have
established the new Zion in Florida instead.
Now there's is an interesting hypothetical. Might even make a good
alternate history story. Israel is established by carving Florida out of
the US. The neighbouring redneck states immediately start pounding on
them, and Israel fights back with Russian support, leading to an
increase in support for Christian fundy sentiment. Judaism vs
Christianity, Israel vs the US. American Jews herded into extermination
camps. The Final Solution, part II. Ya never know.
Maybe I'll hold off on my little time trip. I wouldn't want to make
things worse, after all. Which is what nearly always happens in time
travel stories. <g>
Luke
No 33 Secretary
news:44ece...@news.peopletelecom.com.au:
> Charlie Stross wrote:
> [snip]
>> There is a very nasty eliminationist, racist streak in the political
>> rhetoric of the muslim world -- cultivated by extremists who find an
>> external enemy (in their case, Israel) a valuable domestic political
>> tool. I can't support their calls for the elimination of Israel,
>> because to do so would be to betray my own core principles.
>>
>> But I can't support Israel, either. A nation that bases its
>> allocation of citizenship rights on racial or ethnic identity and
>> that employs collective punishment as a tool for dealing with
>> outsiders is repugnant.
>>
>> So I'll just content myself by saying "a plague on racists and
>> nationalists everywhere", and you can read that as a blanket
>> condemnation of everyone on both sides of the Arab/Israeli conflict
>> -- except for the pacifists. Of whom there are far too few.
>
> Well said. The biggest problem with Israel is that they went and
> dropped it in the damned "holy land", right in the middle of a bunch
> of wild-eyed religious fundamentalists. Conflict arose? Who'd have
> thought that would happen? 8^(
>
> But you can't wipe out history. You can't go back. If only they'd
> realised that when they first set out to wind the clock back to Old
> Testament days, the world would be a better place. They could have
> established the new Zion in Florida instead.
So you're taking sides? One side - composed entirely of psychotic loons -
gets the hold land, but the other side - also composed entirely of
psychotic loons - doesn't, even though it's equally holy for them?
Frankly, I have a hard time telling the two sides apart.
Ahasuerus
> They could have established the new Zion in Florida instead.
Assuming that this is not a joke, it should be pointed out that
(http://www.jewishmuseum.com/FJHM2006/FJHM06FactSheet.html):
"David Levy Yulee's father, Moses Levy, had come into Florida in 1819
and purchased 92,000 acres in north central Florida where he started a
Jewish colony in Micanopy; he was a founder of that city. Twenty-three
years before statehood, in 1822, Moses Levy established Pilgrimage
Plantation that attracted Jews fleeing persecution in Europe and he
brought sugar cane and fruit trees. The Plantation was burned down at
the onset of the Second Seminole War in 1835."
Luke Webber
> Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote in
> news:44ece...@news.peopletelecom.com.au:
>> Well said. The biggest problem with Israel is that they went and
>> dropped it in the damned "holy land", right in the middle of a bunch
>> of wild-eyed religious fundamentalists. Conflict arose? Who'd have
>> thought that would happen? 8^(
>>
>> But you can't wipe out history. You can't go back. If only they'd
>> realised that when they first set out to wind the clock back to Old
>> Testament days, the world would be a better place. They could have
>> established the new Zion in Florida instead.
>
> So you're taking sides? One side - composed entirely of psychotic loons -
> gets the hold land, but the other side - also composed entirely of
> psychotic loons - doesn't, even though it's equally holy for them?
Holy, schmoly. The Arabs lived there, the Jews didn't. Did they really
expect to be greeted with open arms? Yes, I know that the Palestinian
Arabs who didn't flee were not dispossessed, but would that have been
the case if they had all stayed and tried to maintain their property
rights? I dunno. I just know how it turned out. It was a stupid idea,
and that's obvious to me now because of the spectacular way in which it
failed.
That's not taking sides. Holy land? Who ever said the new Zion had to be
established on the site of the old Zion? If modern Israel is truly the
Promised Land, you might wish that the promise had never been kept. Holy
land is all very well for pilgrimages and TV documentaries, but when
people start getting the idea that they have to /own/ their holy land,
that's when the problems start.
> Frankly, I have a hard time telling the two sides apart.
War is like that. Muddies the waters. It might help you to keep things
straight if you remember that the Israelis are the ones with the
helicopter gunships, fighter jets, tanks and nukes.
Luke
Mike Schilling
"No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98287BB31BC...@216.168.3.64...
>
> I hope you realize that in some cases, the differences between the crap
> and the entertaining stuff is probably who it's directed at.
And in some cases not; in the recent Cordelia/Beta thread, you shared some
excellent thoughts and were generous to those who disputed them. I can't
decide if your being so decidely not an asshole makes you more of an asshole
or not.
Mike Schilling
Damned anti-Seminoles.
Dan Goodman
> Well said. The biggest problem with Israel is that they went and
> dropped it in the damned "holy land", right in the middle of a bunch
> of wild-eyed religious fundamentalists. Conflict arose? Who'd have
> thought that would happen? 8^(
>
> But you can't wipe out history. You can't go back. If only they'd
> realised that when they first set out to wind the clock back to Old
> Testament days, the world would be a better place. They could have
> established the new Zion in Florida instead.
The problem is, Israel/Palestine is the only place where it _could_ be
installed. Setting it up elsewhere isn't a minor change like a female
Pope, or requiring all pilgrims to Mecca to eat pork at least once a
day.
There have been any number of Jewish settlement schemes. I think the
Argentine one worked out best of the lot.
--
Dan Goodman
All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.
John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician.
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
David McMillan
> Ahasuerus wrote:
>
>> Well, sure, but then Hitler may have found a few other things about
>> Charlie even more objectionable -- see the post linked above :)
>>
>> Of course, one can be "of Jewish origin" and an anti-Semite; or one can
>> be Jewish and strongly anti-Israel. It's a big world out there :)
>
> But it's still not possible to be anti-Israel without being labelled an
> anti-semite. 8^(
I suppose that would be a matter of degree. It's certainly possible to
be against certain Israeli actions and policies w/o being Anti-Semite --
that's a pretty broad target. But being opposed to the mere *existence*
of Israel, w/o being Anti-Semite? I suppose it's possible, but IMO the
target is a LOT narrower.
And then there's disapproving of Israel's existence philosophically,
and actually *acting* on said disapproval -- I'm having a hard time
coming up with any kind of conceptual action plan that could un-exist
Israel w/o leading to some kind of Holocaust Lite.
Luke Webber
> Luke Webber wrote:
>> Ahasuerus wrote:
>>
>>> Well, sure, but then Hitler may have found a few other things about
>>> Charlie even more objectionable -- see the post linked above :)
>>>
>>> Of course, one can be "of Jewish origin" and an anti-Semite; or one can
>>> be Jewish and strongly anti-Israel. It's a big world out there :)
>>
>> But it's still not possible to be anti-Israel without being labelled
>> an anti-semite. 8^(
>
> I suppose that would be a matter of degree. It's certainly possible
> to be against certain Israeli actions and policies w/o being Anti-Semite
> -- that's a pretty broad target.
You missed the point. I said it was impossible without being /labelled/
an anti-semite. By some people at least.
> But being opposed to the mere
> *existence* of Israel, w/o being Anti-Semite? I suppose it's possible,
> but IMO the target is a LOT narrower.
Really? Why? IMO the whole Israel thing was a boneheaded idea from the
start. The Diaspora took place about two thousand years ago, give or
take. The toothpaste was well and truly out of the tube. It was a huge,
HUGE mistake to try to put it back.
If that makes me an anti-semite, explain to me why I have no problems
with Jewish people in general. In fact, I can see perfectly the POV of
the Israeli settlers. I can put myself in their place. I can understand
why they're doing what they're doing. But I don't have to like it, and I
can't help wishing that Israel had never been established, at least in
the Palestinian territory.
> And then there's disapproving of Israel's existence philosophically,
> and actually *acting* on said disapproval -- I'm having a hard time
> coming up with any kind of conceptual action plan that could un-exist
> Israel w/o leading to some kind of Holocaust Lite.
Even here, you don't have to be and anti-semite to take arms against
Israel. You have to be able to separate the two things - Israel and
Judaism. They're related, but they are by no means the same thing.
Of course, the same confusion exists on the other side, hence a great
many of those directly opposing Israel actually /are/ anti-semitic. But
then, a great many non-Israeli Jewish people give material aid to
Israel, so maybe there is some justification for that position.
Luke
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I coulda sworn that Agent added Regex filtering a version of two back,
>but since I don't use it any more I could well be wrong.
Hell, it might've -- I'm a version or two behind. I should check.
Jim Lovejoy
news:1156353776.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Charlie Stross wrote:
>
>> Tony Blair likes to kid himself that there's a "special relationship"
>> between the USA and Great Britain. There *is* a "special relationship"
>> with the USA, but the recipient isn't Tony Blair. Or Margaret Thatcher,
>> for that matter. (Where was the USS Nimitz when the UK had to re-take
>> the Falkland Islands?)
>
> To the astonishment and dismay of Galtieri, whose grasp of reality was
> pretty well indicated by his belief that Thatcher was a wimp who would
> never dare to respond militarily, the US did back the UK. They got all
> the help they needed on Ascension Island, spy satellite results, and
> Sidewinder missiles. All Galtieri got was some dithering and a comment
> by Reagan that the Falklands weren't worth going to war over.
>
> I'm left with one of my mental images of human stupidity being the huge
> crowd in Buenos Aires jumping up and down like pogo sticks and cheering
> after it was anounced that Argentina had just attacked the UK. That is
> idiocy on a truly impressive scale.
>
Since the result of the Argentine attack was the sacking of the Junta that
was running Argentina, maybe the crowd just had better foresight than you?
Terry Austin
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:58:25 -0000, No 33 Secretary
> <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I coulda sworn that Agent added Regex filtering a version of two back,
>>but since I don't use it any more I could well be wrong.
>
> Hell, it might've -- I'm a version or two behind. I should check.
>
I'm guessing this isn't your highest priority, then.
Terry Austin
news:jO5Hg.10821$1f6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
>
> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98287BB31BC...@216.168.3.64...
>>
>> I hope you realize that in some cases, the differences between the
>> crap and the entertaining stuff is probably who it's directed at.
>
> And in some cases not; in the recent Cordelia/Beta thread, you shared
> some excellent thoughts and were generous to those who disputed them.
They disagreement was well thought out and well presented, for the most
part. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, or even proving
they're correct. It's stupidity that I object to. "You're wrong, and here's
why I think so, on page xxx." is one thing. "You're wrong because I say so,
and because my dick is the only thing smaller than my IQ" is another. In
the first case, intelligent discourse is possible, and entertaining. In the
latter case, it's simply not possible. 99.99% of Usenet is the latter.
(Plus, I get bored quite easily, and 99.99% of threads have nothing new in
them after the first dozen posts or so. Once it comes down to neither side
having anything new to say, what's the point of trying to engage in
intelligent discourse?)
> I can't decide if your being so decidely not an asshole makes you more
> of an asshole or not.
>
I'd love to hear what conclusion you reach, if you ever do.
Terry Austin
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>> Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote in
>> news:44ece...@news.peopletelecom.com.au:
>
>>> Well said. The biggest problem with Israel is that they went and
>>> dropped it in the damned "holy land", right in the middle of a bunch
>>> of wild-eyed religious fundamentalists. Conflict arose? Who'd have
>>> thought that would happen? 8^(
>>>
>>> But you can't wipe out history. You can't go back. If only they'd
>>> realised that when they first set out to wind the clock back to Old
>>> Testament days, the world would be a better place. They could have
>>> established the new Zion in Florida instead.
>>
>> So you're taking sides? One side - composed entirely of psychotic
>> loons - gets the hold land, but the other side - also composed
>> entirely of psychotic loons - doesn't, even though it's equally holy
>> for them?
>
> Holy, schmoly. The Arabs lived there, the Jews didn't.
If only it were that simple. If that's the standard we're going to apply,
why did you choose an arbitrary date for "lived there" that is after the
Jews lost Israel centuries ago? Seriously, I'm curious. Cuz at one time,
the Jews *did* live there, and any date that cuts off their claim is
inherently arbitrary. Why not choose a date *after* the creation of
modern Israel? If you can come up with an objective reason for a specific
date - *any* specific date - you're a better man than any who have tried
befoer.
> Did they really
> expect to be greeted with open arms?
Did I say they did? Maybe you missed the part where I pointed out that
they, too, are mostly composed of psychotic loons.
> Yes, I know that the Palestinian
> Arabs who didn't flee were not dispossessed, but would that have been
> the case if they had all stayed and tried to maintain their property
> rights? I dunno. I just know how it turned out. It was a stupid idea,
> and that's obvious to me now because of the spectacular way in which
> it failed.
Do you have any other ideas that aren't eually stupid in obvious ways?
>
> That's not taking sides. Holy land? Who ever said the new Zion had to
> be established on the site of the old Zion?
The Jews who established it. Why is your opinion more important than
theirs? Be specific, and present your reason(s) in objective terms.
>If modern Israel is truly
> the Promised Land, you might wish that the promise had never been
> kept. Holy land is all very well for pilgrimages and TV documentaries,
> but when people start getting the idea that they have to /own/ their
> holy land, that's when the problems start.
Indeed. That is percisely the problem with the Muslims who are trying to
take it *back*. Wouldn't you agree?
>
>> Frankly, I have a hard time telling the two sides apart.
>
> War is like that.
Not always. Sometimes, you have a vested interest in one side or the
other, which clarifies things considerably.
>Muddies the waters. It might help you to keep things
> straight if you remember that the Israelis are the ones with the
> helicopter gunships, fighter jets, tanks and nukes.
>
And the other side are the ones with suicide bombs, artillery and
rockets, very publicy going out of their way to target civilians. Like I
said, I can't tell the two sides apart. Hell, I'm not even sure there are
*two* sides. So far as I can tell, pretty much every single person in the
Middle East is a psychitc loon. Who else would live there? A pox on all
their houses.
Mike Schilling
>
>>
>> Holy, schmoly. The Arabs lived there, the Jews didn't.
>
> If only it were that simple. If that's the standard we're going to
> apply, why did you choose an arbitrary date for "lived there" that is
> after the Jews lost Israel centuries ago? Seriously, I'm curious. Cuz
> at one time, the Jews *did* live there, and any date that cuts off
> their claim is inherently arbitrary. Why not choose a date *after*
> the creation of modern Israel? If you can come up with an objective
> reason for a specific date - *any* specific date - you're a better
> man than any who have tried befoer.
Actually, there have always been Jews there. To reach the desired
conclusion, you have to explain why the many Arabs who came from elsewhere
are OK, but the many Jews who came from elsewhere are tresspassers.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
person Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> said
>Charlie Stross wrote:
>[snip]
>> There is a very nasty eliminationist, racist streak in the political
>> rhetoric of the muslim world -- cultivated by extremists who find an
>> external enemy (in their case, Israel) a valuable domestic political tool.
>> I can't support their calls for the elimination of Israel, because to do
>> so would be to betray my own core principles.
>> But I can't support Israel, either. A nation that bases its
>>allocation
>> of citizenship rights on racial or ethnic identity and that employs
>> collective punishment as a tool for dealing with outsiders is repugnant.
>> So I'll just content myself by saying "a plague on racists and
>> nationalists everywhere", and you can read that as a blanket
>> condemnation of everyone on both sides of the Arab/Israeli conflict --
>> except for the pacifists. Of whom there are far too few.
>
>Well said. The biggest problem with Israel is that they went and
>dropped it in the damned "holy land", right in the middle of a bunch of
>wild-eyed religious fundamentalists. Conflict arose? Who'd have thought
>that would happen? 8^(
Not to mention that it was already pretty much inhabited, and the people
giving it away (in the UN) didn't actually own it. Not sure about your
Florida idea, but maybe West Texas or New Mexico would work. Heck but it
up against Salt Lake City and stand back.
I'm with you & Charlie .. I'd add to his sentiments 'the only thing we
shouldn't tolerate is intolerance' .. which sadly seems to be the major
natural resource in the Middle East.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Google may be your friend, but groups.google.com posters definitely aren't.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Good guess.
r.r...@thevine.net
I think that the heart of the problem is that, while there were Arabs
living there, and there were Jews living there, neither of them were
in charge. That's one of the problems with colonialism... when the
ruling colony leaves, there's nasty problems with determining which of
the formerly-downtrodden masses should become the new rulers. And the
rules that the Ottoman empire used have made the waters especially
murky. The fact that families could (essentially) own land under a
perpetual lease from the government (in other words, they could live
there for generations, pass it down to the kids, etc.), but didn't
have any proof of ownership, makes establishing a legal claim to the
land much harder. (It's also what makes the wall Israel is building
much scarier. If the land lies fallow for a certain amount of time,
the government can legally re-claim it and give it to someone else.
And when the wall runs between you and your fields, and Israel
controls the gate between the two....well, let's just say that there
are possibilities for abuse of the system.)
So, in hindsight the best thing would probably have been to let the
people living there decide what they want to do with the place. But
that wouldn't have allowed Europe to ease their conscience by "doing
something for the Jews" of Europe after the War.
I do have to admit that I think that it takes a lot of gall for some
of the Israeli extremists to say that the Palestinians should "just go
back to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc, because that's where they
originally came from" while ignoring the fact that many of the
Israelis came from France, England, Russia, etc. Then again, I
sometimes think that you could take speeches from both sides
extremists, white-out the names, and it would be very difficult to
tell which came from which side.
Rebecca
Luke Webber
> Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote in
>> Holy, schmoly. The Arabs lived there, the Jews didn't.
>
> If only it were that simple. If that's the standard we're going to apply,
> why did you choose an arbitrary date for "lived there" that is after the
> Jews lost Israel centuries ago? Seriously, I'm curious. Cuz at one time,
> the Jews *did* live there, and any date that cuts off their claim is
> inherently arbitrary. Why not choose a date *after* the creation of
> modern Israel? If you can come up with an objective reason for a specific
> date - *any* specific date - you're a better man than any who have tried
> befoer.
I think the best date to choose at any time is _right now_. From that
viepoint, at the time that the modern Israel was created, that land was
in the possession of Palestinian Arabs. Trying to wind the clock back
nearly two thousand years? Not something I'd recommend.
Equally, using _right now_ as our present perspective, we'd be stupid to
try to wipe out the events that led to the creation of the modern
Israel. Unless somebody has a working time machine. We have to live with
the consequences of that boneheaded idea.
>> Did they really
>> expect to be greeted with open arms?
>
> Did I say they did? Maybe you missed the part where I pointed out that
> they, too, are mostly composed of psychotic loons.
Well I can't argue with that, at least <g>. OTOH, it's interesting to
note that the level of psychosis is rising all the time. PReviously sane
people tend to become a little psycho when you go around killing their
friends and family and destroying their homes. And I mean that on both
sides.
>> Yes, I know that the Palestinian
>> Arabs who didn't flee were not dispossessed, but would that have been
>> the case if they had all stayed and tried to maintain their property
>> rights? I dunno. I just know how it turned out. It was a stupid idea,
>> and that's obvious to me now because of the spectacular way in which
>> it failed.
>
> Do you have any other ideas that aren't eually stupid in obvious ways?
Yup. Don't do it at all. The Jews had all settled elsewhere by now. Why
upset the applecart?
>> That's not taking sides. Holy land? Who ever said the new Zion had to
>> be established on the site of the old Zion?
>
> The Jews who established it. Why is your opinion more important than
> theirs? Be specific, and present your reason(s) in objective terms.
Perhaps because their opinion is what led to the current mess. Maybe you
could give me the benefit of the doubt and just assume that doing
nothing would be unlikely to lead to anywhere near as big a screwup as
we presently have on our hands?
>> If modern Israel is truly
>> the Promised Land, you might wish that the promise had never been
>> kept. Holy land is all very well for pilgrimages and TV documentaries,
>> but when people start getting the idea that they have to /own/ their
>> holy land, that's when the problems start.
>
> Indeed. That is percisely the problem with the Muslims who are trying to
> take it *back*. Wouldn't you agree?
Nope. Maybe for some of them, that's the issue. For most, though, they
hate Israel because Israel killed somebody they knew/were related to/saw
on TV. And the motivation for most Israelis to hate Arabs is much the same.
>>> Frankly, I have a hard time telling the two sides apart.
>> War is like that.
>
> Not always. Sometimes, you have a vested interest in one side or the
> other, which clarifies things considerably.
Yeah. That's a BIG help. ;^)
>> Muddies the waters. It might help you to keep things
>> straight if you remember that the Israelis are the ones with the
>> helicopter gunships, fighter jets, tanks and nukes.
>>
> And the other side are the ones with suicide bombs, artillery and
> rockets, very publicy going out of their way to target civilians.
The definition of a terrorist. Somebody who blows people up without
benefit of an air force.
> Like I
> said, I can't tell the two sides apart. Hell, I'm not even sure there are
> *two* sides. So far as I can tell, pretty much every single person in the
> Middle East is a psychitc loon. Who else would live there? A pox on all
> their houses.
Again, there we can agree. And I'm not used to agreeing with you.
Luke
Jordan
James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <1156266639....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> serg271 <aocr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >No 33 Secretary wrote:
> >> Not even a very good troll. Amateur.
> >
> >In this case not a troll. I want to hear the answer. Stross was one of
> >my favorite writers.
> >
> Pardon me, but are you working your way toward claiming
> Charles Stross is an anti-semite? That should be amusing.
Both MacLeod's blog and Charlie Stross' defense rather shock me.
MacLeod has apparently stated, right out, that because a lot of Arabs
want to destroy Israel, and thus Israel has to fight hard to exist,
that Israel does not have a right to exist and must therefore accept
its destruction. This is one of the most anti-Semitic statements I
have ever heard coming from a science fiction writer, and that includes
H. P. Lovecraft, who at least never argued for the mass murder of Jews.
And Charles Stross seems cool with this.
And, incidentally, YOU seem cool with this too.
- Jordan
Michael Grosberg
Charlie Stross wrote:
> But I can't support Israel, either. A nation that bases its allocation
> of citizenship rights on racial or ethnic identity and that employs
> collective punishment as a tool for dealing with outsiders is repugnant.
Think of it as affirmitive action. 60 years ago, jews escaping the
nazis were turned back from american and british-controlled shores.
They were not allowed to go to Israel, even though their lives depended
on it. After the second world war, when the jews of Europe lost their
homes and propery and could not be expected to return to live among
neighbours which were so happy to send them to their deaths, The UK
government still refused to allow them to immigrate to Palestine, while
the US put restrictions on the number of jews that could immigrate
there and did not change its policies until after the creation of
Israel.
I admit there are problems with the way the Israeli citizenship laws
are currently implemented (Since they are a sort of mirror image of the
Nazi race laws, they tend to resembe them. Oh, the Irony) but there
should be at least one place in the world where persecuted jews can
turn to and be automatically accepted, no questions asked.
Gene Ward Smith
Michael Grosberg wrote:
> There should be at least one place in the world where persecuted jews can
> turn to and be automatically accepted, no questions asked.
And I say to that, thank God for Miami Beach.
Lee Ratner
Luke Webber wrote:
> Ahasuerus wrote:
>
> > Well, sure, but then Hitler may have found a few other things about
> > Charlie even more objectionable -- see the post linked above :)
> >
> > Of course, one can be "of Jewish origin" and an anti-Semite; or one can
> > be Jewish and strongly anti-Israel. It's a big world out there :)
>
> But it's still not possible to be anti-Israel without being labelled an
> anti-semite. 8^(
Its technically possible to be an anti-Zionist and an
anti-Semite. The reason why many
Zionists are suspicious of anti-Zionists who claim to be anti-Semites
is that they seem rather insensitive to what Zionists view as a
collective need for the Jewish people. They never ask the question what
would happen to the Jews in a world without Israel. Their basic
attitude seems to be that even if Jews are collectively screwed in a
world without Israel, its better for the Jews to be screwed than the
Arabs of Israel/Palestine to be screwed.
Anti-Zionists also seem to have an incredibly hard time gasping
why the Jews want a state. How would you like it for your ancestors
lived in an area for hundreads or thousands of years and you were still
viewed as a foreigner? How would you like to be taxed to support a
religion that is not only your religion but is hostile towards your
religion?
Luke Webber
> Its technically possible to be an anti-Zionist and an
> anti-Semite. The reason why many
> Zionists are suspicious of anti-Zionists who claim to be anti-Semites
> is that they seem rather insensitive to what Zionists view as a
> collective need for the Jewish people. They never ask the question what
> would happen to the Jews in a world without Israel. Their basic
> attitude seems to be that even if Jews are collectively screwed in a
> world without Israel, its better for the Jews to be screwed than the
> Arabs of Israel/Palestine to be screwed.
>
> Anti-Zionists also seem to have an incredibly hard time gasping
> why the Jews want a state. How would you like it for your ancestors
> lived in an area for hundreads or thousands of years and you were still
> viewed as a foreigner? How would you like to be taxed to support a
> religion that is not only your religion but is hostile towards your
> religion?
You think we're all that one-sided? I tend to think that Israel is
catching some shit in this conflict as well. And never more so than now
that Hezbollah have rockets. That makes me less certain than you
apparently are of Israel's value as a homeland.
So here we have the Arabs being screwed over, and the Israelis living in
fear of their lives, and everybody being thoroughly brutalised into the
bargain. So, to borrow your term /everybody/ is screwed. Forgive me if I
view this as being a suboptimal solution.
Luke
Charlie Stross
as <aocr...@yahoo.com> declared:
>
> Charlie Stross wrote:
>
>> But I can't support Israel, either. A nation that bases its allocation
>> of citizenship rights on racial or ethnic identity
>
> And how "ethnic identity" is worse than place of birth ?
>
>> and that employs collective punishment as a tool for dealing with outsiders is repugnant.
>
> Have you expressed the same sentiments during NATO-Kosovo campain
> against Serbia,
Oh fuck off, you odious little troll.
(There, that's what you've been trying to get me to say all along, isn't
it. Happy now?)
*PLONK*
-- Charlie
Charlie Stross
> In Charlie's case, however, I'm really surprise I haven't had a permanent
> place since the days when alt.peeves was active.
You did, for a while -- but until a couple of years ago I've tended to
be very parsimonious with permanent killfiling. There are about three
residents of this parish who I've binned permanently, but you quite
often come up with interesting comments so you don't rate that
treatment. I just have to remember not to get into arguments with you.
(I've got more useful things to do with my writing time ...)
-- Charlie
Brett Paul Dunbar
Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> writes
>Mike Schilling wrote:
>> "Ahasuerus" <ahas...@email.com> wrote
>> > Mike Schilling wrote: [snip]
>> >>
>> >> Is Charles Jewish, then? [snip]
>> >
>> > According to Charles' other Usenet posts (e.g.
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/soc.bi/msg/e16cc1b8f4047a25), his
>> > parents were Jewish, but he is an "atheist, with occasional forays into
>> > Discordianism".
>>
>> Jewish enough for Hitler, as the old saying goes.
>
>Well, sure, but then Hitler may have found a few other things about
>Charlie even more objectionable -- see the post linked above :)
>
>Of course, one can be "of Jewish origin" and an anti-Semite; or one can
>be Jewish and strongly anti-Israel. It's a big world out there :)
Or anti-Semitic and pro-Israel, the pro-apocalypse fundamentalists form
a significant part of the US Israel lobby and many of them are outright
religious anti-Semites. They support the settlements because they
believe Israel ruling the holy land is necessary to bring about the
apocalypse and they believe that once that occurs all the Jews must
convert to Christianity or quite literally go to hell. The anti-Semite
wing of the Israel lobby are a significant part of the few foreigners
who actually support the settlements. It should tell you something that
if policy is supported by people who hate you and actually want to start
a war in your country to bring about the end of the world, the policy
might not be in your best interests.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Brett Paul Dunbar
To email me, use reply-to address
Brett Paul Dunbar
Stross <cha...@antipope.org> writes
>Tony Blair likes to kid himself that there's a "special relationship"
>between the USA and Great Britain. There *is* a "special relationship"
>with the USA, but the recipient isn't Tony Blair. Or Margaret Thatcher,
>for that matter. (Where was the USS Nimitz when the UK had to re-take
>the Falkland Islands?)
>
AIUI the USA privately offered to lend us aircraft carriers and anything
else we needed. For quite good political reasons they didn't want to
make a public offer unless the equipment was needed. If we turned down
an offer that would be a public snub damaging US-UK relations, if we
accepted we would look like we weren't capable of dealing with this
ourselves, damaging UK prestige. As the RN didn't feel it needed US help
no offer was made.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>AIUI the USA privately offered to lend us aircraft carriers and anything
>else we needed. For quite good political reasons they didn't want to
>make a public offer unless the equipment was needed. If we turned down
>an offer that would be a public snub damaging US-UK relations, if we
>accepted we would look like we weren't capable of dealing with this
>ourselves, damaging UK prestige. As the RN didn't feel it needed US help
>no offer was made.
And since Maggie wanted to use the "conflict" as a staging post to
influence her re-election, outside help would probably not have been
welcome.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
- Anatole France
Robert Sneddon
<br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>AIUI the USA privately offered to lend us aircraft carriers and
>anything else we needed.
Can you give me any sort of pointer towards confirmation of this offer?
> As the RN didn't feel it needed US help no offer was made.
The RN had been fine-tuned throughout the 60s and 70s to be mostly an
adjunct of NATO, primarily in the anti-submarine role to protect convoys
from the US to Europe in case of a land war between the Warsaw Pact and
NATO in West Germany and France. In the process we gave up our full-deck
aircraft carriers as the US carrier task forces would provide blue-ocean
air cover for our sub-hunting. Luckily some sane thinkers put the V/STOL
Harrier concept and a short-arse "through-deck cruiser" design meant to
be a helicopter support ship together and the Fleet Air Arm was not
actually disbanded.
If the US had come in decisively on Britain's side and parked a Nimitz
class deck down near the Falklands I think the Argentinians would have
decided to back off substantially from their occupation and probably
come to some sort of agreement to negotiate about the future status of
the islands. Since the shooting war actually took place, opinions on
both sides have hardened and hence the large (and expensive) British
military presence on and around the islands to this day and into the
forseeable future.
Our carriers couldn't launch and recover large AEW platforms like the
E3C and the locale was too far away to operate our own land-based
Nimrods, even from the Azores. Because of this the Royal Navy had to
position "picket" ships between the islands and the Argentinian mainland
to spot Argentinian aircraft on their way to attack forces around and on
the island. The average lifespan of a picket was about a week before it
was spotted and destroyed by an Exocet fired from a Super Etendard. If
the Argentinians had substantially damaged or destroyed one of our two
"through-deck cruisers" we would have lost. It was bad enough losing the
helicopters on board the Atlantic Conveyor when it got mistaken for a
carrier and got sunk by an Exocet.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Ahasuerus
> Both MacLeod's blog and Charlie Stross' defense rather shock me.
So when can we expect the dueling _Galaxy_ ads?
--
Ahasuerus
Michael Grosberg
serg271 wrote:
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
> > Not even a very good troll. Amateur.
>
> In this case not a troll.
So in most other cases you *are* a troll?
Mike Schilling
OK, I *almost* know what you're referring to, and if I were even five years
younger I could probably dredge it up. Something to do with Viet Nam?
(Though http://www.sfsite.com/fsf/bibliography/fsfstorieswhen196801.htm
shows that ad as appearing in F&SF.)
serg271
Well, I defenetly was not before this debacle, but now qualified
opinion of rasfw seems marked me as one. So you can kill file me and be
done with it. Looks like we inhabit different information spaces anyway
(considering you havn't read any of my posts before)
BTW *this* post also could be qualified either as troll or at least
bating. Don't bother answer.
Charlie Stross
> Jordan wrote: [snip-snip]
>> Both MacLeod's blog and Charlie Stross' defense rather shock me.
>
> So when can we expect the dueling _Galaxy_ ads?
Is that bampot Jordan still frequenting these parts?
(Groan.)
-- Charlie
Ahasuerus
> Ahasuerus wrote: [snip]
> > So when can we expect the dueling _Galaxy_ ads?
>
> OK, I *almost* know what you're referring to, and if I were even five years
> younger I could probably dredge it up. Something to do with Viet Nam?
> (Though http://www.sfsite.com/fsf/bibliography/fsfstorieswhen196801.htm
> shows that ad as appearing in F&SF.)
Yes, the Vietnam ones -- see
http://www.strangewords.com/archive/which.html for details. I'll have
to double check the SFsite claim because the ads were known as "Galaxy
ads" after the June 1968 issue. See, e.g.,
http://www.smithway.org/history/chap1a.html.
--
Ahasuerus
James Nicoll
Israel are communists (or at least socialists) and Jordan has gone on
record as saying he's ok with anti-semitism as long as commies get
killed as a result of it [1]. He should be cheering the Arabs on.
James Nicoll
1: At this point, someone might say "Gee, isn't that a risky stance for
someone who would have passed the oven test in Nazi Germany?" Indeed it
is and it either demonstrates tremendous bravery or an inability to
make a connection from the general to the particular.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
J Moreno
> How would you like it for your ancestors lived in an area for hundreads or
> thousands of years and you were still viewed as a foreigner?
Uhm, just like almost everyone else on the planet? We've all been
pushed or moved from one place to another, and the people in charge
there (whereever there is now) are generally disinclined to allow the
prevoius occupants to just move back without so much as a by your leave.
Just to take a simple example -- Americans. Most of us are some
combination of English/German/French/Irish -- and none of those
countries will allow us to move back permanently without permission.
In fact, off the top of my head, I can't think of a single country that
will allow 3rd generation descendants back without going through
immigration (other than Isreal).
--
JM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
No 33 Secretary
news:A7aHg.10932$1f6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
Ssshhh. You'll confuse the 'tard.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
No 33 Secretary
news:ncdqe2de4l3hlnt2m...@4ax.com:
> I think that the heart of the problem is that, while there were Arabs
> living there, and there were Jews living there, neither of them were
> in charge.
I think the heart of the problem is that pretty much everbody, on all
sides, is a psychotic loon.
No 33 Secretary
> Terry Austin wrote:
>> Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote in
>
>>> Holy, schmoly. The Arabs lived there, the Jews didn't.
>>
>> If only it were that simple. If that's the standard we're going to
>> apply, why did you choose an arbitrary date for "lived there" that is
>> after the Jews lost Israel centuries ago? Seriously, I'm curious. Cuz
>> at one time, the Jews *did* live there, and any date that cuts off
>> their claim is inherently arbitrary. Why not choose a date *after*
>> the creation of modern Israel? If you can come up with an objective
>> reason for a specific date - *any* specific date - you're a better
>> man than any who have tried befoer.
>
> I think the best date to choose at any time is _right now_. From that
> viepoint, at the time that the modern Israel was created, that land
> was in the possession of Palestinian Arabs. Trying to wind the clock
> back nearly two thousand years? Not something I'd recommend.
_Right now_, your chosen point in time, Jews possess Israel.
>
> Equally, using _right now_ as our present perspective, we'd be stupid
> to try to wipe out the events that led to the creation of the modern
> Israel. Unless somebody has a working time machine. We have to live
> with the consequences of that boneheaded idea.
Like today is any different than the last several thousand years. The
Middle East has always been a violent shithole.
>
>>> Did they really
>>> expect to be greeted with open arms?
>>
>> Did I say they did? Maybe you missed the part where I pointed out
>> that they, too, are mostly composed of psychotic loons.
>
> Well I can't argue with that, at least <g>. OTOH, it's interesting to
> note that the level of psychosis is rising all the time.
Or news coverage of it is. Or made up news stories are, because blood
sells advertising. It's hard to say.
>PReviously
> sane people tend to become a little psycho when you go around killing
> their friends and family and destroying their homes. And I mean that
> on both sides.
Indeed. But, again, it's hardly different than any other point in the
last 2000+ years.
>
>>> Yes, I know that the Palestinian
>>> Arabs who didn't flee were not dispossessed, but would that have
>>> been the case if they had all stayed and tried to maintain their
>>> property rights? I dunno. I just know how it turned out. It was a
>>> stupid idea, and that's obvious to me now because of the spectacular
>>> way in which it failed.
>>
>> Do you have any other ideas that aren't eually stupid in obvious
>> ways?
>
> Yup. Don't do it at all. The Jews had all settled elsewhere by now.
> Why upset the applecart?
You're 50 years too late for that. What do you have to offer *today*?
>
>>> That's not taking sides. Holy land? Who ever said the new Zion had
>>> to be established on the site of the old Zion?
>>
>> The Jews who established it. Why is your opinion more important than
>> theirs? Be specific, and present your reason(s) in objective terms.
>
> Perhaps because their opinion is what led to the current mess.
Again, you deny the possibility of any measure of responsibility on the
part of the millions of violent, psychotic muslims who live in the Middle
East. And you wonder why I believe you've take sides. You've done that
pretty consistently: place *all* blame on the Israelis, and deny even the
remotest possiblity of blame on the part of muslim fanatics who strap
bombs on their bodies and target school busses.
>Maybe
> you could give me the benefit of the doubt and just assume that doing
> nothing would be unlikely to lead to anywhere near as big a screwup as
> we presently have on our hands?
Maybe you could examine the last 2000 years of recorded history in the
area and explain who today is really any worse than any other point.
>
>>> If modern Israel is truly
>>> the Promised Land, you might wish that the promise had never been
>>> kept. Holy land is all very well for pilgrimages and TV
>>> documentaries, but when people start getting the idea that they have
>>> to /own/ their holy land, that's when the problems start.
>>
>> Indeed. That is percisely the problem with the Muslims who are trying
>> to take it *back*. Wouldn't you agree?
>
> Nope. Maybe for some of them, that's the issue. For most, though, they
> hate Israel because Israel killed somebody they knew/were related
> to/saw on TV. And the motivation for most Israelis to hate Arabs is
> much the same.
And there's the blatant hypocrisy, and taking sides. Thanks for making
that absolutely clear.
James Nicoll
J Moreno <pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote:
>
>In fact, off the top of my head, I can't think of a single country that
>will allow 3rd generation descendants back without going through
>immigration (other than Isreal).
India has something called "persons of Indian origin", which
is available to another with roots in India up to four generations
old, as long as they have never been citizens of Pakistan or Bangladesh.
It is not full citizenship but if you register for it, one year
of residency in India gets you the full package.
No 33 Secretary
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
Do you really not know the difference between anti-semetic and anti-
zionist?
>
> And Charles Stross seems cool with this.
>
> And, incidentally, YOU seem cool with this too.
>
Perhaps that's because they know what the words they're using actually
mean.
But then, why should I be surprised that you're an idiot. Again.
No 33 Secretary
news:2BgHg.142193$9d4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> as <terry.nota...@gmail.com> declared:
>
>> In Charlie's case, however, I'm really surprise I haven't had a
>> permanent place since the days when alt.peeves was active.
>
> You did, for a while -- but until a couple of years ago I've tended to
> be very parsimonious with permanent killfiling.
You're getting soft in your old age.
> There are about three
> residents of this parish who I've binned permanently,
I'm genuinely surprised it's not more. And not in the least surprised
that Jordan seems to be one of them.
> but you quite
> often come up with interesting comments so you don't rate that
> treatment.
<blush>
> I just have to remember not to get into arguments with you.
> (I've got more useful things to do with my writing time ...)
>
If your sales figures are any indication, I'd have to say you are
correct. One of these days, I'll have to try one of your books.
No 33 Secretary
news:1156430535.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Heh. Has he posted *anything* else?
No 33 Secretary
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Classic troll. "I'm not going to argue with you, but I have to get the
last word, so don't answer me." Yeah, right.
Troll. Amateur troll.
Wayne Throop
: Like today is any different than the last several thousand years.
Hm. Not to disagree, but... as opposed to where, exactly?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
No 33 Secretary
>: No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com>
>: Like today is any different than the last several thousand years.
>: The Middle East has always been a violent shithole.
>
> Hm. Not to disagree, but... as opposed to where, exactly?
>
Good point. Though I would argue that in the last century or so, the Middle
East has been more persistent. Lower peaks and shallower valleys.
Default User
> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> as <ahas...@email.com> declared:
>
> > Jordan wrote: [snip-snip]
> >> Both MacLeod's blog and Charlie Stross' defense rather shock me.
> >
> > So when can we expect the dueling Galaxy ads?
>
> Is that bampot Jordan still frequenting these parts?
Yes, he's in one of his high activity modes. I believe that means the
programmers of the Bassior-bot have implemented some upgrades and are
testing them out.
Brian (software for fun and profit)
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Jason Larke
>>>>> said:
rr> So, in hindsight the best thing would probably have been to
rr> let the people living there decide what they want to do with
rr> the place. But that wouldn't have allowed Europe to ease
rr> their conscience by "doing something for the Jews" of Europe
rr> after the War.
IIRC, quite a few Jews were moving in by the fairly simple
expedient of buying the land from people willing to
sell. Unfortunately the neighbors didn't always take kindly to
the sale, and there basically was no local authority to either
prevent the sales or enforce them. Given the circumstances some
sort of armed conflict was inevitable regardless.
--
Postings from this account are personal and opinions expressed are my own.
Any sufficiently advanced weapon is indistinguishable from a practical joke.
"It's like vigilante justice without the justice." -- Tisha O'Malley
"People change, and smile: but the agony abides."-T.S. Eliot, The Dry Salvages
David McMillan
> In message <mgd+KEdr...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk>, Brett Paul Dunbar
> <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>> AIUI the USA privately offered to lend us aircraft carriers and
>> anything else we needed.
>
> Can you give me any sort of pointer towards confirmation of this offer?
>
>> As the RN didn't feel it needed US help no offer was made.
> Our carriers couldn't launch and recover large AEW platforms like the
> E3C and the locale was too far away to operate our own land-based
> Nimrods, even from the Azores. Because of this the Royal Navy had to
> position "picket" ships between the islands and the Argentinian mainland
> to spot Argentinian aircraft on their way to attack forces around and on
> the island. The average lifespan of a picket was about a week before it
> was spotted and destroyed by an Exocet fired from a Super Etendard. If
Gross exaggeration. From May 4th to June 12th (about 5 weeks), only
two picket ships were struck by Exocets, only one of which was sunk.
Plus the Atlantic Conveyor, of course.
Luke Webber
Charming. Yes, I did know that there were Jews living there. I was
referring to the new arrivals. The millions, not the few thousand.
Luke
Luke Webber
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:29:12 -0700, r.r...@thevine.net
>>>>>> said:
>
> rr> So, in hindsight the best thing would probably have been to
> rr> let the people living there decide what they want to do with
> rr> the place. But that wouldn't have allowed Europe to ease
> rr> their conscience by "doing something for the Jews" of Europe
> rr> after the War.
>
> IIRC, quite a few Jews were moving in by the fairly simple
> expedient of buying the land from people willing to
> sell. Unfortunately the neighbors didn't always take kindly to
> the sale, and there basically was no local authority to either
> prevent the sales or enforce them. Given the circumstances some
> sort of armed conflict was inevitable regardless.
Exactly. To quote Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz)...
"Altogether kibbutzim grew and flourished in the 1920s. In 1922 there
were scarcely 700 individuals living on kibbutzim in Palestine. By 1927
the kibbutz population was approaching 4,000. By the eve of World War II
the kibbutz population was 25,000, 5 % of the total population of the
yishuv."
That's some serious growth. Why did they have to screw things up by
/giving/ the place away?
Luke