Re: Eddie Haskell - USENET's notrious [sic]

[No 'cull'; no 'list'; no 'those who keep the list']

On 1/17/2014 9:06 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <ZacCu.224385$Rt7.1...@fx27.iad>,
> "Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote:
>
>> When our enemies start coming for us, we'll point them in your direction and
>> indicate that you are volunteering to die at their hands or at least be
>> their slave. After all, you don't want to be defended.
>
> What military threat is coming for us?

Maybe having a 2,000,000 person military is exactly why there aren't any
coming for us.


--

People who have been in the military
did not do military "duty" or
"service"; they just had a military
job for a while. Calling it "duty"
suggests it is owed. It is not.

[No 'cull'; no 'list'; no 'those who keep the list']

On 1/17/2014 9:06 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:

> In article <bdaeb$52d951e8$414e828e$26...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
> "No 'cull'; no 'list'; no 'those who keep the list'" <kill_gummer@soon> wrote:
>
>> You don't know what it takes to defend the country.
>
> That depends on what you mean by defend.

No, it doesn't depend on anything at all - *you* are incompetent to say
what's required.

[spamthespammers]

On 1/17/2014 9:24 AM, No 'cull'; no 'list'; no 'those who keep the list'
wrote:

========================================================
TOPIC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE NEWSGROUPS - DROP DEAD
========================================================

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/17/2014 5:58 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <0HjCu.115673$vg2.1...@fx01.iad>,
> "Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote:
>
>> On 17-Jan-2014, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <KteCu.25794$JL1....@fx08.iad>, "Kirby Grant"
>>> <kgr...@whatzit.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17-Jan-2014, dzweib...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 16-Jan-2014, dzweib...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <224c0$52d8557e$414e828e$16...@EVERESTKC.NET>,

>>>>>>>> "No 'cull'; no 'list'; no 'those who keep the list'"

>>>>>>>> <kill_gummer@soon> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2014 12:50 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2014 12:28 PM, No 'cull'; no 'list'; no 'those who
>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>> the list' wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2014 12:08 PM, Denny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "No 'cull'; no 'list'; no 'those who keep the list'"

>>>>>>>>>>>> <kill_gummer@soon> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2014 9:46 AM, Denny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "No 'cull'; no 'list'; no 'those who keep the list'"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kill_gummer@soon> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2014 8:51 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-Jan-2014, "No 'cull'; no 'list'; no 'those who
>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the list'" <kill_gummer@soon> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> n 1/15/2014 4:41 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-Jan-2014, "No 'cull'; no 'list'; no 'those who
>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list'" <kill_gummer@soon> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/15/2014 9:53 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuck off, punk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't serve. You didn't do any "duty". A
>>>>>>>>> contract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> janitorial company could have done what you did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I did serve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I SERVED. I did my DUTY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, neither. You had a job in the military for a
>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while; that's all. You did your "duty" in exactly
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same way a janitor pushes a broom when told to push a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broom; nothing more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are totally wrong and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm right. You're trying to invest military
>>>>>>> employment
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some morally higher value than other types of
>>>>>>> employment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I'm sorry, but it just doesn't have such a moral
>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just work - period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some guy who repairs cars for a living doesn't puff out
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chest and start slobbering about having "served" in his
>>>>>>> job
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and having done his "duty." Military work is no
>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I SERVED. I did my DUTY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No; neither. You didn't do that any more than the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receptionist in a dentist's office does. You had a job
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the military; that's all. You were employed in the
>>>>>>>>> military,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you
>>>>>>>>>>>> performed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tasks assigned to you. That's the extent of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least the janitor and the receptionist has jobs that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perform useful services, with a positive result.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You, too, want some people working in the military. You
>>>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that having a military capable of defending the country
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> protecting our interests abroad is a good thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say it like that, it makes sense. But in my
>>>>>>> lifetime
>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>> have been several wars and police actions, and NONE of
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to do with protecting America and its people.
>>>>>>> Yes,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we've been saved from invading
>>>>>>>>>>>> Viet Cong, Panamanians, Afghans, Lebanese, Iraqis, and
>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> folks in Grenada call themselves. If we had all the wasted
>>>>>>>>>>>> trillions back from these fiascoes, we could pave the
>>>>>>> streets
>>>>>>>>>>>> in gold.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But the unavoidable implication of your snide comment is
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> military employees do nothing useful to society, while
>>>>>>> janitors
>>>>>>>>>>> and receptionists do. It was categorical - your comment
>>>>>>> says
>>>>>>>>>>> that no military employee does the country any good.
>>>>>>>>> Obviously,
>>>>>>>>>>> you don't believe your own rhetoric.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The purpose of the military is to scare the shit out of rest
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> the country while cooperating another country's military
>>>>>>> scaring
>>>>>>>>>> the shit
>>>>>>>>>> out of the other
>>>>>>>>>> country. By doing so they can extract money and resources
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> their host without creating anything economically useful in
>>>>>>>>>> return.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The purpose of the military is to secure the country against
>>>>>>>>> attack.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What country is going to attack the US in a way the military
>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>> just as easily prevent with a nuclear weapon in the middle of
>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>> ocean? How much military do you need for that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We spend more on "defense" than the nex 14 countries. We could cut
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> in half and be just as safe.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> When our enemies start coming for us, we'll point them in your
>>>>>> direction
>>>>>> and indicate that you are volunteering to die at their hands or at
>>>>>> least
>>>>>> be their slave. After all, you don't want to be defended.
>>>>>

>>>>> Which enemies?
>>>>
>>>> The ones that I will direct towards you.
>>>
>>> Are they magically shielded from nuclear weapons?
>>>
>>
>> Well, I'm pretty sure you don't have any of them at your disposal unless you
>> are some type of terrorist who is out to destroy America.
>
> So you're talking about murder, a police matter, and not something the military
> is needed for.

Wrong. Absolutely our military has a role to play in deterring and -
hopefully - killing terrorists.

That's why your comical "20,000" or whatever wasn't taken seriously -
nor did you intend it seriously.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/17/2014 10:04 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <cfc3d$52da0a7c$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET>,

> It doesn't do a very good job of it.

You're not competent to say.

[No 'cull'; no 'list'; no 'those who keep the list']

On 1/18/2014 10:22 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <9d6c9$52dac1dc$414e828e$63...@EVERESTKC.NET>,

> "No 'cull'; no 'list'; no 'those who keep the list'" <kill_gummer@soon> wrote:
>

>>>>> So what specifically do you think the military is for?
>>>>
>>>> I already said what it's for.
>>>
>>> All you said was vague bullshit about 'defending liberty' without
>>> identifying
>>> any mechanism to do so or possible enemy to that liberty.
>>
>> It wasn't vague at all.
>
> But you don't want to state in explicitly because that would make you sound like
> a bully: you want a military that can deny people in other countries of their
> liberty because you think that's what needed to preserve your own.

No, that is not at all what I said or implied.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/23/2014 10:33 PM, Denny wrote:
> "Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote:

>> On 23-Jan-2014, dzweib...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:
>>
>>> Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote:

>>>> On 22-Jan-2014, dzweib...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote:

>>>>>> On 22-Jan-2014, Klaus Schadenfreude <KlausScha...@gmx.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:30:25 GMT, "Kirby Grant"
>>>>>>> <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No cull has done that effectively by
>>>>>>>> claiming ignorance and then doing nothing to educate himself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If only he had access to your store of Sooper Sekrit Nollege®.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [chuckle]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I know things you're not allowed to know..."
>>>>>>> -Kirby Grant, International Man of Mystery
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, if he had led a clean life and been a few steps above the
>>>>>> quality of most people, it could have been possible that he had
>>>>>> held a responsible position in the Navy like I did and then after
>>>>>> Navy time he could have worked for one of the three-letter
>>>>>> agencies like I
>>>>>> did and had
>>>>>> access to things that most people never know of. Obviously he
>>>>>> isn't in that category.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But even beyond that, I didn't stop learning after I graduated
>>>>>> Phi Beta Kappa from my university. I have been a student ever
>>>>>> since. Not just in my job as a programmer, but also in many
>>>>>> different areas of the liberal arts and metaphysics. I have a
>>>>>> lifetime of learning behind me and I'm not
>>>>>> about to stop now. I have hundreds of books in my personal
>>>>>> library and my
>>>>>> current reading list represents several years of reading ahead of
>>>>>> me even
>>>>>> at the rate of about 3-4 books a month. I don't spend my time
>>>>>> reading
>>>>>> fiction - that is mostly a waste of time and is only good for
>>>>>> recreation.
>>>>>> I read books that most people won't touch because they are
>>>>>> non-fiction. And some of the things that I read have a very
>>>>>> exclusive
>>>>>> distribution and
>>>>>> one has to have the right contacts to get access to them. One
>>>>>> thing I
>>>>>> know for sure is that "no cull" is a mental midget - functionally
>>>>>> illiterate apparently. He certainly has not demonstrated in any
>>>>>> way that he has any knowledge above a middle-school level.
>>>>>
>>>>> I got the same problem as you. My "to read" shelf is getting
>>>>> longer. I guess a acquire two bookd to put on the shelf for every
>>>>> bokk I take down. As my futre gets shorter.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that is the dilemma. I'll go onto Amazon and order ten books
>>>> even though they will end up joining my ever expanding list.
>>>
>>> I forgot to mention this the other day.
>>> Since I was a schoolboy, I alternated between fiction and non fiction,
>>> and still do. I don't agree that fic. is trivial and useless.
>>> We go through all of our lives not understanding other people. Even
>>> those we're closet to are strangers. Who knows what's really happening
>>> in those heads.
>>>
>>> "The mind is a dark forest."
>>>
>>
>> It isn't that I never read fiction. I've read the whole Harry Potter
>> series. But I've also read many of James Mitchner's books that are
>> officially fiction even though they contain quite a bit of historical
>> fact. So in my overall library there is probably about 5-10% fiction. But
>> generally I don't read much for pure entertainment value - I read because
>> I want to learn new things. In fact, just recently I read a college level
>> Physics textbook as well as a book about Anthropology simply because I
>> wanted to learn some things about those two subjects. And right now I am
>> working through the books "The Twelve Year Reich" (Richard Grunberger) as
>> well as a book about the politics/history/culter of countries in the
>> middle east and another book that contains several Buddhist Sutras. I
>> switch around between them depending on my mood at the moment. But once I
>> am done with each of them I'll just move on to the next in my list. But
>> on that list are a couple more Mitchner books that I want to get to soon.
>
> My dad was a Mitchner fan, and I read those in middle school. There was
> never "nothing to read. Also the James Bond books. One NF I always
> reccoment is "1491" by Charles C Mann. It's about the Americas before the
> white folks arrived. Amazing.

Yes, Mann's "1491" is amazing - so amazing that you, a stupid
uncomprehending left-wing fat fuck, don't appreciate just how badly it
fucks over at least one left-wing dogma.

For years, the received wisdom was that "Native Americans" were few in
numbers, trod lightly upon the land, and later western civilization's
"exploitation" of resources amounted to a despoiling of "virgin
rainforest" and the like. That's one storyline presented by what we
shall call the ecotopian strand of fuckwitted left-wing thought.

The competing theme, presented in "1491", is that "Native Americans"
were in fact numerous - more numerous than western Europeans, even - and
much more advanced than previously thought. While the decimation of
Native American populations was unintentional, as Mann's book makes
perfectly clear (see section on De Soto's pigs), what was destroyed in
this "high counters" hypothesis was not a couple of million primitives
who barely touched the land, but rather an advanced civilization of well
over 100 million that thoroughly altered the landscape. We'll call this
the race-obsession strand of fuckwitted left-wing thought.

These two strands are in violent conflict. They can't both be right.
In a long Atlantic Monthly article derived from his book, Mann makes
clear that the "high counters" hypothesis utterly demolishes the
ecotopian view that the Americas were virtually untouched up to 1491:

More important are the implications of the new [high counters]
theories for today's ecological battles. Much of the
environmental movement is animated, consciously or not, by what
William Denevan, a geographer at the University of Wisconsin,
calls, polemically, "the pristine myth"—the belief that the
Americas in 1491 were an almost unmarked, even Edenic land,
"untrammeled by man," in the words of the Wilderness Act of 1964,
one of the nation's first and most important environmental laws.
As the University of Wisconsin historian William Cronon has
written, restoring this long-ago, putatively natural state is, in
the view of environmentalists, a task that society is morally
bound to undertake. Yet if the new view is correct and the work
of humankind was pervasive, where does that leave efforts to
restore nature?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/1491/302445/

So, *EITHER* the Native American population was low and of an extremely
primitive level of development, and thus the Americas were a "pristine"
ecotopia when Europeans arrived here, and so whites are to blame for an
ecological catastrophe; *OR* the population was huge, possibly larger
and more advanced than Europe, and had totally altered the environment,
possibly even *creating* the Amazon rainforest, and so the so-called
"genocide" - unintentional, to be sure - was even more horrific than
previously thought, *but* the Europeans are not responsible for
destroying any "pristine" ecology, because there wasn't any to destroy.

I just *LOVE* getting left-wing fucktards to fight amongst themselves.

[Jeff M]

On 1/24/2014 10:59 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
[SNIP]

>> My dad was a Mitchner fan, and I read those in middle school. There was
>> never "nothing to read. Also the James Bond books. One NF I always
>> reccoment is "1491" by Charles C Mann. It's about the Americas before the
>> white folks arrived. Amazing.
>
> Yes, Mann's "1491" is amazing
>

> For years, the received wisdom was that "Native Americans" were few in
> numbers, trod lightly upon the land, and later western civilization's
> "exploitation" of resources amounted to a despoiling of "virgin
> rainforest" and the like.

What a lame screed. Unlike the ignorant, ant-scientific dogma of the
extremist regressives, progressives, centrists and rational
conservatives continue to research, study, refine and revise their
understanding of the world, using science and reason. Thus, our
understanding of conditions and civilizations in the pre-Colombian
America continues to increase, expand and improve.

Ecologists, except perhaps the tiny fringe element that equates to the
tiny fringe element of conservatism composed of you regressive
extremists, aren't seeking some faux ideal of a continent as it might be
without the presence of mankind. That's simply another of your ignorant
rightard myths and straw men.

What the debate is about, you dope, is how to best manage and preserve
our resources and environment for the long-term sustainability and
benefit of all. We are rapidly reaching the point were we can no longer
afford to allow a relatively few greedy, stupid and irresponsible
rightard types to keep recklessly exploiting and despoiling limited
resources, endangering our lives and health, and spewing their poisonous
effluent everywhere, ruining our air and water and upon our lands.

It's about being prudent, smart and responsible, so that we can continue
to maintain, grow and improve our economy, standard of living, public
health and quality of life over the long run, i.e., preserving and
perpetuating civilization instead of allowing it to be damaged, retarded
or destroyed by those motivated only by their own short-term profit. We
need look no further than your own constant squawking that your
self-interest is the only thing that matters, to see the sort of mindset
that is causing the problem.

If we left it up to you rightards, there's no doubt that you'd gladly
drag the entire planet down the same path the inhabitants of Rapa Nui
took. If left to your own devices, it wouldn't be all that long before
we'd be reduced to a relative handful of survivors of self-inflicted
environmental catastrophe, barely able to sustain their vastly reduced
population.

It is not all that difficult to imagine that someday, as with Easter
Island, visitors from an alien world might find those survivors,
huddling on the edge of extinction among the slag heaps, burnt out
mansions and collapsing smokestacks that take the place of Easter
Island's Moai statues as monuments to a once great but lost
civilization, scurrying after rats and insects to survive. But it would
be very difficult to imagine what they would think of us for causing our
own collapse.


--
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith

[Jeff M]

On 1/24/2014 12:01 PM, Denny wrote:

> There is no controversy between bunches of liberals, or whatever hate label
> you choose to choose. Mann's book is Science, a concept right wingers have
> rejected through the years. Amazing new technologies have been discovered
> recently, and the evidence has been enlarged and revised. That's how
> Science operates. 1491 explains this. I know rightists MUST depict
> environmentalists as spaced-out hippies hugging trees. I know you and those
> of your ilk will never deviate even one percent from your dogma. OK,
> proceed with your embracing of ignorance. Mann's book simply describes the
> shifting of opinion within the community of anthropologists. Again,
> Science, and not your thing. Twisting around historical facts to insert
> your dogma into contemporary Left/Right controversies is absurd. Was
> Columbus and DeSoto "bad" or "good"? Wouldd they vote for Obama or Romney?
> You will never achieve an even partial relationship with reality if you
> drag around you poison fanatacism with you. I'm glad you cited the article
> in Atlantic, my favorite magazine. But it makes one suspicious that you
> just read the article, and not the book. Who would blame you? It's a very
> long book, with many long words. I'd wager that you never read a book
> longer than the works of Bill O'Reilly.

Well said.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 10:01 AM, Denny wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

> There is no controversy between bunches of liberals, or whatever hate label
> you choose to choose. Mann's book is Science,

Yes, there most certainly *IS* a controversy, as I specifically showed
with a citation from Mann's article. There are two distinct
lunatic-leftist beliefs in conflict here:

* the "white-Europeans-raped-the-'pristine'-Americas-environment" dogma

* the "white-Europeans-committed-massive-'genocide'" dogma


Actually, if you look at it closely, Mann's thesis is that white
Europeans did neither. However, with respect to the fake "genocide"
dogma, the implication is that the *scale* of the so-called "genocide"
was vastly greater. In fact, a specific accusation of "political
correctness" was made against the original "high counter", Henry F. Dobyns:

That [uncritical acceptance of Mooney's 1.15 million estimate]
changed in 1966, when Henry F. Dobyns published "Estimating
Aboriginal American Population: An Appraisal of Techniques With a
New Hemispheric Estimate," in the journal Current Anthropology.
Despite the carefully neutral title, his argument was thunderous,
its impact long-lasting. In the view of James Wilson, the author
of The Earth Shall Weep (1998), a history of indigenous
Americans, Dobyns's colleagues "are still struggling to get out
of the crater that paper left in anthropology." Not only
anthropologists were affected. Dobyns's estimate proved to be one
of the opening rounds in today's *culture wars*. [emphasis added]
[...]
Dobyns's ideas were quickly attacked as *politically motivated*,
a push from the *hate-America crowd* to inflate the toll of
imperialism. The attacks continue to this day. "No question about
it, some people want those higher numbers," says Shepard Krech
III, a Brown University anthropologist who is the author of The
Ecological Indian (1999). [emphasis added]

[The citations are also from Mann's Atlantic article.]

But a fundamental element of Mann's presentation is that the Indians had
drastically altered the environment, and that much of what fuckwitted
left-wing ecotopians call "virgin rainforest", and other supposedly
"pristine" features, is in fact man made. If Mann is correct, the
fuckwitted left-wing ecotopians are wrong - *necessarily*. If Mann is
wrong, and Mooney's estimate of only 1.15 million inhabitants of North
America is right, then the scale of any alleged "genocide" is much
smaller. But the "white-Europeans-committed-massive-'genocide'" mob
*want* that scale to be much greater.

I have proven, "Denny", that there *IS* a bitter fight between two
different factions of fuckwitted leftists, *BOTH* factions harboring a
racist and irrational hatred of white Europeans but for different reasons.

You are such a simple clown, "Denny". It's almost unfair how easy it is
to show you to be a simpleton.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag repaired]

On 1/24/2014 10:01 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 1/24/2014 10:59 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> [SNIP]
>>> My dad was a Mitchner fan, and I read those in middle school. There was
>>> never "nothing to read. Also the James Bond books. One NF I always
>>> reccoment is "1491" by Charles C Mann. It's about the Americas before
>>> the
>>> white folks arrived. Amazing.
>>
>> Yes, Mann's "1491" is amazing
>>
>> For years, the received wisdom was that "Native Americans" were few in
>> numbers, trod lightly upon the land, and later western civilization's
>> "exploitation" of resources amounted to a despoiling of "virgin
>> rainforest" and the like.
>
> What a lame screed.

No. However, yours is.

> Unlike the ignorant, ant-scientific dogma of the
> extremist regressives,

It is the left, of course, that is hysterically anti-science. Proved.

Anyway, there *IS* a bitter fight among the two different crackpot
factions of leftists I identified. You're just not aware of it.

[Rudy Canoza]

It was bullshit. Mann's book and article unmistakably point to a bitch
fight among leftists, just as I elaborated.

No, "Denny's" self-serving bit of bullshit is just that - bullshit. It
is the left that is anti-science - proved beyond dispute. Cf. GMO foods.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 10:37 AM, Denny wrote:

> Hey Jeff, I put the guy down too, but you did it better, as always.

No, you didn't, and neither did he. You at least tried. All jeffy did
was take a dump in Usenet.

[Jeff M]

On 1/24/2014 1:03 PM, Denny wrote:
[snip]

>> No, "Denny's" self-serving bit of bullshit is just that - bullshit. It
>> is the left that is anti-science - proved beyond dispute. Cf. GMO foods.
>

> Did you read the book?

Extremely doubtful, since it fails to strictly follow the regressive
extremist party lie, er, line. Those types fear and studiously avoid
anything scientific, truthful, well-reasoned, or especially that might
disprove the nonsense they've been told to believe. Moreover, it
contains many rather big words and complicated ideas, which are simply
beyond Plimpton's grasp. Anyway, Plimpton's just mindlessly lashing out
at anything his betters and tormenters happen to post, as usual.

We've discussed the ethics of torturing Plimpton with facts, truths and
reason before. But look at it this way, at least we're providing him
the attention he obviously craves, and a good excuse for him to continue
ranting, which along with boozing it up every night, appears to be about
all he does with his miserable life. So we're actually doing him a good
turn.

[Rudy Canoza]

> Did you read the book?

Of course. The book and the article present exactly the same points,
and show that there is, indeed, a bitter fight between two different
factions of fuckwitted dogmatic leftists.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 11:14 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 1/24/2014 1:03 PM, Denny wrote:
> [snip]
>>> No, "Denny's" self-serving bit of bullshit is just that - bullshit. It
>>> is the left that is anti-science - proved beyond dispute. Cf. GMO
>>> foods.
>>
>> Did you read the book?
>
> Extremely doubtful, since it fails to strictly follow the regressive
> extremist party lie

Leftists, of course, are the regressives. So-called "progressivism" is
regressive, seeking to impose neo-feudalism.

[Jeff M]

He's lying. He didn't read the book, or at least had no understanding
of what he supposedly read. He doesn't know what it's about.

[Jeff M]

On 1/24/2014 1:16 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> On 1/24/2014 11:14 AM, Jeff M wrote:
>> On 1/24/2014 1:03 PM, Denny wrote: [snip]
>>>> No, "Denny's" self-serving bit of bullshit is just that -
>>>> bullshit. It is the left that is anti-science - proved beyond
>>>> dispute. Cf. GMO foods.
>>>
>>> Did you read the book?
>>
>> Extremely doubtful, since it fails to strictly follow the

>> regressive extremist party lieer, line. Those types fear and

>> studiously avoid anything scientific, truthful, well-reasoned, or
>> especially that might disprove the nonsense they've been told to
>> believe. Moreover, it contains many rather big words and
>> complicated ideas, which are simply beyond Plimpton's grasp.
>> Anyway, Plimpton's just mindlessly lashing out at anything his
>> betters and tormenters happen to post, as usual.
>

> Leftists, of course, are the regressives.

The delusion filled, inside out, up is down, black is white minds of
these ignorant regressives is a very dark, nasty and ugly place.

And, no, Plimpton obviously never read the book, 1491. He's lying as
usual, and once again, also as usual, prattling on about a topic of
which he is entirely ignorant.

[Jeff M]

On 1/24/2014 1:48 PM, Denny wrote:
> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:

>> On 1/24/2014 1:03 PM, Denny wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> No, "Denny's" self-serving bit of bullshit is just that - bullshit.
>>>> It is the left that is anti-science - proved beyond dispute. Cf. GMO
>>>> foods.
>>>
>>> Did you read the book?
>>
>> Extremely doubtful, since it fails to strictly follow the regressive
>> extremist party lie, er, line. Those types fear and studiously avoid
>> anything scientific, truthful, well-reasoned, or especially that might
>> disprove the nonsense they've been told to believe. Moreover, it
>> contains many rather big words and complicated ideas, which are simply
>> beyond Plimpton's grasp. Anyway, Plimpton's just mindlessly lashing out
>> at anything his betters and tormenters happen to post, as usual.
>>
>> We've discussed the ethics of torturing Plimpton with facts, truths and
>> reason before. But look at it this way, at least we're providing him
>> the attention he obviously craves, and a good excuse for him to continue
>> ranting, which along with boozing it up every night, appears to be about
>> all he does with his miserable life. So we're actually doing him a good
>> turn.
>

> Every time a new scientific discovery comes along, they have to sweat and
> suffer and come up with a damning contradiction of it. No matter how
> illogical or insane. It must be so hard to do. What a miserable life that
> must be.

Their type really tie themselves in knots to avoid all real progress,
don't they? But, in the end, that kind always fails, and ends up left
behind on the ash heap of history, whining and mewling with outrage, as
the rest of the world moves forward.

In any case, Plimpton unmistakably and urgently needs to seek the
professional services of a psychiatrist, psychologist and/or a substance
abuse counselor. But I'm sure he's going to drink himself into a
pauper's grave long before he'd ever do that. Too bad he has no family,
friends or anyone else who cares about him, and who might have him
involuntarily committed for psychiatric evaluation and treatment. Even
after treatment, though, he's still be a major jackhole, of course. But
maybe he'd at least be a less mentally ill and routinely drunk jackhole.
And I pity any mental health professional who would have to listen to
him spew forth the disgusting bile he's filled with.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

>
> No, you didn't, and neither did he. You at least tried. All jeffy did
> was take a dump in Usenet.

Isn't taking dumps on newsnet your occupation?

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Rudy Canoza]

> "Rudy", I respectfully disagree.

You would. You're biased.


> I know many people who have read the book. It's a popular discussion topic
> in book forums. Or was when it came out a few years ago. Many of my
> personal friends and relatives have read it and enjoyed it. But I never
> noticed anyone bringing the liberal-bashing argument into the discussion.

Look: *necessarily* the book's thesis demonstrates that there is a
conflict between two militant left-wing themes. I have elaborated both
of those themes for you, and you know very well that both are left-wing
political positions. They are in conflict, whether or not the adherents
of those positions know it. I'd say that Mann's thesis mostly attacks
the position of the fuckwitted left-wing ecotopians. Mann explicitly
acknowledged that.

[Rudy Canoza]

I'm not lying. I read the book. You never even heard of it before now.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 11:48 AM, Denny wrote:
> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:

>> On 1/24/2014 1:03 PM, Denny wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> No, "Denny's" self-serving bit of bullshit is just that - bullshit.
>>>> It is the left that is anti-science - proved beyond dispute. Cf. GMO
>>>> foods.
>>>
>>> Did you read the book?
>>
>> Extremely doubtful, since it fails to strictly follow the regressive
>> extremist party lie, er, line. Those types fear and studiously avoid
>> anything scientific, truthful, well-reasoned, or especially that might
>> disprove the nonsense they've been told to believe. Moreover, it
>> contains many rather big words and complicated ideas, which are simply
>> beyond Plimpton's grasp. Anyway, Plimpton's just mindlessly lashing out
>> at anything his betters and tormenters happen to post, as usual.
>>
>> We've discussed the ethics of torturing Plimpton with facts, truths and
>> reason before. But look at it this way, at least we're providing him
>> the attention he obviously craves, and a good excuse for him to continue
>> ranting, which along with boozing it up every night, appears to be about
>> all he does with his miserable life. So we're actually doing him a good
>> turn.
>
>

> Every time a new scientific discovery comes along, they have to sweat and
> suffer and come up with a damning contradiction of it.

I didn't contradict Mann's thesis.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 11:51 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 1/24/2014 1:16 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/24/2014 11:14 AM, Jeff M wrote:
>>> On 1/24/2014 1:03 PM, Denny wrote: [snip]
>>>>> No, "Denny's" self-serving bit of bullshit is just that -
>>>>> bullshit. It is the left that is anti-science - proved beyond
>>>>> dispute. Cf. GMO foods.
>>>>
>>>> Did you read the book?
>>>
>>> Extremely doubtful, since it fails to strictly follow the
>>> regressive extremist party lieer, line. Those types fear and
>>> studiously avoid anything scientific, truthful, well-reasoned, or
>>> especially that might disprove the nonsense they've been told to
>>> believe. Moreover, it contains many rather big words and
>>> complicated ideas, which are simply beyond Plimpton's grasp.
>>> Anyway, Plimpton's just mindlessly lashing out at anything his
>>> betters and tormenters happen to post, as usual.
>>
>> Leftists, of course, are the regressives.
>
> The delusion

The delusion, of course, is that the neo-feudalism of so-called
"progressivism" is progress. It is not. I have shown why it is not.

[Rudy Canoza]

> Oh yeah? What common household object did the Amazonians add to the soil to
> improve it?

Charcoal, you stupid fuck. Also bits of pottery.

[Rudy Canoza]

Nope - *your* type. In particular, your type tie yourselves in knots to
avoid the real progress of the market and the invisible hand. That's
why you want to regress to an earlier period: feudalism.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 12:13 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:

> On 24-Jan-2014, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/2014 1:16 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 1/24/2014 11:14 AM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>> On 1/24/2014 1:03 PM, Denny wrote: [snip]
>>>>>> No, "Denny's" self-serving bit of bullshit is just that -
>>>>>> bullshit. It is the left that is anti-science - proved beyond
>>>>>> dispute. Cf. GMO foods.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you read the book?
>>>>
>>>> Extremely doubtful, since it fails to strictly follow the
>>>> regressive extremist party lieer, line. Those types fear and
>>>> studiously avoid anything scientific, truthful, well-reasoned, or
>>>> especially that might disprove the nonsense they've been told to
>>>> believe. Moreover, it contains many rather big words and
>>>> complicated ideas, which are simply beyond Plimpton's grasp.
>>>> Anyway, Plimpton's just mindlessly lashing out at anything his
>>>> betters and tormenters happen to post, as usual.
>>>
>>> Leftists, of course, are the regressives.
>>
>> The delusion filled, inside out, up is down, black is white minds of
>> these ignorant regressives is a very dark, nasty and ugly place.
>>

>> And, no, Prof. Canoza obviously never read the book, 1491.

I read the book.


>>
>
> Republicans

Fuck off. I'm not a Republican.

You didn't "serve"; you didn't do any "duty".

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 12:43 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>
>> No, you didn't, and neither did he. You at least tried. All jeffy did
>> was take a dump in Usenet.
>

> Isn't taking dumps on newsnet my preoccupation?

You and jeffy both.

[Jeff M]

On 1/24/2014 3:02 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
[snip]

>>>> Did you read the book?
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>

>> He's lying. He didn't read the book
>
> I'm not lying.

You're lying. Everybody already knows how you lie, and you've been
caught in your clumsy lies many times. Now your now well-established
reputation as a serial liar that clings to you like the stink clings to
an open sewer. This is no different than all those other times; you've
been kicked you into a corner because of your own stupidity and earlier
lies, and now you're just trying to lie your way out.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 1:25 PM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 1/24/2014 3:02 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> [snip]
>>>>> Did you read the book?
>>>>
>>>> Of course.
>>>
>>> He's lying. He didn't read the book
>>
>> I'm not lying.
>
> You're lying.

I'm not lying.

> Everybody already knows how you lie, and

No, everyone knows *you* lie, and that you're a drunk.

[jim]

yes

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> For years, the received wisdom was that "Native Americans" were few in
> numbers, trod lightly upon the land, and later western civilization's
> "exploitation" of resources amounted to a despoiling of "virgin
> rainforest" and the like. That's one storyline presented by what we
> shall call the ecotopian strand of fuckwitted left-wing thought.
>
> The competing theme, presented in "1491", is that "Native Americans"
> were in fact numerous - more numerous than western Europeans, even - and
> much more advanced than previously thought. While the decimation of
> Native American populations was unintentional, as Mann's book makes
> perfectly clear (see section on De Soto's pigs), what was destroyed in
> this "high counters" hypothesis was not a couple of million primitives
> who barely touched the land, but rather an advanced civilization of well
> over 100 million that thoroughly altered the landscape. We'll call this
> the race-obsession strand of fuckwitted left-wing thought.
>
> These two strands are in violent conflict. They can't both be right.

There is no conflict. As there is today. There were two cultures
urban and rural.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 2:09 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

collective, lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/24/2014 12:43 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you didn't, and neither did he. You at least tried. All jeffy did
>>>> was take a dump in Usenet.
>>>
>>> Isn't taking dumps on newsnet my preoccupation?
>>

>> You and jeffy both.
>
>
> yes

Yes.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 2:17 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

collective, lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:

>> For years, the received wisdom was that "Native Americans" were few in
>> numbers, trod lightly upon the land, and later western civilization's
>> "exploitation" of resources amounted to a despoiling of "virgin
>> rainforest" and the like. That's one storyline presented by what we
>> shall call the ecotopian strand of fuckwitted left-wing thought.
>>
>> The competing theme, presented in "1491", is that "Native Americans"
>> were in fact numerous - more numerous than western Europeans, even - and
>> much more advanced than previously thought. While the decimation of
>> Native American populations was unintentional, as Mann's book makes
>> perfectly clear (see section on De Soto's pigs), what was destroyed in
>> this "high counters" hypothesis was not a couple of million primitives
>> who barely touched the land, but rather an advanced civilization of well
>> over 100 million that thoroughly altered the landscape. We'll call this
>> the race-obsession strand of fuckwitted left-wing thought.
>>

>> These two strands are in violent conflict. They can't both be right. In
>> a long Atlantic Monthly article derived from his book, Mann makes clear
>> that the "high counters" hypothesis utterly demolishes the ecotopian
>> view that the Americas were virtually untouched up to 1491
>

> There is no conflict.

There is, of course, a conflict between the two views, as I have proved.

[Scout]

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
news:XPmdnYY-XZnne3_P...@bright.net...

And all the shades of society between those extremes.

[Jeff M]

On 1/24/2014 4:21 PM, Rudy Canoza spewed:
> On 1/24/2014 2:17 PM, jim wrote

>> There is no conflict.
>
> There is, of course, a conflict between the two views, as I have proved.

<HaHaHaHa>

Here we have another excellent example of a primary cognitive failing of
regressive extremists, although there are certainly innumerable others.

This is - any ignorant thing they extract from their own rectums and
throw out there, or hear some right-wing talking head spin-meister say,
no matter how patently false or insane, is somehow magically transformed
in whatever passes for their addled, dogma-bound, obscure and always
quite minimal thought processes into a "proved" fact, beyond question.

If curious why ignorant certitude and and arrogant pomposity are so
often found together in the ranks of the regressive extremists, here's a
partial explanation:

Dunning–Kruger effect

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled
individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their
ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a
metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> >>
> >> The competing theme, presented in "1491", is that "Native Americans"
> >> were in fact numerous - more numerous than western Europeans, even - and
> >> much more advanced than previously thought. While the decimation of
> >> Native American populations was unintentional, as Mann's book makes
> >> perfectly clear (see section on De Soto's pigs), what was destroyed in
> >> this "high counters" hypothesis was not a couple of million primitives
> >> who barely touched the land, but rather an advanced civilization of well
> >> over 100 million that thoroughly altered the landscape. We'll call this
> >> the race-obsession strand of fuckwitted left-wing thought.
> >>
> >> These two strands are in violent conflict. They can't both be right. In
> >> a long Atlantic Monthly article derived from his book, Mann makes clear
> >> that the "high counters" hypothesis utterly demolishes the ecotopian
> >> view that the Americas were virtually untouched up to 1491
> >
> > There is no conflict.
>
> There is, of course, a conflict between the two views, as I have proved.

As usual you have told a fictional story and then claim
the story is evidence of its authenticity.

It is not news to anthropologists that there were large urban
populations of Indians in North America in 1491.

[Jeff M]

On 1/24/2014 5:14 PM, jim wrote:
[snip]

>>> There is no conflict.
>>
>> There is, of course, a conflict between the two views, as I have proved.
>
> As usual you have told a fictional story and then claim
> the story is evidence of its authenticity.

First he lied, then lied about his lie.
That's our Plimpton!

> It is not news to anthropologists that there were large urban
> populations of Indians in North America in 1491.

No, but it took some interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary
communication among historians, anthropologists, archeologists and
others to sort out all the available data and for a new consensus
understanding, or at least some new theories to account for new data, to
emerge. This normal and familiar process of information exchange,
examination, theory formation, challenge and validation is what
Plimpton, a scientific illiterate, is gleefully but stupidly trying to
pass off as "fighting among themselves."

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 3:03 PM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 1/24/2014 4:21 PM, Rudy Canoza spewed:
>> On 1/24/2014 2:17 PM, jim wrote
>
>>> There is no conflict.
>>
>> There is, of course, a conflict between the two views, as I have proved.
>
> <HaHaHaHa>

Ha ha ha ha ha! jeffy m, disgraced *disbarred* ex-lawyer and
neo-feudalist regressive, concedes the point.

[Scout]

"Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
news:498b4$52e2fccd$414e828e$28...@EVERESTKC.NET...

At least he is a lawyer, by your own admission....

So where is your law degree?

When do we where you were ever a member of the Bar?

Oh, and he didn't concede the point, you snipped out the part where he
refuted what you claimed.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 3:14 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

>>>> shall call the ecotopian strand of fuckwitted left-wing thought.

>>>>
>>>> The competing theme, presented in "1491", is that "Native Americans"
>>>> were in fact numerous - more numerous than western Europeans, even - and
>>>> much more advanced than previously thought. While the decimation of
>>>> Native American populations was unintentional, as Mann's book makes
>>>> perfectly clear (see section on De Soto's pigs), what was destroyed in
>>>> this "high counters" hypothesis was not a couple of million primitives
>>>> who barely touched the land, but rather an advanced civilization of well
>>>> over 100 million that thoroughly altered the landscape. We'll call this
>>>> the race-obsession strand of fuckwitted left-wing thought.
>>>>
>>>> These two strands are in violent conflict. They can't both be right. In
>>>> a long Atlantic Monthly article derived from his book, Mann makes clear
>>>> that the "high counters" hypothesis utterly demolishes the ecotopian
>>>> view that the Americas were virtually untouched up to 1491
>>>
>>> There is no conflict.
>>
>> There is, of course, a conflict between the two views, as I have proved.
>
> As usual you have told a fictional story and

No, I haven't. You didn't understand what I wrote. What I wrote is
correct: two competing left-wing views of the Americas cannot both be
right. There is an irreconcilable conflict between them.

[Scout]

"Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:93e4c$52e2fd94$414e828e$20...@EVERESTKC.NET...

Certainly they can. Consider for a second the effects of POV.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 3:30 PM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 1/24/2014 5:14 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

> [snip]
>
>>>> There is no conflict.
>>>
>>> There is, of course, a conflict between the two views, as I have proved.
>>
>> As usual you have told a fictional story and then claim
>> the story is evidence of its authenticity.
>
> First he lied,

No.

> then lied about his lie.

Impossible - I didn't lie in the first place.

>
>> It is not news to anthropologists that there were large urban
>> populations of Indians in North America in 1491.
>
> No, but it took some interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary
> communication among historians, anthropologists, archeologists and
> others to sort out all the

You didn't read either the article or the book. You never heard of
"1491" until it came up here.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 3:50 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
> news:498b4$52e2fccd$414e828e$28...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 1/24/2014 3:03 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>> On 1/24/2014 4:21 PM, Rudy Canoza spewed:
>>>> On 1/24/2014 2:17 PM, jim wrote
>>>
>>>>> There is no conflict.
>>>>
>>>> There is, of course, a conflict between the two views, as I have
>>>> proved.
>>>
>>> <HaHaHaHa>
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha ha! jeffy m, disgraced *disbarred* ex-lawyer and
>> neo-feudalist regressive, concedes the point.
>
> At least he is a lawyer, by your own admission....

He was a lawyer. Now he isn't.

>
> So where is your law degree?

Where's yours? Oh, right - none to be found.

[Rudy Canoza]

Nope. They can't. The ecotopian left-wing belief is that the Indians
lived "in harmony" with nature and trod "lightly on the land", leaving
it virtually untouched. The "high counters" advanced civilization
belief is that the Indians deeply and widely altered the landscape for
thousands of years. Those beliefs are in conflict and cannot both be
true - they cannot be reconciled. Either the landscape was virtually
untouched or it was deeply and widely altered.

> Consider for a second the effects of POV.

Suppose you define your terms.

[Scout]

"Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:f1ed$52e2ff98$414e828e$21...@EVERESTKC.NET...

> On 1/24/2014 3:50 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
>> news:498b4$52e2fccd$414e828e$28...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>> On 1/24/2014 3:03 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>> On 1/24/2014 4:21 PM, Rudy Canoza spewed:
>>>>> On 1/24/2014 2:17 PM, jim wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> There is no conflict.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is, of course, a conflict between the two views, as I have
>>>>> proved.
>>>>
>>>> <HaHaHaHa>
>>>
>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! jeffy m, disgraced *disbarred* ex-lawyer and
>>> neo-feudalist regressive, concedes the point.
>>
>> At least he is a lawyer, by your own admission....
>
> He was a lawyer. Now he isn't.

No, he is still a lawyer, he just can't currently practice law in court.

>> So where is your law degree?
>
> Where's yours?

I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor claimed that one had to be a lawyer to
talk about the matters under discussion.

You did.

Looks like by your own standards then you should STFU.

But then we all know you're a hypocrite, don't we.

[Scout]

"Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:e318b$52e3027e$414e828e$22...@EVERESTKC.NET...

On can alter the landscape and still be "in harmony" with natures a trod
"lightly on the land" leaving it virtually untouched.

For example, compare modern societies harmony with nature and how we grind
nature under our feet and leave marks upon the land that even 10s of
thousands of years couldn't be erased by natural action.

As I said, it's all in your POV.

[jim]

Jeff M wrote:
>
> On 1/24/2014 5:14 PM, jim wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >>> There is no conflict.
> >>
> >> There is, of course, a conflict between the two views, as I have proved.
> >
> > As usual you have told a fictional story and then claim
> > the story is evidence of its authenticity.
>
> First he lied, then lied about his lie.
> That's our Plimpton!
>
> > It is not news to anthropologists that there were large urban
> > populations of Indians in North America in 1491.
>
> No, but it took some interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary
> communication among historians, anthropologists, archeologists and
> others to sort out all the available data and for a new consensus
> understanding, or at least some new theories to account for new data, to
> emerge. This normal and familiar process of information exchange,
> examination, theory formation, challenge and validation is what
> Plimpton, a scientific illiterate, is gleefully but stupidly trying to
> pass off as "fighting among themselves."

The problem is that all the large pre-columbian urban groups
in North America had disappeared by 1600 - so the evidence is all
archeological. And often modern cities picked the same locations
so lots of evidence got covered up.

>
> --
> “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
> moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
> for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> >
> > As usual you have told a fictional story and
>
> No, I haven't. You didn't understand what I wrote.

I understood that you wrote fiction. There is no conflict.
Both small hunter gathering groups and large groupings that
were in small cities existed. The urbanites relied on agriculture
and fishing. This has been documented for a 100 years.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Either the landscape was virtually
> untouched or it was deeply and widely altered.

Its a pretty big landscape. Kinda hard to
touch it all. I have never met anyone in anthropology
or archeology that has studied the American prehistory that
thinks the Indians did not alter the landscape. The Great
plains prairie are believed to be largely the result of man's
maintaining the grasslands by controlled burning. The
extinction of animals like the saber-toothed tiger and
mastodon are believed to be likely due to man.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 5:02 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
> news:f1ed$52e2ff98$414e828e$21...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 1/24/2014 3:50 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
>>> news:498b4$52e2fccd$414e828e$28...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>> On 1/24/2014 3:03 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>>> On 1/24/2014 4:21 PM, Rudy Canoza spewed:
>>>>>> On 1/24/2014 2:17 PM, jim wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no conflict.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is, of course, a conflict between the two views, as I have
>>>>>> proved.
>>>>>
>>>>> <HaHaHaHa>
>>>>
>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! jeffy m, disgraced *disbarred* ex-lawyer and
>>>> neo-feudalist regressive, concedes the point.
>>>
>>> At least he is a lawyer, by your own admission....
>>
>> He was a lawyer. Now he isn't.
>
> No, he is still a lawyer, he just can't currently practice law in court.

He's not a lawyer.

>>> So where is your law degree?
>>
>> Where's yours?
>
> I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor claimed that one had to be a lawyer
> to talk about the matters under discussion.

You affect a comical level of knowledge about the law and legal procedure.


> You did.

Nope. I never claimed that, neither expressly nor by implication.

[Rudy Canoza]

No. If it's altered, it's not untouched. In fact, Mann's thesis is
that it was massively altered, in ways that are still visible today.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 5:13 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

>>> As usual you have told a fictional story and
>>

>> No, I haven't. You didn't understand what I wrote. What I wrote is
>> correct: two competing left-wing views of the Americas cannot both be
>> right. There is an irreconcilable conflict between them.
>

> I understood that you wrote fiction.

No, because I didn't. I showed, beyond dispute, that there are two
irreconcilable left-wing views, and Mann's book brings the conflict into
sharp focus.

[Scout]

"Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:2fbfc$52e3142e$414e828e$54...@EVERESTKC.NET...

> On 1/24/2014 5:02 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
>> news:f1ed$52e2ff98$414e828e$21...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>> On 1/24/2014 3:50 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
>>>> news:498b4$52e2fccd$414e828e$28...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>> On 1/24/2014 3:03 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/24/2014 4:21 PM, Rudy Canoza spewed:
>>>>>>> On 1/24/2014 2:17 PM, jim wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no conflict.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is, of course, a conflict between the two views, as I have
>>>>>>> proved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <HaHaHaHa>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! jeffy m, disgraced *disbarred* ex-lawyer and
>>>>> neo-feudalist regressive, concedes the point.
>>>>
>>>> At least he is a lawyer, by your own admission....
>>>
>>> He was a lawyer. Now he isn't.
>>
>> No, he is still a lawyer, he just can't currently practice law in court.
>
> He's not a lawyer.
>

Lawyer: n: a person whose job is to guide and assist people in matters
relating to the law

Take it up with Webster's then.

What he isn't is an attorney.

>
>>>> So where is your law degree?
>>>
>>> Where's yours?
>>
>> I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor claimed that one had to be a lawyer
>> to talk about the matters under discussion.
>
> You affect a comical level of knowledge about the law and legal procedure.
>
>
>> You did.
>
> Nope. I never claimed that, neither expressly nor by implication.

And yet you're not an expert in the law, so your opinion is hardly relevant
by your own admission.

[Scout]

"Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:d2b61$52e31460$414e828e$54...@EVERESTKC.NET...

Agreed.....now, look back up, see that word "virtually".

> In fact, Mann's thesis is that it was massively altered, in ways that are
> still visible today.

Nice theory, if true, but still just a theory, and again "massively" is a
matter of opinion and POV.

Compared to modern society, they barely touched the land.

A few modest examples of how we've changed the land in recent years.

http://tinyurl.com/lamacbm

http://tinyurl.com/kw4dyoe

http://tinyurl.com/lt9r6oo

http://tinyurl.com/kvqbaoz

http://tinyurl.com/me4msku

http://tinyurl.com/ktu7zem

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/24/2014 5:22 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

>> true - they cannot be reconciled. Either the landscape was virtually

>> untouched or it was deeply and widely altered.
>
> Its a pretty big landscape. Kinda hard to
> touch it all.

Straw man. No one said "all."

You're a simpleton, front boy.

[Rudy Canoza]

It's not virtually untouched. Evidence of massive alteration is visible
today.

>
>> In fact, Mann's thesis is that it was massively altered, in ways that
>> are still visible today.
>
> Nice theory, if true, but still just a theory, and again "massively" is
> a matter of opinion and POV.

The obvious alterations are not just a theory.

I didn't claim that Mann's main theme is the consensus in the field, but
it is gaining ground all the time. In any case, all I said is that the
two competing themes - "pristine" environment vs massive alteration -
are in conflict, and the conflict is between two left-wing views.

[Scout]

"Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:cdebb$52e31dcd$414e828e$80...@EVERESTKC.NET...

So you claim. The only conflict I see is in interpretation.

[Rudy Canoza]

So Mann claimed.

[kipling's hand]

On 1/24/2014 1:13 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> Heck, some of them
> haven't come down
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KStahl's death threat:

6/23/2012 12:29 PM

alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.elections,
alt.politics.media, seattle.politics

KGr...@yahoo.com

<6WnFr.443151$L45.3...@news.usenetserver.com>

So tell me. What do you plan to do for all eternity in hell? You've
obviously created a situation where I have to make arrangements for that
to happen, so you better start figuring it out pretty quickly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by multiple left-wing shitbags repaired]

On 1/28/2014 7:09 AM, Bobo the disgraced *disbarred* felon lied:
> On 1/27/2014 11:21 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag* bitch, lied:

>> I admire your attempt, but

Fuck off, "billy" bitch. Use an adult nickname, shitbag.


>>
>> I hope this message finds you.
>
> Very well said.

It was shit, of course. You like shit. Mentally ill people usually do.