Faith moves mountains, also very tall buildings.
loua...@yahoo.com
shirt with a red cross and some writing on the front. It took me quite
a while to realize that this was not the modern meaning of the red
cross (e.g. "I gave blood" or such) but the good-old-murderous days
meaning. The caption actually read "the answer to jihad is crusade."
I didn't have the self-confidence (or armed backup) to engage the guy
in conversation about, e.g., how a situation with insane bloodthirsty
religious fanatics would be improved by adding _opposite_ insane
bloodthirsty religious fanatics.
Louann "why no, religion does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling" Mimller
Inez
But if you aren't willing to be belligerent, the terrorists have won.
Also keep in mind that they hate our freedom, and if we stop allowing
them to kill our soldiers at their convenience over there they'll come
over hear and kill us inconvenient people who somewhat paradoxically
think we're "supporting" these troops.
loua...@yahoo.com
> But if you aren't willing to be belligerent, the terrorists have won.
> Also keep in mind that they hate our freedom, and if we stop allowing
> them to kill our soldiers at their convenience over there they'll come
> over hear and kill us inconvenient people who somewhat paradoxically
> think we're "supporting" these troops.
I'm afraid I don't have the context to know whether you're kidding or
not. Plenty of people wouldn't be.
Inez
I've just been hypnotized by talking points.
Not long ago I heard an actual senator (I forget which one, they all
look alike to me) actually go beyond saying that the terrorists would
follow our troops home and explain that it was easier for the
terrorists to kill our troops in Iraq than to come here and kill us,
so our troops being in Iraq made us safe. I just about swallowed my
tongue!
Timberwoof
"loua...@yahoo.com" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was at a social event this weekend where a guy was wearing a white t-
> shirt with a red cross and some writing on the front. It took me quite
> a while to realize that this was not the modern meaning of the red
> cross (e.g. "I gave blood" or such) but the good-old-murderous days
> meaning. The caption actually read "the answer to jihad is crusade."
>
> I didn't have the self-confidence (or armed backup) to engage the guy
> in conversation about, e.g., how a situation with insane bloodthirsty
> religious fanatics would be improved by adding _opposite_ insane
> bloodthirsty religious fanatics.
I once saw a bug burly guy wearing a T-shirt imprinted with the US flag
and the legend "Try to burn this one asshole." I thought that while
setting that one asshole on fire would be somewhat appropriate, it would
make a mess and dishonor a US flag printed on a T-shirt. I did not
discuss my ideas with him either.
> Louann "why no, religion does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling" Mimller
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
an important web site: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/
John Bode
wrote:
> In article <1184011616.295191.195...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I was at a social event this weekend where a guy was wearing a white t-
> > shirt with a red cross and some writing on the front. It took me quite
> > a while to realize that this was not the modern meaning of the red
> > cross (e.g. "I gave blood" or such) but the good-old-murderous days
> > meaning. The caption actually read "the answer to jihad is crusade."
>
> > I didn't have the self-confidence (or armed backup) to engage the guy
> > in conversation about, e.g., how a situation with insane bloodthirsty
> > religious fanatics would be improved by adding _opposite_ insane
> > bloodthirsty religious fanatics.
>
> I once saw a bug burly guy wearing a T-shirt imprinted with the US flag
> and the legend "Try to burn this one asshole." I thought that while
> setting that one asshole on fire would be somewhat appropriate, it would
> make a mess and dishonor a US flag printed on a T-shirt. I did not
> discuss my ideas with him either.
>
Which brings up a whole 'nother issue -- using the image of the flag
on clothing. I'm a bit old-fashioned in that I don't think the flag
should be displayed in anything other than a dignified manner; I was
one of five people in the state of Texas who didn't have a sad,
frayed, tattered, faded and stained little flag on my car antenna,
precisely because I felt such a display wasn't appropriate. If you
can't be bothered to display the thing properly, don't display it at
all.
I feel the same way about the image of the flag being used in slogans
like that, and I find it somewhat ironic that someone who feels that
strongly about burning it doesn't think twice about displaying it as
part of a vulgar slogan.
Not that I'm against vulgarity; fuck, I'm usually all for it, I'd just
rather keep the flag out of it.
Pip R. Lagenta
Inez is engaging in parody, dark irony, and deep truths. Should we
call this "kidding"? Inez is one of talk.origins brilliant and
profound wits. (We love her.)
>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
snex
the flag should be displayed in any manner the owner feels like. the
flag is not our actual freedom, but merely a symbol for it. the actual
freedom includes the freedom to burn the flag.
Kermit
Then is there nothing you think should be treated with respect?
I would suggest that burning the flag means the most when it is
generally treated with respect.
I won't insult you by pointing out that asserting "X should be treated
respectfully" is not the same as asserting "I should be able to
control how you treat X".
Kermit
Noelie S. Alito
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:02:55 -0700, "loua...@yahoo.com"
> <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 9, 3:53 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But if you aren't willing to be belligerent, the terrorists have won.
>>> Also keep in mind that they hate our freedom, and if we stop allowing
>>> them to kill our soldiers at their convenience over there they'll come
>>> over hear and kill us inconvenient people who somewhat paradoxically
>>> think we're "supporting" these troops.
>> I'm afraid I don't have the context to know whether you're kidding or
>> not. Plenty of people wouldn't be.
>
> Inez is engaging in parody, dark irony, and deep truths. Should we
> call this "kidding"? Inez is one of talk.origins brilliant and
> profound wits. (We love her.)
I thought *Louann* was one of talk.origins brilliant and
profound wits. (We love her. Plus, she's got a bunch of
POTMs.)
But you've been around long enough to know that,
haven't you, Gal--er, Pip?
Noelie
--
"I try to be cynical, but it's hard to keep up."
--Lily Tomlin
Mark Isaak
People. It is often forgotten that arguments about respecting other
things end up disrespecting people. Priorities get reversed. Respect
people, and the rest will take care of itself.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Dick C
In the weeks and months after 9/11 I saw an amazing number of flags draped
over cars and trucks, everyone of them displayed inappropriately. Ranging
from the little flags hanging on the windows and rubbing against the car,
to being draped across the hood where they get all the dirt from the road.
Almost all of the vehicles being driven by young males. I told my wife
that it is far easier to pretend to be patriotic by dishonoring the flag
than it is to actually be patriotic and join the military to fight the
terrorists. This of course, was pre Iraq invasion.
>
> I feel the same way about the image of the flag being used in slogans
> like that, and I find it somewhat ironic that someone who feels that
> strongly about burning it doesn't think twice about displaying it as
> part of a vulgar slogan.
I agree, these people will willingly attack, someone who burns the flag.
OTOH, when I hear of it, I want to find out why.
>
> Not that I'm against vulgarity; fuck, I'm usually all for it, I'd just
> rather keep the flag out of it.
>
>
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
John Wilkins
> Pip R. Lagenta wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:02:55 -0700, "loua...@yahoo.com"
> > <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 9, 3:53 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> But if you aren't willing to be belligerent, the terrorists have won.
> >>> Also keep in mind that they hate our freedom, and if we stop allowing
> >>> them to kill our soldiers at their convenience over there they'll come
> >>> over hear and kill us inconvenient people who somewhat paradoxically
> >>> think we're "supporting" these troops.
> >> I'm afraid I don't have the context to know whether you're kidding or
> >> not. Plenty of people wouldn't be.
> >
> > Inez is engaging in parody, dark irony, and deep truths. Should we
> > call this "kidding"? Inez is one of talk.origins brilliant and
> > profound wits. (We love her.)
>
> I thought *Louann* was one of talk.origins brilliant and
> profound wits. (We love her. Plus, she's got a bunch of
> POTMs.)
We love you all, you darkly ironic femmes of the froup.
>
>
> But you've been around long enough to know that,
> haven't you, Gal--er, Pip?
Galen delenda est!
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Augray
wrote in <pan.2007.07.09...@earthlink.net> :
>On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:13:55 -0700, Kermit wrote:
>
>> On Jul 9, 2:59 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> the flag should be displayed in any manner the owner feels like. the
>>> flag is not our actual freedom, but merely a symbol for it. the actual
>>> freedom includes the freedom to burn the flag.
>>
>> Then is there nothing you think should be treated with respect?
>
>People. It is often forgotten that arguments about respecting other
>things end up disrespecting people. Priorities get reversed. Respect
>people, and the rest will take care of itself.
It's very tempting to nominate this for Post of the Month. Whatever
the ultimate result, it's something that should be remembered.
Noelie S. Alito
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:30:05 GMT, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net>
> wrote in <pan.2007.07.09...@earthlink.net> :
>
>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:13:55 -0700, Kermit wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2:59 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> the flag should be displayed in any manner the owner feels like. the
>>>> flag is not our actual freedom, but merely a symbol for it. the actual
>>>> freedom includes the freedom to burn the flag.
>>> Then is there nothing you think should be treated with respect?
>> People. It is often forgotten that arguments about respecting other
>> things end up disrespecting people. Priorities get reversed. Respect
>> people, and the rest will take care of itself.
Nominated, if I'm not over quota...and even if I am!
> It's very tempting to nominate this for Post of the Month. Whatever
> the ultimate result, it's something that should be remembered.
Noelie
Noelie S. Alito
> Pip R. Lagenta wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:02:55 -0700, "loua...@yahoo.com"
>> <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 9, 3:53 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But if you aren't willing to be belligerent, the terrorists have won.
>>>> Also keep in mind that they hate our freedom, and if we stop allowing
>>>> them to kill our soldiers at their convenience over there they'll come
>>>> over hear and kill us inconvenient people who somewhat paradoxically
>>>> think we're "supporting" these troops.
>>> I'm afraid I don't have the context to know whether you're kidding or
>>> not. Plenty of people wouldn't be.
>>
>> Inez is engaging in parody, dark irony, and deep truths. Should we
>> call this "kidding"? Inez is one of talk.origins brilliant and
>> profound wits. (We love her.)
>
> I thought *Louann* was one of talk.origins brilliant and
> profound wits. (We love her. Plus, she's got a bunch of
> POTMs.)
In addition to La Souris Sauvage, of course.
Free Lunch
"Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote in
<ZZidnVVfQNK...@giganews.com>:
>Augray wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:30:05 GMT, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote in <pan.2007.07.09...@earthlink.net> :
>>
>>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:13:55 -0700, Kermit wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 9, 2:59 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> the flag should be displayed in any manner the owner feels like. the
>>>>> flag is not our actual freedom, but merely a symbol for it. the actual
>>>>> freedom includes the freedom to burn the flag.
>>>> Then is there nothing you think should be treated with respect?
>>> People. It is often forgotten that arguments about respecting other
>>> things end up disrespecting people. Priorities get reversed. Respect
>>> people, and the rest will take care of itself.
>
>
>Nominated, if I'm not over quota...and even if I am!
>
Inez
> > <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Jul 9, 3:53 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> But if you aren't willing to be belligerent, the terrorists have won.
> >>> Also keep in mind that they hate our freedom, and if we stop allowing
> >>> them to kill our soldiers at their convenience over there they'll come
> >>> over hear and kill us inconvenient people who somewhat paradoxically
> >>> think we're "supporting" these troops.
> >> I'm afraid I don't have the context to know whether you're kidding or
> >> not. Plenty of people wouldn't be.
>
> > Inez is engaging in parody, dark irony, and deep truths. Should we
> > call this "kidding"? Inez is one of talk.origins brilliant and
> > profound wits. (We love her.)
>
> I thought *Louann* was one of talk.origins brilliant and
> profound wits. (We love her. Plus, she's got a bunch of
> POTMs.)
>
> But you've been around long enough to know that,
> haven't you, Gal--er, Pip?
>
> Noelie
Goodness! I'm not meaning to pretend to brilliance or steal Ms.
Millers spotlight. For the most part I just like to see what the
smart people write and learn a bit of science. I am proud of myself
for using the term "stop codon" the other day in a way that didn't
draw corrections, that is more the sort of aspirations I have.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> The caption actually read "the answer to jihad is crusade."
Meh, I say let them have their crusade. Of course they'll first have to
agree on who will be in charge et al, without any outside help. Result?
They'll all kill each other of course. Now let's make the jihadists do the
same among themselves, problem solved.
Aaaah, cynism in the morning... :)
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Pip R. Lagenta
I am in no way hazarding to cast aspersions on any additional of
talk.origins brilliant and profound wits. (Lest they turn their
rapiers toward me.)
Pip R. Lagenta
Wilkins) wrote:
[snip]
>Galen delenda est!
Ack!
John Wilkins
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:18:22 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
> [snip]
> >Galen delenda est!
>
> Ack!
>
You do not need to worry, do you Pip?
Pip R. Lagenta
Wilkins) wrote:
>Pip R. Lagenta <morbiu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:18:22 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >Galen delenda est!
>>
>> Ack!
>>
>You do not need to worry, do you Pip?
Oh... Right! Never mind.
John Bode
Yes, the flag is a symbol, but I feel that how we treat the symbol
reflects how we treat the real thing.
For far too many people these days, neither one gets much real
respect. The symbol is allowed to be faded, tattered, and torn, and
no one seems to care. The real thing is being attacked, abridged, and
dismantled, and no one seems to care (except for us terrorist-loving,
war-effort-sabotaging, homosexual-enabling, Satan-appeasing, evolution-
death-cult-worshipping LIBRULS).
Note that I am *not* in favor of any legislation or constitutional
amendment that prohibits someone from burning the flag; I'm just
annoyed with people who *claim* to be patriots and yet allow the most
recognizable symbol of that patriotism be used so shabbily.
Walter Bushell
nmp <add...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> Trying to suppress the progress of science sometimes seems the lesser of
> the evils religion does.
Except that science _must_ progress or a lot of us will die, just from
starvation and disease. We need new antibiotics we have are close to
having used up the ones we have. If totally drug resistant TB gets loose
we are back to before the days when my mother left the TB sanatoriums
which were closing due to sulfa drugs and joined the Air Force as a
register nurse. In the immortal words of Warren Zevron, "it ain't that
pretty at all".
Oh, well if I survive there should be plenty of cheap real estate.
Robert Grumbine
Why? This is almost exactly what the administration said in sending
the troops in the first place. They called it 'taking the war to the
terrorists', but otherwise same line.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Jeffrey Turner
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:18:22 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>Galen delenda est!
>
>
> Ack!
You mean "iacta." :)
--Jeff
--
The most extravagant idea that can arise
in a politician's head is to believe that
it is enough for a people to invade a
foreign county to make it adopt their laws
and their constitution. No one loves armed
missionaries... --Robespierre
snex
this would seem to be a contradiction. it is the SCOTUS itself that
allows the flag to be used shabbily. are you annoyed when they claim
to be patriots? would you be annoyed if they also ruled that
personally-owned copies of the constitution could be used as toilet
paper?
loua...@yahoo.com
> Inez is engaging in parody, dark irony, and deep truths. Should we
> call this "kidding"? Inez is one of talk.origins brilliant and
> profound wits. (We love her.)
Oh, good. I'm just not around steadily enough these days to get to
know everyone I'd like to.
Bob C
"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1i115oh.xh2y421l7zab2N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
> Noelie S. Alito <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
>> Pip R. Lagenta wrote:
>> > On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:02:55 -0700, "loua...@yahoo.com"
>> > <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Jul 9, 3:53 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> But if you aren't willing to be belligerent, the terrorists have won.
>> >>> Also keep in mind that they hate our freedom, and if we stop allowing
>> >>> them to kill our soldiers at their convenience over there they'll
>> >>> come
>> >>> over hear and kill us inconvenient people who somewhat paradoxically
>> >>> think we're "supporting" these troops.
>> >> I'm afraid I don't have the context to know whether you're kidding or
>> >> not. Plenty of people wouldn't be.
>> >
>> > Inez is engaging in parody, dark irony, and deep truths. Should we
>> > call this "kidding"? Inez is one of talk.origins brilliant and
>> > profound wits. (We love her.)
>>
>> I thought *Louann* was one of talk.origins brilliant and
>> profound wits. (We love her. Plus, she's got a bunch of
>> POTMs.)
>
> We love you all, you darkly ironic femmes of the froup.
>>
>>
>> But you've been around long enough to know that,
>> haven't you, Gal--er, Pip?
>
> Galen delenda est
A Tripp to Carthage?
Bob Carroll
John Bode
I know from your other posts that you are not a stupid person, so I
can only assume you're being deliberately dense just for the fun of
it.
I have no problem with someone burning the flag as an *act of
protest*; that's free speech, and the fact that SCOTUS recognized it
as such doesn't bug me. That's not what I mean by being "used
shabbily".
I have a problem with people who scream "U! S! A! Love it or leave
it! God Bless Ronald Reagan! Burning the flag is *bad* and should be
*illegal*!" and then let their own flags turn into strips of dirty
cloth by tying it on their car antenna or leaving it out in all kinds
of weather. *That's* what I mean by being "used shabbily." It's
actually more disrespectful than burning it, and that disrespect is
coming from self-proclaimed uber-patriots. The hypocrisy of it is
what annoys me.
Now, does that make any more sense, or am I going to have to use words
of just one syllable?