Fahrenheit 9/11 - a must see film
Robert Henderson
Michael Moore's shockumentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has the usual Moore
shortcomings of a clanking right-on-ness* and a certain freedom with
facts and nuances, but all are in much less evidence than they were in
Bowling For Columbine.
The film concentrates almost entirely on the US and Bush administration
response to 9/11 - Blair and the UK are barely mentioned, either
because Moore did not want anything to distract from Bush and co or
because he considers the UK contribution unimportant.
A very valuable part of the film is film of Bush in not only in
formal circumstances such as The State of the Union Address and White
House press conferences, but also less formal ones when he is on his
ranch or playing golf or duck shooting. Anyone who still deludes
themselves that Bush is not severely intellectually underpowered should
have the delusion removed by this film. Even in the most relaxed
circumstances Bush does not rise above the "Howdy" and "Nice day" level
of conversation and is utterly at sea when asked a question about govt
policy. All through the film Bush displayed the same trait when he was
not speaking to a prepared script: he either came to a dead halt or
spoke a sentence or two parrot fashion, simply repeating what he had
heard someone else say without understanding it or its context.
These less formal moments also show a child-like egotism whereby he
constantly seeks approval for a golf drive or duck shot.
Perhaps the most revealing film of Bush was of the day when he was
told of the second plane crashing into the Twin Towers. Bush was
visiting a primary school for a photo opportunity. Before he went into a
classroom he knew that one plane had crashed into the Twin Towers but
believed it was simply a tragic accident. Sitting in a classroom while
a reading lesson was in progress an aide came in and whispered to him
that the second plane had hit and "America is under attack". Bush did
not leave the class and remained there for more than seven minutes with
a copy Nanny the Goat in his hands which he intermittently pretended to
read. Moore has much of the seven minute sin the film. Bush does not
look frightened, or anxious, he merely looks bemused. There is an utter
vacancy in his eyes.
The crude sham of America's 2democracy" is beautifully exposed. At one
point Bush is shown giving a speech to US plutocracy. He address them
thus:"Welcome to the haves and have mores. Some call you the elite. I
call you my base." That is not to my mind a legitimate statement (even
as a jest) by a politician in a democracy. But it was not meant
primarily as a joke but as a "tribal" call to the plutocracy.
There is also a chilling piece of film from the early 1990s when he
unashamedly boasts how he has the best access to power and influence in
the US because his father was president.
What was clear throughout the film is how far Bush has polarised the US.
This was not simply a post 9/11 phenomenon. Bush's car was pelted and
mobbed by an angry crowd on his inauguration day causing the traditional
new president's walk to the White House to be cancelled.
As for 9/11 and the Bush administration's response to it, how many
Britons were aware that Taliban leaders were State Department guests in
the USA a few months before 9/11? Or that members of bin Laden's
family visited Afghanistan not long before 9/11 for the wedding of one
of bin Laden's children? So much for the bin Laden family having nothing
to do with him. Yet the Bush administration flew 24 members of the bin
Laden family in the US to Saudi Arabia, along with more than 100 other
Saudis, soon after 9/11.
And how about the Saudi ambassador dining in the White House two days
after 9/11? Perhaps not so surprising if the estimate given in the film
of the Saudis having $1 trillion dollars invested in the US (approx 7%
of total US Equity value) is correct. If the Saudi Royal family is
overthrown and an Islamist govt put in its place, they could cause not
merely
The sham of National Security was shown epitomised by the fact that in
the state of Oregon there are eight, yes that's eight, troopers on duty
to cover the entire state.
Especially depressing were the shots of Congress overwhelmingly
supporting every authoritarian measure, including the dire Patriot Act,
which was printed the middle of the night and passed virtually unopposed
and unread the next day.
There was also an unintentionally hilarious (to those of us with a
weakness for seeing liberal bigot hypocrisy exposed) when black
Congressmen lined up to try to get Bush's election challenged in 2000
but were unable to do so because not one Senator would sign their
petition. So much for the right-on democrats.
The classic Moore moment in the film was his "ambush" of Congressmen
outside Congress in an attempt to get them to persuade their children to
sign up for military service in Iraq (only one member of Congress has a
child serving in Iraq). The Congressional responses ranged from a
ghastly insincerity as they took recruiting material from him to
outright fear and hostility.
*blacks loom amazingly large in his vox pops in the USA but curiously
small in his vox pops with US troops in Iraq. This may of course reflect
an under employment of black servicemen in Iraq, but one suspects it is
more than that. RH
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Le Trôle
news:QZuua+Aq...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> Perhaps the most revealing film of Bush was of the day when he was
> told of the second plane crashing into the Twin Towers. Bush was
> visiting a primary school for a photo opportunity. Before he went into a
> classroom he knew that one plane had crashed into the Twin Towers but
> believed it was simply a tragic accident. Sitting in a classroom while
> a reading lesson was in progress an aide came in and whispered to him
> that the second plane had hit and "America is under attack". Bush did
> not leave the class and remained there for more than seven minutes with
> a copy Nanny the Goat in his hands which he intermittently pretended to
> read. Moore has much of the seven minute sin the film. Bush does not
> look frightened, or anxious, he merely looks bemused. There is an utter
> vacancy in his eyes.
Yep, Bush ranks right up there with another stupid white man,
Sir Francis Drake. Drake was playing bowls at Plymouth, and
upon being notified of the appearance of the Armada, he replied:
"We still have time to finish the game and to thrash the Spaniards, too."
abelard
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>
>Michael Moore's shockumentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has the usual Moore
>shortcomings of a clanking right-on-ness* and a certain freedom with
>facts and nuances, but all are in much less evidence than they were in
>Bowling For Columbine.
second review i've seen here better than most of what is carried
in the media....
i'm not surprised that a socialist like you swallows it down with
your usual gullibility....but that doesn't detract from your
straightforward useful reporting....
what does surprise me is the continuing background semi
'shocked' tones....it is amazing you people don't realise
this is just the way the world is.....
it is not a documentary...or even a shockumentary....
it is just another tedious tacky longer party political broadcast....
> And how about the Saudi ambassador dining in the White House two days
>after 9/11? Perhaps not so surprising if the estimate given in the film
>of the Saudis having $1 trillion dollars invested in the US (approx 7%
>of total US Equity value) is correct. If the Saudi Royal family is
>overthrown and an Islamist govt put in its place, they could cause not
>merely
i do wish you socialists would leave those number thingies alone...
you'll never understand them....
there is no way on satan's earth that $1 trillion is anything close
to 7% of use 'equity' value....
regards....and thanx never-the-less for your report
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc >800,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
<BCTYWU...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 13:50:40 +0100, "Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>So just remind us who Bush has been thrashing...
get out more...even your daily slime would tell you that much
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>> And how about the Saudi ambassador dining in the White House two days
>>after 9/11? Perhaps not so surprising if the estimate given in the film
>>of the Saudis having $1 trillion dollars invested in the US (approx 7%
>>of total US Equity value) is correct. If the Saudi Royal family is
>>overthrown and an Islamist govt put in its place, they could cause not
>>merely
>
>i do wish you socialists would leave those number thingies alone...
>you'll never understand them....
>
>there is no way on satan's earth that $1 trillion is anything close
> to 7% of use 'equity' value....
around 5 times that amount gets closer.... from a very loose google
But even that seems low - US GDP is something like 15 trn IIRC, and
stock markets in angle countries tend to be >100% GDP, again IIRC
--
cheers
www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Andrea Collins
"Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
(SNIP)
Yep, Bush ranks right up there with another stupid white man,
> Sir Francis Drake. Drake was playing bowls at Plymouth, and
> upon being notified of the appearance of the Armada, he replied:
> "We still have time to finish the game and to thrash the Spaniards, too."
>
not stupidity.
PS The Spaniards were attacking Britain. Iraq wasn't.
Kingdom
@news6.svr.pol.co.uk:
Drake died fighting the spanish years later!
--
Always and never are two words you should always remember never to use.
Le Trôle
news:8q10f0l6t490qqheh...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 13:50:40 +0100, "Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
You.
Le Trôle
news:Xns952328E73F94ki...@194.117.143.37...
> "Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ccooh2$csr$1
> @news6.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> > "Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:QZuua+Aq...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >> Perhaps the most revealing film of Bush was of the day when he was
> >> told of the second plane crashing into the Twin Towers. Bush was
> >> visiting a primary school for a photo opportunity. Before he went into
> >> a classroom he knew that one plane had crashed into the Twin Towers
> >> but believed it was simply a tragic accident. Sitting in a classroom
> >> while a reading lesson was in progress an aide came in and whispered
> >> to him that the second plane had hit and "America is under attack".
> >> Bush did not leave the class and remained there for more than seven
> >> minutes with a copy Nanny the Goat in his hands which he
> >> in the film. Bush does not look frightened, or anxious, he merely looks
> >> bemused. There is an utter vacancy in his eyes.
> >
> > Yep, Bush ranks right up there with another stupid white man,
> > Sir Francis Drake. Drake was playing bowls at Plymouth, and
> > upon being notified of the appearance of the Armada, he replied:
> > "We still have time to finish the game and to thrash the Spaniards,
> > too."
> >
> Drake died fighting the spanish years later!
I'll play along and shout something irrelevant to the tale as well!
Le Trôle
news:Pr%Hc.490$XM4...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
> (SNIP)
> > Yep, Bush ranks right up there with another stupid white man,
> > Sir Francis Drake. Drake was playing bowls at Plymouth, and
> > upon being notified of the appearance of the Armada, he replied:
> > "We still have time to finish the game and to thrash the Spaniards,
> > too."
> >
> Yebbut Drake did thrash the Spaniards. He was exhibiting British
> sangfroid, not stupidity.
He wasn't British, he was English. Big difference
to those who know, not much to those who don't.
But to the point, Bush and Drake did what they did
for the same reasons.
> PS The Spaniards were attacking Britain. Iraq wasn't.
Iraq wasn't attacked in retaliation to the WTC.
If you repeat a lie enough, you win at Cannes.
Andrea Collins
(SNIP)"Le Trôle" <> > Yebbut Drake did thrash the Spaniards.
He was exhibiting British
> > sangfroid, not stupidity.
>
> He wasn't British, he was English. Big difference
> to those who know, not much to those who don't.
> But to the point, Bush and Drake did what they did
> for the same reasons.
>
> > PS The Spaniards were attacking Britain. Iraq wasn't.
>
> Iraq wasn't attacked in retaliation to the WTC.
> If you repeat a lie enough, you win at Cannes.
>
>
Mr Moore may have done and it's probably a valid theory, but that WASN'T
what I said. I said that Drake was defending the UK against the Spaniards,
because they were attacking Britain. Iraq wasn't atacking te UK and no-one
has sucessfully demonstrated to me that Saddam Hussein either intended to
attack, or had the capabilities to so do.
Anyway, what would you know about British/English?
All English people are British. As are Welsh, Scots and Manx. And Asians,
Africans, Chinese and Africans and anyone else who was born here.
I was just about to say "HOW DARE YOU SLANDER FRANCIS DRAKE" but actually,
after the initial attack, there wasn't much difference, as Drake then went
on to attack Spanish ships for gain.
Drake was a pirate and indeed the "companies" that he founded to make money
out of warfare were the foundation of capitalism.
(SIGH) I suppose you are a USian?
Andrea Collins
"Kingdom" >
Drake died fighting the spanish years later!
OK chaps,SOMEONE must know the words to "Drake's Drum"..
"Drake he's in his hammock and a thousand miles away,
Cap'n, art thou sleepin' there below?...etc"
Stephen Glynn
Drake's contribution to the defeat of the Armada is an interesting
example of spin. Drakes' real contribution came earlier in the
development of tactics, notably firing broadside and using fireships
(and, of course, by delaying the Armada for a year by the sack of Cadiz)
The fireships that Lord Howard of Effingham (who was in charge of,
and the real genius of, the victory) sent in didn't actually do a great
deal of damage in themselves because the winds were wrong, but
apparently the Spanish were so terrified when they saw fireships coming
at them and remembered the devastation Drake had caused with fireships
at the battle of Cadiz that they broke formation and scattered,
blundering straight into the English fleet, which was what did for them.
Drake's contribution to the actual battle was mixed. The other
commanders, notably Frobisher, were furious with him when he broke the
line of battle since he was far more interested in capturing the Rosario
(which he did) since it was the Spanish pay-ship than he was in anything
else. It's certainly always seemed to me unfair that he gets all the
credit while commanders like Howard, Grenville, Hawkins and Frobisher
are almost forgotten.
Of course they were pirates. But they were British pirates, acting on
behalf the Crown. Drake, it should not be forgotten, brought back
enough gold from his circumnavigation of the world to pay off the
national debt, which is more than President Bush is going to do.
As to Drake finishing his game of bowls, well of course he did. Time
and tide wait for no man but they don't hurry up, either. If you've
got your fleet ready to sail as soon as news comes that the Armada is
approaching you'll sail on the next tide, but not before. If the next
tide isn't for a few hours yet you've got to spend the time somehow.
Steve
abelard
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
typed:
>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:51:37 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>> And how about the Saudi ambassador dining in the White House two days
>>>after 9/11? Perhaps not so surprising if the estimate given in the film
>>>of the Saudis having $1 trillion dollars invested in the US (approx 7%
>>>of total US Equity value) is correct. If the Saudi Royal family is
>>>overthrown and an Islamist govt put in its place, they could cause not
>>>merely
>>
>>i do wish you socialists would leave those number thingies alone...
>>you'll never understand them....
>>
>>there is no way on satan's earth that $1 trillion is anything close
>> to 7% of use 'equity' value....
>
>around 5 times that amount gets closer.... from a very loose google
>
>But even that seems low - US GDP is something like 15 trn IIRC, and
>stock markets in angle countries tend to be >100% GDP, again IIRC
i would expect the monetary equity value to be somewhere between
10 and 20 times greater than the gnp....last i looked the us gnp was
in the $11trillion region...
the stock market far from represents the equity value of a country as
vast amounts of value are not in stocks....neither do stocks generally
fully represent the sale value of a company, as is seen whenever
a publicly quoted corp goes into play...
the logic of calculations like these is imv complicated by things like the
velocity of money and the natural rates of trading....
eg, obviously if every house was put on the market tomorrow
house prices would become 'difficult'!
regards....
abelard
<andrea....@ntlworld.com>
typed:
>
>(SNIP)"Le Trôle" <> > Yebbut Drake did thrash the Spaniards.
>He was exhibiting British
>> > sangfroid, not stupidity.
>>
>> He wasn't British, he was English. Big difference
>> to those who know, not much to those who don't.
>> But to the point, Bush and Drake did what they did
>> for the same reasons.
>>
>> > PS The Spaniards were attacking Britain. Iraq wasn't.
>>
>> Iraq wasn't attacked in retaliation to the WTC.
>> If you repeat a lie enough, you win at Cannes.
>>
>>
>Cobblers. Who said anything about September 11th?
>Mr Moore may have done and it's probably a valid theory, but that WASN'T
>what I said. I said that Drake was defending the UK against the Spaniards,
>because they were attacking Britain. Iraq wasn't atacking te UK and no-one
>has sucessfully demonstrated to me that Saddam Hussein either intended to
>attack, or had the capabilities to so do.
that would appear to be because you are rather silly and short sighted....
one could not demonstrate such things to any religious socialist as it is
contradictory to their religion....
one might as well get involved in a conversation about angels with a
christianist...it is just a sheer waste of time....they simply do not
listen...no input channel....
abelard
<stephe...@ntlworld.com>
typed:
>Of course they were pirates. But they were British pirates, acting on
>behalf the Crown. Drake, it should not be forgotten, brought back
>enough gold from his circumnavigation of the world to pay off the
>national debt, which is more than President Bush is going to do.
it is said that a part of what ruined spain was all the gold they brought
back from the indies...by causing inflation....
regards...
Le Trôle
wrote in message news:MK0Ic.507$XM4...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>
> (SNIP)"Le Trôle" <> > Yebbut Drake did thrash the Spaniards.
> He was exhibiting British
> > > sangfroid, not stupidity.
> >
> > He wasn't British, he was English. Big difference
> > to those who know, not much to those who don't.
> > But to the point, Bush and Drake did what they did
> > for the same reasons.
> >
> > > PS The Spaniards were attacking Britain. Iraq wasn't.
> >
> > Iraq wasn't attacked in retaliation to the WTC.
> > If you repeat a lie enough, you win at Cannes.
> >
> >
> Cobblers. Who said anything about September 11th?
You're not paying attention.
> Mr Moore
Oh, you were indeed paying attention. (just a bit slow, though)
> may have done and it's probably a valid theory, but that WASN'T
> what I said. I said that Drake was defending the UK against the Spaniards,
> because they were attacking Britain. Iraq wasn't atacking te UK
Repetition 2 (count continued from first post)
> and no-one
> has sucessfully demonstrated to me that Saddam Hussein
> either intended to attack, or had the capabilities to so do.
Repetition 3 (collect your palme d'or, with a 20 minute ovation)
> Anyway, what would you know about British/English?
> All English people are British.
Not all British are English.
> As are Welsh, Scots and Manx.
Yes Gump, I know that.
> And Asians, Africans, Chinese and Africans
> and anyone else who was born here.
Residents of Britain, but not British, and certainly not English.
Cricket, anyone?
> I was just about to say "HOW DARE YOU SLANDER FRANCIS DRAKE"
> but actually, after the initial attack, there wasn't much difference, as
> Drake then went on to attack Spanish ships for gain.
So in the mind of someone who hates the English, it goes like this:
Drake was a bad man. He wasn't a privateer, rather,
he was just a pirate. He operated in this capacity under
a charter granted by Elizabeth. Thus, Elizabeth condoned piracy,
which is robbery on the high seas. Eizabeth granted several
charters for this, so she was the queen of the pirates
Do you intend to play selective revisionism, or are you
prepared to follow your premise to its conclusion?
> Drake was a pirate and indeed the "companies" that he founded
> to make money out of warfare were the foundation of capitalism.
Capitalism has existed since the first farmer sold an apple,
but don't let that slow you down. Rant on, my little leftette.
> (SIGH) I suppose you are a USian?
That explains the huge phone bill for using Freeserve.
Were it applicable, the correct term is American,
so your use of this asinine word 'USian' shows your hand.
Amongst your ilk, some shibboleths are:
USian, American
Malvinas, Falklands;
Derry, Londonderry;
Atzlan, American Southwest;
Andalusia, Spain;
Israel, Palestine;
And on and on.
Robert Henderson
<let...@hotmail.com> writes
>> sangfroid, not stupidity.
>
>He wasn't British, he was English. Big difference
Especially at the time when England was England and the United Kingdom
of Great Britain more than a century away. RH
>to those who know,
Robert Henderson
<abel...@abelard.org> writes
> typed:
>
>>Of course they were pirates. But they were British pirates, acting on
>>behalf the Crown. Drake, it should not be forgotten, brought back
>>enough gold from his circumnavigation of the world to pay off the
>>national debt, which is more than President Bush is going to do.
>
>it is said that a part of what ruined spain was all the gold they brought
> back from the indies...by causing inflation....
What ultimately ruined Spain - the richest country in Europe went bust
twice in the 16th Century - was he idea which emanated from the court an
d spread down Spanish society that Spain no longer needed to produce
what it consumed. The consequence was that by the end of the 16th
Century Spain was a poverty stricken country without the means to
reinvigorate itself, the 16th Century equivalent of Globalism. RH
Stephen Glynn
A rather convoluted way of saying that you don't agree with Andrea but
can't be bothered to explain why.
The Spanish had a very large invasion fleet, led by the Duke of Medina
Sidonia, which was trying to join the Duke of Parma at Dunkirk, who had
almost as many troops with him, and then to invade England with a view
to effecting a regime change.
The Spanish --the most powerful empire in the Western World -- would,
btw, certainly have regarded England as a "rogue state" since England
was a Protestant country that had certainly acted as a sponsor of
anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic activity in the Netherlands, even to the
extent of sending troops. It ignored instructions from The Vatican as
comprehensively as Saddam ignored the UN. It had put down Catholic
rebellions in Ireland with the utmost severity, ran a dreaded secret
police and intelligence service under Walsingham which persecuted
English Priest, and it was certainly an extremely successful "state
sponsor of piracy" against Spanish interests in the New World. And, of
course, El Draque (The Dragon) had sacked the Spanish city of Cadiz.
The Spanish doubtless felt about England and Elizabeth much as does
President Bush about Iraq and Saddam and probably with better reason.
Steve
Stephen Glynn
Drake he's in his hammock an' a thousand miles away,
(Capten, art tha sleepin' there below?)
Slung atween the round shot in Nombre Dios Bay,
An' dreamin' arl the time O' Plymouth Hoe.
Yarnder lumes the Island, yarnder lie the ships,
Wi' sailor lads a-dancing' heel-an'-toe,
An' the shore-lights flashin', an' the night-tide dashin',
He see et arl so plainly as he saw et long ago.
Drake he was a Devon man, an' ruled the Devon seas,
(Capten, art tha' sleepin' there below?)
Roving' tho' his death fell, he went wi' heart at ease,
A' dreamin' arl the time o' Plymouth Hoe.
"Take my drum to England, hang et by the shore,
Strike et when your powder's runnin' low;
If the Dons sight Devon, I'll quit the port o' Heaven,
An' drum them up the Channel as we drumm'd them long ago."
Drake he's in his hammock till the great Armadas come,
(Capten, art tha sleepin' there below?)
Slung atween the round shot, listenin' for the drum,
An' dreamin arl the time o' Plymouth Hoe.
Call him on the deep sea, call him up the Sound,
Call him when ye sail to meet the foe;
Where the old trade's plyin' an' the old flag flyin'
They shall find him ware and wakin', as they found him long ago!
Steve
Robert Henderson
<stephe...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>The Spanish --the most powerful empire in the Western World -- would, btw,
>certainly have regarded England as a "rogue state" since England was a
>Protestant country
England was the only major country which took the Protestant line in the
16th Century. Without England standing firm, the counter-reformation
would probably have succeeded. RH
>that had certainly acted as a sponsor of anti-Spanish and
>anti-Catholic activity in the Netherlands, even to the extent of sending troops.
--
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>>>there is no way on satan's earth that $1 trillion is anything close
>>> to 7% of use 'equity' value....
>>
>>around 5 times that amount gets closer.... from a very loose google
>>
>>But even that seems low - US GDP is something like 15 trn IIRC, and
>>stock markets in angle countries tend to be >100% GDP, again IIRC
>
>i would expect the monetary equity value to be somewhere between
> 10 and 20 times greater than the gnp....last i looked the us gnp was
> in the $11trillion region...
>the stock market far from represents the equity value of a country as
> vast amounts of value are not in stocks....neither do stocks generally
> fully represent the sale value of a company, as is seen whenever
> a publicly quoted corp goes into play...
Agreed - I took equity as being stock, not total assets
>the logic of calculations like these is imv complicated by things like the
> velocity of money and the natural rates of trading....
> eg, obviously if every house was put on the market tomorrow
> house prices would become 'difficult'!
Indeed!
Andrea Collins
We didn't have the Ac o Union with Scotland until the 1600s, but England and
Wales had already been "United" in 1485 by Henry 7.
Le Trôle
Revisionism is such a tiresome business. You've got to somehow
get the word British in use as a single nationality throughout
history, regardless of the fact that it's a relatively recent idea.
In 1588, there was no use of British as label for a nation,
only as description in relation to islands off the coast of Europe.
The English, not the British, destroyed the Spanish Armada.
I don't know if you realise it, but putting scare quotes around
the word united shows you don't accept that it was really
united at all. Self-defeating language, my dear, if you're trying
to establish some sort of early basis for British Nationality.
I suggest you follow this link to the gallery of misused quotes.
Although it has a humorous slant, it still provides useful
information to those who struggle with written English.
http://www.juvalamu.com/qmarks/
Here's another link that will help with your second language:
http://www.painintheenglish.com/
billy
>
> Michael Moore's shockumentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has the usual Moore
> shortcomings of a clanking right-on-ness* and a certain freedom with
> facts and nuances, but all are in much less evidence than they were in
> Bowling For Columbine.
>
> The film concentrates almost entirely on the US and Bush administration
> response to 9/11 - Blair and the UK are barely mentioned, either
> because Moore did not want anything to distract from Bush and co or
> because he considers the UK contribution unimportant.
>
> --
> Robert Henderson
********************
It is rather curious how this Moore person (who recalls the old music-hall
phrase: "Don't have any more, Mrs Moore" - and looks, by far, "more" crazy
than the intelligent George W.) paints Bush as a devilishly clever
mastermind of all evil, on one side of the canvas, and then on the other
side as a brainless moron.
The "double portrayal" seems a bit false.
Also, on another picture, he paints Iraq under the "innocent" Saddam as a
place full of happy little kids and contented mummies and daddies - and it
was only when the devilish Americans "intruded" that the killing started.
(Is it a comic film?)
His success is in telling the American hating idiots what they wish to hear
and also in preparing the way for the Clinton type "lets be nice to
everyone" appeasement, which led up to 9/11.
Of course 9/11 was a terrible event because Bush did not panic and fall on
his knees to shed tears and feel everyone's pain (including that of the
murderous but innocently faithful Muslims in the planes).
His film is a cartoon of history in which he follows Hollywood's trend of
"bending the truth" to make it look "real" and give enjoyment to those who
like what they want to see rather than that what they should see.
******************************
abelard
<stephe...@ntlworld.com>
typed:
>abelard wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 01:30:20 GMT, "Andrea Collins"
>> <andrea....@ntlworld.com>
>>>(SNIP)"Le Trôle" <> > Yebbut Drake did thrash the Spaniards.
>>>He was exhibiting British
>>>
>>>>>sangfroid, not stupidity.
>>>>
>>>>He wasn't British, he was English. Big difference
>>>>to those who know, not much to those who don't.
>>>>But to the point, Bush and Drake did what they did
>>>>for the same reasons.
>>>>>PS The Spaniards were attacking Britain. Iraq wasn't.
>>>>
>>>>Iraq wasn't attacked in retaliation to the WTC.
>>>>If you repeat a lie enough, you win at Cannes.
>>>Cobblers. Who said anything about September 11th?
>>>Mr Moore may have done and it's probably a valid theory, but that WASN'T
>>>what I said. I said that Drake was defending the UK against the Spaniards,
>>>because they were attacking Britain. Iraq wasn't atacking te UK and no-one
>>>has sucessfully demonstrated to me that Saddam Hussein either intended to
>>>attack, or had the capabilities to so do.
>> that would appear to be because you are rather silly and short sighted....
>> one could not demonstrate such things to any religious socialist as it is
>> contradictory to their religion....
>> one might as well get involved in a conversation about angels with a
>> christianist...it is just a sheer waste of time....they simply do not
>> listen...no input channel....
>A rather convoluted way of saying that you don't agree with Andrea but
>can't be bothered to explain why.
not really...you have cogent, if in my view insufficient, concerns about
the removal of madsam...
i'm not particularly trying to convince you otherwise....
i certainly have no wish to spend still more time on fundamentalists....
'no one has successfully demonstrated to me'....i have no particular wish
to attempt to 'successfully demonstrate'
clearly madsam was 'attacking' western interests...i don't expect to
'successfully demonstrate' to a person who cannot work that out...
nor appears to have an openness of mind to examine such a more
subtle attack; than the threat that the lefty fundamentalists
dishonestly claimed western leaders had made about direct missile
attacks or whatever........
there is little point attempting to reason with closed 'minds'....the only
relevant activity is to attempt to break open their closed 'minds'
before any further discussion with them is relevant or possible...
you might as well argue with a 2yo about bedtime or playing in the road...
>The Spanish had a very large invasion fleet, led by the Duke of Medina
>Sidonia, which was trying to join the Duke of Parma at Dunkirk, who had
>almost as many troops with him, and then to invade England with a view
>to effecting a regime change.
>
>The Spanish --the most powerful empire in the Western World -- would,
>btw, certainly have regarded England as a "rogue state" since England
>was a Protestant country that had certainly acted as a sponsor of
>anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic activity in the Netherlands, even to the
>extent of sending troops. It ignored instructions from The Vatican as
>comprehensively as Saddam ignored the UN. It had put down Catholic
>rebellions in Ireland with the utmost severity, ran a dreaded secret
>police and intelligence service under Walsingham which persecuted
>English Priest, and it was certainly an extremely successful "state
>sponsor of piracy" against Spanish interests in the New World. And, of
>course, El Draque (The Dragon) had sacked the Spanish city of Cadiz.
>
>The Spanish doubtless felt about England and Elizabeth much as does
>President Bush about Iraq and Saddam and probably with better reason.
you are now referring to an age where fundamentalism had even wider
sway than now...the inquisition was also not much different from the
fundies in the middle east....anymore than various prod fundy sects...
fundamentalism is a curse upon human society and happiness.....
i don't give a bent halfpenny whether the fundies are from islam,
socialism, prod christianism or papism....
fortunately in the west fundamentalism is in decline...the faster it is
removed from the middle east the better off everyone will be, other
than the vampires who live off fundamentalism...
for them while i may have some sympathy for their benighted ignorance..
i have very little tolerance for them seeking nuclear bombs or
spreading their mental garbage....
regards....
abelard
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>In article <ip81f0p6q6s8d4go5...@4ax.com>, abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>> typed:
>>
>>>Of course they were pirates. But they were British pirates, acting on
>>>behalf the Crown. Drake, it should not be forgotten, brought back
>>>enough gold from his circumnavigation of the world to pay off the
>>>national debt, which is more than President Bush is going to do.
>>
>>it is said that a part of what ruined spain was all the gold they brought
>> back from the indies...by causing inflation....
>
>What ultimately ruined Spain - the richest country in Europe went bust
>twice in the 16th Century - was he idea which emanated from the court an
>d spread down Spanish society that Spain no longer needed to produce
>what it consumed. The consequence was that by the end of the 16th
>Century Spain was a poverty stricken country without the means to
>reinvigorate itself, the 16th Century equivalent of Globalism. RH
i hear you...but am not informed enuf to discuss it with you...
thanx for you pov...
regards....
Robert Henderson
<andrea....@ntlworld.com> writes
>We didn't have the Ac o Union with Scotland until the 1600s, but England and
>Wales had already been "United" in 1485 by Henry 7.
1534/5 before formal legal union. Even then it was treated as province
for a couple of centuries. RH
Robert Henderson
LETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
>> --
>> Robert Henderson
>********************
>It is rather curious how this Moore person (who recalls the old music-hall
>phrase: "Don't have any more, Mrs Moore" - and looks, by far, "more" crazy
>than the intelligent George W.
Billy, he is seriously dim. Did you watch him closely when he was in
the primary school reading My Pet Goat? RH
>) paints Bush as a devilishly clever
>mastermind of all evil, on one side of the canvas, and then on the other
>side as a brainless moron.
>The "double portrayal" seems a bit false.
>Also, on another picture, he paints Iraq under the "innocent" Saddam as a
>place full of happy little kids and contented mummies and daddies - and it
>was only when the devilish Americans "intruded" that the killing started.
That was badly misjudged. RH
>(Is it a comic film?)
>His success is in telling the American hating idiots what they wish to hear
>and also in preparing the way for the Clinton type "lets be nice to
>everyone" appeasement, which led up to 9/11.
>Of course 9/11 was a terrible event because Bush did not panic and fall on
>his knees to shed tears
He went on the lam for a day. RH
>and feel everyone's pain (including that of the
>murderous but innocently faithful Muslims in the planes).
>His film is a cartoon of history in which he follows Hollywood's trend of
>"bending the truth" to make it look "real" and give enjoyment to those who
>like what they want to see rather than that what they should see.
>******************************
--
Robert Henderson
<abel...@abelard.org> writes
>fundamentalism is a curse upon human society and happiness...
What about valve computer fundmentalists? RH
Le Trôle
news:uoo2f0d7dorn8f7tm...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:28:35 +0100, "Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >Residents of Britain, but not British, and certainly not English.
> >Cricket, anyone?
>
> as you (presumably) claim to be, even with a foreign handle.
Glad you have the sense to know that a genuine surname
says more about someone's nationality that anything else.
From your own lips, a foreign handle indeed.
You do realise that my real surname isn't French, I hope.
> They may have dark skins but they are British.
> Fact of life. Live with it.
Preparing for the imposition of the caliphate already?
My, how militant you are in your demands.
Can I simply pay the kaffir tax in lieu of conversion?
> Stick to posting yarns about Michael Moore's films.
Nope, it's a waste of time, since most of the responses
seem to be a miserable lot of foaming lefty rantiliations
that don't actually address the issues raised.
abelard
<BCTYWU...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 03:38:56 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>that would appear to be because you are rather silly and short sighted....
>
>And you are using a pair of ultra long range field glasses to see the
>risk of course, clear as mud. Perhaps seeing 25 years into the future
>- but hey - wait a minute - Saddam is almost 70 years old - is it
>just possible he would have died before his devious plans came to
>fruition.?
if you have a point to make...or even a question to ask....you'll
have to do a very great deal better than that!
>-->billy on UKPM 11/Jul/2004 ranting about the BBC balloon gone missing:
>"...and replaced this with multicultural politically correct irrelevant
>views of dancing homosexuals, disabled people doing a wheelchair dance".
billy getting to you as well buzzy....
best think is take something he said out of context....and repost it...
oh....you just did....
abelard
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>In article <spi2f09gpsl6au0qg...@4ax.com>, abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>fundamentalism is a curse upon human society and happiness...
>
>What about valve computer fundmentalists? RH
i wouldn't call your obsession with valve computers 'fundamentalism'
it is hardly a coherent, or even semi-coherent, belief system....
i'm not even convinced your socialist views go beyond the cranky...
inasmuch as you are able to express them in an ordered manner...
i blame it on your unbounded mind....certainly unbounded by basic
arithmetic...
Halberd
>>-->billy on UKPM 11/Jul/2004 ranting about the BBC balloon gone missing:
>>"...and replaced this with multicultural politically correct irrelevant
>>views of dancing homosexuals, disabled people doing a wheelchair dance".
>
> billy getting to you as well buzzy....
Nice to see you teaming up with your mate billy. Now I wonder what your
agenda might be....
...or if you know the meaning of the word.
Frank F. Matthews
danger. A spanish invasion was a clear necessity. Unfortunately for
them they couldn't bring it off.
abelard
typed:
>abelard wrote:
>
>>>-->billy on UKPM 11/Jul/2004 ranting about the BBC balloon gone missing:
>>>"...and replaced this with multicultural politically correct irrelevant
>>>views of dancing homosexuals, disabled people doing a wheelchair dance".
>>
>> billy getting to you as well buzzy....
>
>Nice to see you teaming up with your mate billy. Now I wonder what your
>agenda might be....
are you really a teacher goebbels.....
perhaps you should improve your technical competence.....
my interest is in buzzy's reaction to what he perceives to be 'billy'
.....not at this time in what billy may or may not have said...
after all, i know full well that relying on buzzy's out of context quotes
for a reasonable reflection of what another poster may have
intended...is a complete ded letter...
about as useful as expecting you to be truthful.....
the very notion is daft.
you really should learn to concentrate on the person with whom you
are attempting to communicate....
in this case, for me, it is buzzy....not billy....
if you cannot do that how on earth could you hope to pretend to teach!!
and you wonder that people regard you as a faker....
>...or if you know the meaning of the word.
--
abelard
<stephe...@ntlworld.com>
typed:
>Andrea Collins wrote:
>
>> "Kingdom" >
>>
>> Drake died fighting the spanish years later!
>>
>>
>> OK chaps,SOMEONE must know the words to "Drake's Drum"..
>>
>>
>> "Drake he's in his hammock and a thousand miles away,
>> Cap'n, art thou sleepin' there below?...etc"
>>
>>>--
>>>Always and never are two words you should always remember never to use.
>>
>>
>>
>Drake he's in his hammock an' a thousand miles away,
> (Capten, art tha sleepin' there below?)
>Slung atween the round shot in Nombre Dios Bay,
>An' dreamin' arl the time O' Plymouth Hoe.
>Yarnder lumes the Island, yarnder lie the ships,
>Wi' sailor lads a-dancing' heel-an'-toe,
>An' the shore-lights flashin', an' the night-tide dashin',
>He see et arl so plainly as he saw et long ago.
what date is that and in what patois?
regards...
Fed Up
news:ccrh9i$dqi$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> It is rather curious how this Moore person (who recalls the old music-hall
> phrase: "Don't have any more, Mrs Moore" - and looks, by far, "more" crazy
> than the intelligent George W.) paints Bush as a devilishly clever
> mastermind of all evil, on one side of the canvas, and then on the other
> side as a brainless moron.
> The "double portrayal" seems a bit false.
When you consider that Cheney is the devious mastermind of a double act
("Cheney said he's effective working behind the scenes and doesn't believe
voters will choose the next president based on running mates. "Am I the evil
genius in the corner that nobody ever sees come out of his hole?" he said.
"It's a nice way to operate, actually.""*), and real power behind Bush
(witness his holding Bush's hand at the 9/11 Commission), not really.
*:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/president/2004-01-19-cheney-weapons_x.htm
--
© 2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider’s main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
Halberd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Drake he's in his hammock an' a thousand miles away,
>> (Capten, art tha sleepin' there below?)
>>Slung atween the round shot in Nombre Dios Bay,
>>An' dreamin' arl the time O' Plymouth Hoe.
>>Yarnder lumes the Island, yarnder lie the ships,
>>Wi' sailor lads a-dancing' heel-an'-toe,
>>An' the shore-lights flashin', an' the night-tide dashin',
>>He see et arl so plainly as he saw et long ago.
>
> what date is that and in what patois?
Drakes Drum, by Sir Henry Newbolt.
There is a popular song setting by Stanford
Send me £6 and I'll send you my version.
(I sing as a hobby before you get paranoid.)
Halberd
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:32:59 +0000 (UTC), Halberd <Hal...@ntlworld.com>
>
> typed:
>
>>abelard wrote:
>>
>>>>-->billy on UKPM 11/Jul/2004 ranting about the BBC balloon gone missing:
>>>>"...and replaced this with multicultural politically correct irrelevant
>>>>views of dancing homosexuals, disabled people doing a wheelchair dance".
>>>
>>> billy getting to you as well buzzy....
>>
>>Nice to see you teaming up with your mate billy. Now I wonder what your
>>agenda might be....
>
> are you really a teacher goebbels.....
Of course. But you know that quite well.
You really are paranoid about teachers. Were you caned a lot as a child?
> perhaps you should improve your technical competence.....
I'm playing you at your own game and demonstrating that you aren't very good
at it.
You may recall that some of your more recent lies were about myself and
hum... They you invented some more about billy and hum...
You are incompetent even as a liar.
<Paranoid garbage snipped>
Stephen Glynn
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 12:19:56 +0100, Stephen Glynn
> <stephe...@ntlworld.com>
>
> typed:
>
>
>>Andrea Collins wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Kingdom" >
>>>
>>>Drake died fighting the spanish years later!
>>>
>>>
>>>OK chaps,SOMEONE must know the words to "Drake's Drum"..
>>>
>>>
>>>"Drake he's in his hammock and a thousand miles away,
>>>Cap'n, art thou sleepin' there below?...etc"
>>>
>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Always and never are two words you should always remember never to use.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Drake he's in his hammock an' a thousand miles away,
>> (Capten, art tha sleepin' there below?)
>>Slung atween the round shot in Nombre Dios Bay,
>>An' dreamin' arl the time O' Plymouth Hoe.
>>Yarnder lumes the Island, yarnder lie the ships,
>>Wi' sailor lads a-dancing' heel-an'-toe,
>>An' the shore-lights flashin', an' the night-tide dashin',
>>He see et arl so plainly as he saw et long ago.
>
>
> what date is that and in what patois?
>
> regards...
>
It's 1897, I think, from Sir Henry Newbolt's anthology "Admirals All,
And Other Verses". I assume it's meant to imitate a broad Devonian accent.
The collection also includes his famous "Vitaï Lampada" ("There's a
breathless hush in the Close to-night...").
Steve
Le Trôle
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 18:05:32 +0100, "Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >"hummingbird" <BCTYWU...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> >news:uoo2f0d7dorn8f7tm...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:28:35 +0100, "Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com>
> >> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
> >>
> >> >Residents of Britain, but not British, and certainly not English.
> >> >Cricket, anyone?
> >>
> >> Sorry to burst your little bubble le trolly but they are as British
> >> as you (presumably) claim to be, even with a foreign handle.
> >
> >Glad you have the sense to know that a genuine surname
> >says more about someone's nationality that anything else.
>
They don't regard themselves as British, so why should I?
They're not Welsh, English, Scottish, or Irish. They're
just a neutral "British" I suppose, even if they happen
to be overseas raising arms against Her Majesty's Forces.
They've been given more than enough opportunity, and
even the CRE has acknowledged the failure of allowing
immigration without the active integration of foreigners.
> You may not like it or even accept it, but it remains a fact
> that you have to live with or move away.
Live with it or move away? Think hard about that the next time you
or someone of your ilk weeps and moans about ethnic cleansing.
Feeling a bit bolder and stronger each day, aren't you?
Shall I change the subject line to something else, perhaps reflecting
your desire to remove an Englishman from his own country?
> >From your own lips, a foreign handle indeed.
>
> Where did my lips come into this.?
A few dozen or so lines up.
Do seek help with that memory problem.
> >You do realise that my real surname isn't French, I hope.
>
> I've no idea if "Le Trôle" is French or not (it certainly isn't
> Portuguese or Spanish) and I've no idea what your *real* surname is.
Slowly he twists and turns, but cannot escape his own words.
> >> They may have dark skins but they are British.
> >> Fact of life. Live with it.
> >
> >Preparing for the imposition of the caliphate already?
>
> Hardly. I didn't take the decisions which allowed such immigration.
> They were taken by *your* elected govt over many years.
It's your government as well, unless you simply prefer to think
of it as some sort of interim body awaiting moslem rule.Your use
of asterisks doesn't appear as odd when that point is considered.
> Presumably, if the electorate didn't like it, they would have said so.
Presumably. That's a word that you tend to use a great deal.
Perhaps you need to change your presumptions, or at least
start using another disclaimer, such as "From My Arse".
> >My, how militant you are in your demands.
> >Can I simply pay the kaffir tax in lieu of conversion?
>
> Whatever you wish.
How long before no choice is given?
What if I abstain altogether?
> >> Stick to posting yarns about Michael Moore's films.
> >
> >Nope, it's a waste of time, since most of the responses
> >seem to be a miserable lot of foaming lefty rantiliations
> >that don't actually address the issues raised.
>
> The film did address the issues but I take it what you mean
> is that the debate didn't address the issues *you* wanted.
Which part of "most of the responses seem to be a miserable
lot of foaming lefty rantiliations that don't actually address
the issues raised" goes over your head? If I raise a point,
nobody has to reply. But if they do reply, it at least needs
to be relevant to either my position or to the movie itself.
abelard
typed:
you would need the sword of alexander to get yourself out of the
knots into which you have tied yourself
abelard
typed:
>(I sing as a hobby before you get paranoid.)
now that *is* designed to get me paranoid....
Stephen Glynn
It might help if you told him where to send this £6.
Perhaps you are in need of an agent?
Steve
Halberd
He knows already.
> Perhaps you are in need of an agent?
I have one, but not for my singing.
> Steve
Halberd
What knots might they be?
abelard
<stephe...@ntlworld.com>
typed:
>abelard wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 12:19:56 +0100, Stephen Glynn
>> <stephe...@ntlworld.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>
>>>Andrea Collins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Kingdom" >
>>>>
>>>>Drake died fighting the spanish years later!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>OK chaps,SOMEONE must know the words to "Drake's Drum"..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Drake he's in his hammock and a thousand miles away,
>>>>Cap'n, art thou sleepin' there below?...etc"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Always and never are two words you should always remember never to use.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Drake he's in his hammock an' a thousand miles away,
>>> (Capten, art tha sleepin' there below?)
>>>Slung atween the round shot in Nombre Dios Bay,
>>>An' dreamin' arl the time O' Plymouth Hoe.
>>>Yarnder lumes the Island, yarnder lie the ships,
>>>Wi' sailor lads a-dancing' heel-an'-toe,
>>>An' the shore-lights flashin', an' the night-tide dashin',
>>>He see et arl so plainly as he saw et long ago.
>> what date is that and in what patois?
>It's 1897, I think, from Sir Henry Newbolt's anthology "Admirals All,
>And Other Verses". I assume it's meant to imitate a broad Devonian accent.
>
>The collection also includes his famous "Vitaï Lampada" ("There's a
>breathless hush in the Close to-night...").
this from enc brit...
Newbolt, Sir Henry (John)
(b. June 6, 1862, Bilston, Staffordshire, Eng.--d. April 19, 1938,
London), English poet, best-known for his patriotic and nautical verse.
Newbolt was educated at Clifton Theological College and at Corpus Christi
College, Oxford. He was admitted to the bar at Lincoln's Inn in 1887 and
practiced law until 1899. The appearance of his ballads, Admirals All
(1897), which included the stirring "Drake's Drum," created his literary
reputation. These were followed by other volumes collected in Poems: New
and Old (1912; rev. ed. 1919). During World War I he was comptroller of
wireless and cables and was later commissioned to complete Great Britain's
official naval history of the war. He also edited various anthologies of
verse, which reveal his catholic and progressive taste in poetry. He was
knighted in 1915 and appointed a Companion of Honour in 1922.
so black county eh....and moddie...
thank you kindly sir....saved my rooting around....
i didn't think i'd get an answer to the patois bit in 30 seconds....
i've gon and read Vitaï Lampada....interesting use of language....
i've vaguely heard both of those...glory knows when or where....
is it reasonable to say he's a bit tangential to kipling?
let's look...yes, their dates are very similar 1865, Bombay 1936, London
i see kipling started off with a rough time....
any other bits you recomend that i look at? mainly for the language
patterns...
ah well, i'll leave that bit in...but i've been tempted into a hunt around
found this bit
http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_onlyasub1.htm
Newbolt did not see eye to eye with Kipling at one time and accused him of
trying to corner the market for patriotic verse but they later became
friends when they met on the War Graves Commission and Newbolt later
accepted an honorary degree when Kipling was installed as Rector of St.
Andrews. (Andrew Lycett, p. 517)
and skimmed through various bits from newbolt....haven't found anything
else that interested me as much...
little review that may interest you here...
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1167025,00.html
and i found this...so i must have some sense of smell!
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Ta3B16pbiyMJ:www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/456.html+newbolt+reminiscent&hl=en
As a poet, Newbolt is very reminiscent of Kipling - he addresses many of
the same subjects, in a similar tone, and if he is not quite as overt a
minstrel of the Empire, its mindset nonetheless permeates his works. Of
course, he was far more minor a poet than Kipling was, and he can get
annoying at times, but he did also write a number of good poems (and one
great one, 'Ireland, Ireland')
abelard
typed:
why on earth would i be motivated to come and wallow in your irrationality
first grow up...then i may discuss it with you....
abelard
typed:
>Stephen Glynn wrote:
>
>> Halberd wrote:
>>
>>> abelard wrote:
no i don't mister batty goebbels..
neither do i wish to know....
>> Perhaps you are in need of an agent?
>
>I have one, but not for my singing.
i'll bet he means he has a news agent.....
Halberd
>
> why on earth would i be motivated to come and wallow in your irrationality
> first grow up...then i may discuss it with you....
When did you ever discuss anything. You only pontificate.
Robert Henderson
<frankfm...@houston.rr.com> writes
>As you say Robert, England was clearly a rogue state
Clearly the only state in Europe willing and able to stand against
abusive Spanish power and the dead hand of the RC Church. RH
> and an imminent danger. A
>spanish invasion was a clear necessity. Unfortunately for them they couldn't
>bring it off.
--
Robert Henderson
<abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>In article <spi2f09gpsl6au0qg...@4ax.com>, abelard
>><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>>fundamentalism is a curse upon human society and happiness...
>>
>>What about valve computer fundmentalists? RH
>
>i wouldn't call your obsession with valve computers 'fundamentalism'
>it is hardly a coherent, or even semi-coherent, belief system....
>
>i'm not even convinced your socialist views go beyond the cranky...
> inasmuch as you are able to express them in an ordered manner...
>i blame it on your unbounded mind....certainly unbounded by basic
> arithmetic...
Oh dear, he's blown too many valves again. Do get the engineers in! RH
Robert Henderson
<abel...@abelard.org> writes
>ah well, i'll leave that bit in...but i've been tempted into a hunt around
>
>found this bit
>http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_onlyasub1.htm
>Newbolt did not see eye to eye with Kipling at one time and accused him of
>trying to corner the market for patriotic verse but they later became
>friends when they met on the War Graves Commission and Newbolt later
>accepted an honorary degree when Kipling was installed as Rector of St.
>Andrews. (Andrew Lycett, p. 517)
>
>and skimmed through various bits from newbolt....haven't found anything
> else that interested me as much...
There's a breathless hush in the close tonight,
Ten to win and the last man in....
Halberd
> In article <3mn3f0l9t9dlv6rb6...@4ax.com>, abelard
> <abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>ah well, i'll leave that bit in...but i've been tempted into a hunt around
>>
>>found this bit
>>http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_onlyasub1.htm
>>Newbolt did not see eye to eye with Kipling at one time and accused him of
>>trying to corner the market for patriotic verse but they later became
>>friends when they met on the War Graves Commission and Newbolt later
>>accepted an honorary degree when Kipling was installed as Rector of St.
>>Andrews. (Andrew Lycett, p. 517)
>>
>>and skimmed through various bits from newbolt....haven't found anything
>> else that interested me as much...
>
> There's a breathless hush in the close tonight,
> Ten to win and the last man in....
Funny that he's never come across Newbolt. I thought Drakes Drum was second
only to LoHaG for the average alleged Tory.
Great song though.
Stephen Glynn
Don't get me onto the subject of Kipling. He was a great modernist
short-story writer and, to a lesser extent, poet. His problem was that
he tried to reproduce the speech, in "Barrack Room Ballads" and similar,
of the British soldier at the time and, of course, trying to reproduce
popular speech can't be done very easily.
Kipling's vision of Empire was a lot darker than was Newbolt's. You
could argue -- well, I could -- that when Kipling wrote "The White Man's
Burden" he must have had in mind someone like Newbolt's protagonists in
"Vitaï Lampada" and "He Fell Among Thieves" in his injunction "Send out
the best you breed" (to get killed somewhere in Africa or Asia).
Kipling's role on the War Graves Commission is somewhat poignant. He
of course wrote the inscription on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier in
Westminster Abbey, "Here lies a soldier known only to God". He must
have had in mind his son, for whom he pulled all manner of strings at
the War Office to get him a commission in the Irish Guards during WW1
even though his son's poor eyesight should have prevented his serving in
any capacity. His son died somewhere in Flanders and his body was
never found.
Steve
Robert Henderson
<Hal...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>>Andrews. (Andrew Lycett, p. 517)
>>>
>>>and skimmed through various bits from newbolt....haven't found anything
>>> else that interested me as much...
>>
>> There's a breathless hush in the close tonight,
>> Ten to win and the last man in....
>
>Funny that he's never come across Newbolt. I thought Drakes Drum was second
>only to LoHaG for the average alleged Tory.
>
Bear in mind that Abelard is a valve computer. RH
>Great song though.
Stephen Glynn
> In article <3mn3f0l9t9dlv6rb6...@4ax.com>, abelard
> <abel...@abelard.org> writes
>
>>ah well, i'll leave that bit in...but i've been tempted into a hunt around
>>
>>found this bit
>>http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_onlyasub1.htm
>>Newbolt did not see eye to eye with Kipling at one time and accused him of
>>trying to corner the market for patriotic verse but they later became
>>friends when they met on the War Graves Commission and Newbolt later
>>accepted an honorary degree when Kipling was installed as Rector of St.
>>Andrews. (Andrew Lycett, p. 517)
>>
>>and skimmed through various bits from newbolt....haven't found anything
>> else that interested me as much...
>
>
> There's a breathless hush in the close tonight,
> Ten to win and the last man in....
>
> RH
>
>
I think one of the few things on which we see eye-to-eye is that Vitaï
Lampada is a great evocation of school cricket (isn't it "Ten to make",
though?).
It once featured in a New Statesman competition for creative misprints
in which readers were invited to change the sense of well-known poetry
by altering one letter of the line (e.g. "Fair is foul and foul is
fair/Hoover through the fog and filthy air", as Macbeth's witches didn't
quite say). Someone turned it into "There's a breathless lush in the
close tonight".
Steve
Robert Henderson
<stephe...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>>
>> There's a breathless hush in the close tonight,
>> Ten to win and the last man in....
>>
>> RH
>>
>>
>
>I think one of the few things on which we see eye-to-eye is that Vitaï Lampada
>is a great evocation of school cricket
Ah, it is about life not merely cricket. RH
>(isn't it "Ten to make",
Yes. RH
> though?).
Stephen Glynn
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:30:24 +0100, Stephen Glynn
> <stephe...@ntlworld.com>
>
> typed:
>
>
>>abelard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 01:30:20 GMT, "Andrea Collins"
>>><andrea....@ntlworld.com>
>
>
>>>>(SNIP)"Le Trôle" <> > Yebbut Drake did thrash the Spaniards.
>>>>He was exhibiting British
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>sangfroid, not stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>>He wasn't British, he was English. Big difference
>>>>>to those who know, not much to those who don't.
>>>>>But to the point, Bush and Drake did what they did
>>>>>for the same reasons.
>
>
>>>>>>PS The Spaniards were attacking Britain. Iraq wasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Iraq wasn't attacked in retaliation to the WTC.
>>>>>If you repeat a lie enough, you win at Cannes.
>
>
>>>>Cobblers. Who said anything about September 11th?
>>>>Mr Moore may have done and it's probably a valid theory, but that WASN'T
>>>>what I said. I said that Drake was defending the UK against the Spaniards,
>>>>because they were attacking Britain. Iraq wasn't atacking te UK and no-one
>>>>has sucessfully demonstrated to me that Saddam Hussein either intended to
>>>>attack, or had the capabilities to so do.
>
>
>>>that would appear to be because you are rather silly and short sighted....
>>>one could not demonstrate such things to any religious socialist as it is
>>> contradictory to their religion....
>>>one might as well get involved in a conversation about angels with a
>>> christianist...it is just a sheer waste of time....they simply do not
>>> listen...no input channel....
>
>
>>A rather convoluted way of saying that you don't agree with Andrea but
>>can't be bothered to explain why.
>
>
> not really...you have cogent, if in my view insufficient, concerns about
> the removal of madsam...
> i'm not particularly trying to convince you otherwise....
>
> i certainly have no wish to spend still more time on fundamentalists....
> 'no one has successfully demonstrated to me'....i have no particular wish
> to attempt to 'successfully demonstrate'
> clearly madsam was 'attacking' western interests...i don't expect to
> 'successfully demonstrate' to a person who cannot work that out...
> nor appears to have an openness of mind to examine such a more
> subtle attack; than the threat that the lefty fundamentalists
> dishonestly claimed western leaders had made about direct missile
> attacks or whatever........
> there is little point attempting to reason with closed 'minds'....the only
> relevant activity is to attempt to break open their closed 'minds'
> before any further discussion with them is relevant or possible...
>
> you might as well argue with a 2yo about bedtime or playing in the road...
>
>
>>The Spanish had a very large invasion fleet, led by the Duke of Medina
>>Sidonia, which was trying to join the Duke of Parma at Dunkirk, who had
>>almost as many troops with him, and then to invade England with a view
>>to effecting a regime change.
>>
>>The Spanish --the most powerful empire in the Western World -- would,
>>btw, certainly have regarded England as a "rogue state" since England
>>was a Protestant country that had certainly acted as a sponsor of
>>anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic activity in the Netherlands, even to the
>>extent of sending troops. It ignored instructions from The Vatican as
>>comprehensively as Saddam ignored the UN. It had put down Catholic
>>rebellions in Ireland with the utmost severity, ran a dreaded secret
>>police and intelligence service under Walsingham which persecuted
>>English Priest, and it was certainly an extremely successful "state
>>sponsor of piracy" against Spanish interests in the New World. And, of
>>course, El Draque (The Dragon) had sacked the Spanish city of Cadiz.
>>
>>The Spanish doubtless felt about England and Elizabeth much as does
>>President Bush about Iraq and Saddam and probably with better reason.
>
>
> you are now referring to an age where fundamentalism had even wider
> sway than now...the inquisition was also not much different from the
> fundies in the middle east....anymore than various prod fundy sects...
>
> fundamentalism is a curse upon human society and happiness.....
> i don't give a bent halfpenny whether the fundies are from islam,
> socialism, prod christianism or papism....
>
> fortunately in the west fundamentalism is in decline...the faster it is
> removed from the middle east the better off everyone will be, other
> than the vampires who live off fundamentalism...
> for them while i may have some sympathy for their benighted ignorance..
> i have very little tolerance for them seeking nuclear bombs or
> spreading their mental garbage....
>
> regards....
>
That's an analysis I find difficult to accept. To my mind people very
rarely go to war about ideas, be they religious or secular ideas.
They might say that's what they're fighting over but it's usually over
more tangible things like territory and the resources they contain.
I'm sure it didn't help that Philip of Spain was a religious nutter but
England and Spain were really fighting about the New World and control
of the oceans. Certainly, at least by your analysis, we should have
been supporting Saddam since for all his faults he was certainly a
secularist who did his damnedest to keep the Mullahs under control.
That's why we backed him for so long -- he diverted the Iranian
Ayatollahs' ambitions by waging war on them. And one of the few things
about Iraq of which we can be certain is that if they do ever end up
with a form of democratic government the hard-line Shia clerics are
going to have a far greater say in that county's affairs than they have
done up until now.
Like you, I deeply mistrust fundamentalism. But the most bellicose
fundamentalist country at the moment seems to be the USA. President
Bush is certainly under the alarming impression that he has God on his
side, as is the deeply unpleasant leader of the one theocracy with
nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Obviously we're all in favour of
freedom and democracy but I can't say I'm particularly keen on America
imposing its particular interpretation of those ideas on people,
particularly since the US seems hooked on the notion that it's got a
monopoly on those concepts so anything that brings people into dispute
with the American government must be an attack on freedom and democracy
themselves rather than anything so vulgar as a dispute about power and
money.
Steve
abelard
typed:
>Robert Henderson wrote:
i've come across it...i hadn't heard of newbolt that i remember...
abelard
<stephe...@ntlworld.com>
typed:
>Don't get me onto the subject of Kipling.
always happy to be educated....you are usually very interesting to me....
i read and have read very little fiction...even when i do read fiction
it is for content rather than escapism....
> He was a great modernist
>short-story writer and, to a lesser extent, poet. His problem was that
>he tried to reproduce the speech, in "Barrack Room Ballads" and similar,
>of the British soldier at the time and, of course, trying to reproduce
>popular speech can't be done very easily.
i get on better with robert service who actually served in ww1 in
ambulances...
but the snobs tell me he isn't 'real poetry'.....
ww1...dolls
http://www.iwvpa.net/servicerw/dolls___.htm
also i think this is fun...as many others of his...
http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/ballad_of_the_ice-worm_cocktail.htm
>Kipling's vision of Empire was a lot darker than was Newbolt's. You
>could argue -- well, I could -- that when Kipling wrote "The White Man's
>Burden" he must have had in mind someone like Newbolt's protagonists in
>"Vitaï Lampada" and "He Fell Among Thieves" in his injunction "Send out
>the best you breed" (to get killed somewhere in Africa or Asia).
>
>Kipling's role on the War Graves Commission is somewhat poignant. He
>of course wrote the inscription on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier in
>Westminster Abbey, "Here lies a soldier known only to God".
yet another thing of which i was unaware....
> He must
>have had in mind his son, for whom he pulled all manner of strings at
>the War Office to get him a commission in the Irish Guards during WW1
>even though his son's poor eyesight should have prevented his serving in
>any capacity. His son died somewhere in Flanders and his body was
>never found.
regards...and thanx for you help/education...
FransHals
> Michael Moore's shockumentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has the usual Moore
> shortcomings of a clanking right-on-ness* and a certain freedom with
Fat Moore cashes in on making movies about people who were murdered
then makes up lis to ry to blame people he does not like.
He makes a bundle dancing in the blood of murdered innocents.
What is hysterical is watching the left wing elites and Europeans fall
all ove themselves to praise this fat simpleton. They try to make him
out to be the next Orson Welles - pathetic.
He is more like a fat male version of Leni Refienstahl.
abelard
<stephe...@ntlworld.com>
typed:
>That's an analysis I find difficult to accept. To my mind people very
>rarely go to war about ideas, be they religious or secular ideas.
this looks like work...curses....
i'll start by leaving the above comment on one side....other than
to say, i start from a position of believing people mean what they
say...however potty what they say may be...
>They might say that's what they're fighting over but it's usually over
>more tangible things like territory and the resources they contain.
then you must start in your case from a position as regarding taking
down madsam as about oil...and madsam's nuisance value residing
in a wish to control the world's major oil fields...
the latter is *totally* intolerable to the west...
>I'm sure it didn't help that Philip of Spain was a religious nutter but
>England and Spain were really fighting about the New World and control
>of the oceans. Certainly, at least by your analysis, we should have
>been supporting Saddam since for all his faults he was certainly a
>secularist
i do not accept in the slightest the fashionable view that madsam was
a secucularist in his political behaviour....he was a socialist fundy
and an arab nationalist/suprematist....
that his religion was different from the mullahs did not stop him being
a fundamentalist any more than it stopped the politburo or adolf....
> who did his damnedest to keep the Mullahs under control.
>That's why we backed him for so long
i don't have access to the minds of others, merely to what they say...
> -- he diverted the Iranian
>Ayatollahs' ambitions by waging war on them. And one of the few things
>about Iraq of which we can be certain is that if they do ever end up
>with a form of democratic government the hard-line Shia clerics are
>going to have a far greater say in that county's affairs than they have
>done up until now.
i doubt it will be 'far greater'....very very likely it will be greater...
i don't greatly mind that....i don't expect to remove the curse of
fundamentalism with one might leap....i expect to drive it back week
by week and generation by generation....
the removal of madsam is a step forward in the right direction....
socialism is a greater evil than islam....
doubt less islam will adjust over time just a christianism is still
adjusting..
i go with voltaire
Voltaire 1694-1778
Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.
The best is the enemy of the good.
for i do not have the mind set of the fundamentalist....
>Like you, I deeply mistrust fundamentalism.
i regard in the words of george bush as 'evil'.....
> But the most bellicose
>fundamentalist country at the moment seems to be the USA.
i totally dissent from that view....
america is not perfect....but it is better.....
and that is fundamental to my approach....
> President
>Bush is certainly under the alarming impression that he has God on his
>side, as is the deeply unpleasant leader of the one theocracy with
>nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
i regard such talk as shallow foolishness....
america is no theocracy....
ii think also you do not seem to appreciate that vast numbers of avowed
christianist have fairly moderate view...much influenced by modern
psychology in recent decades....
christianism is not static despite idiotic claims to ultimate 'truth'.....
i see no reason to suppose islam will not also adjust beyond the loony
vampires previously referenced....
the modern tendency to throw out the christianist baybee with the most
filthy fundamentalist bathwater meets with no sympathy from me.....
many christianists of intelligence reach similar positions to myself from
their strange aristotelian/authority based systems that i reach
through more rational routes...
while the aristoteleanism is fundamentally flawed...and thereby
potentially
misleading and socially dangerous....people appear to get a goodly way
towards sane behaviour through its use...
> Obviously we're all in favour of
>freedom
i am not for freedom for suicide bombers or other more minor pests....
> and democracy
which you will know well i want to become (differently) conditional
>but I can't say I'm particularly keen on America
>imposing its particular interpretation of those ideas on people,
the us has not had a history of doing that...as a simple look at germany
or japan immediately shows..let alone many others...
>particularly since the US seems hooked on the notion that it's got a
>monopoly on those concepts so anything that brings people into dispute
>with the American government must be an attack on freedom and democracy
i regard that sort of stt as utter nonsense...
neither is america a person or some monolith
>themselves rather than anything so vulgar as a dispute about power and
>money.
oil is about survival and future world security atm.....
quite apart from loons who wish to use it to wrestle world domination from
america in pursuit of a new caliphate...
it is vital the west continues to control the oil fields they developed in
the m.e is if you are not to experience the greatest disaster for
humans in all history....
it is imperative that you move to stop this awful dependence as quickly as
possible....
only the west is able to organise that process....assuming they don't keep
messing around while those fields are also depleted to zero.....
i don't think most people have a clue about the locomotive that is rushing
down upon them....
whether bush is the correct person to lead the west during these dangerous
times i am unsure...i can only make that judgement according to
whether he works to establish a serious alternative energy economy
rather that focussing only on his family interests....
it may well be necessary to wave the stick in the m.e. again....
there is no way i can accept some mental pudding in the white house....
bush has so far acted correctly and with purpose....any pulling back will
just encourage the loons in both the m.e. and among ourselves....
that will result in vastly more long term danger/trouble than anything
bush is doing....
only if kerry comes out unequivocally for the necessary use of american
power could i trust him in the white house....
even voting for kerry carries the danger of sending a signal to the
loons that america is unserious when the chips are down....
as right now the chips are down.....
i back bush's actions in the m.e. to the hilt....
to return to your first point...i care not the excuses or vaunted reasons/
excuses of the dictators in the m.e.....i just intend they are stopped
and wherever necessary, replaced...
in the meanwhile we should be doing everything with in our power to
help them move into the modern mainstream of world society....
that is essentially what i think bush (and bliar) are now attempting...
if my interpretation is correct i can only back them...
for the rest...idiotic government control over education or health....
or corporate corruption is trivia compared with the problems
emanating from the m.e.
regards...
Robert Henderson
<abel...@abelard.org> writes
>On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:10:20 +0100, Stephen Glynn
><stephe...@ntlworld.com>
>
> typed:
>
>>Don't get me onto the subject of Kipling.
>
>always happy to be educated....you are usually very interesting to me....
> i read and have read very little fiction...even when i do read fiction
> it is for content rather than escapism....
Natch. You are a valve computer. RH
A. Dulcimer
wrote:
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<QZuua+Aq...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
>> Michael Moore's shockumentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has the usual Moore
>> shortcomings of a clanking right-on-ness* and a certain freedom with
>
>
>Fat Moore cashes in on making movies about people who were murdered
>then makes up lis to ry to blame people he does not like.
>
It's good that you admit that the 11,000 dead civilians in Iraq have
been murdered. It's step in the right direction. However, Moore didn't
need to make up lies to blame anyone . The blame is squarely on bushes
shoulders.
>He makes a bundle dancing in the blood of murdered innocents.
bush has been gleefully dancing on the bodies of the 911 dead since
911. You can bet that bush is down on his knees every night thanking
God that the towers crumbled. With out the attack he would be nothing.
That's why he refused to stop it.
>
>What is hysterical is watching the left wing elites and Europeans fall
>all ove themselves to praise this fat simpleton.
Ah yes. Another conservative ass clown who is unable to come up with a
single valid criticism of the film so he resorts to 'Oh yeah! Michael
Moore is fat'.
> They try to make him
>out to be the next Orson Welles - pathetic.
No , they don't try to make him out to be anything. He is what he is.
A very talented film maker.
>
>He is more like a fat male version of Leni Refienstahl.
Fat again? Is that the best you can do?
--
"It is not possible to find a leader more foolish then Bush, who deals
with matters by force rather than wisdom. Kerry will kill our nation
while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to
embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nations as
civilisation. Because of this we desire Bush to be elected."
al Qaeda statement, 3/17/04
abelard
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>In article <kh65f0dnmo2e3dq0o...@4ax.com>, abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:10:20 +0100, Stephen Glynn
>><stephe...@ntlworld.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>Don't get me onto the subject of Kipling.
>>
>>always happy to be educated....you are usually very interesting to me....
>> i read and have read very little fiction...even when i do read fiction
>> it is for content rather than escapism....
>
>Natch. You are a valve computer. RH
that's not an unfair description hatstand....
regards....
billy
"hummingbird" <BCTYWU...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:58p2f0pkiqm5h9ljo...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:02:27 +0000 (UTC), "billy"
> <jo...@billy100.DELETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
> [snip loads of tripe]
>
> >and give enjoyment to those who
> >like what they want to see rather than that what they should see.
>
> And as a wannabe dictator yourself billy, please tell us exactly
> what it is *we should see*.?
>
> --
> "I don't use Google - I use Outlook Express."
> ...barmy billy on UKPM 10/July/2004
**********************************
I have no ambition to be a dictator. And I do not support them in the way
you implicitly support Mad Saddam by complaining of him being "removed".
That peculiarity is what all you Libertarian Lefties should recognise.
However:
So I use the Outlook Express newsreader and not the Google newsreader.
Are you in some perverted way trying to associate my preference for a
particular newsreader with your disorder of condoning paedophilia,
necrophilia, cannibalism, sadistic brutality and human sacrifice - and you
being pleased to be reminded of that fact?
*******************
billy
> In article <ccrh9i$dqi$1...@titan.btinternet.com>, billy <jo...@billy100.DE
> LETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
> >> --
> >> Robert Henderson
> >
> >It is rather curious how this Moore person (who recalls the old
music-hall
> >phrase: "Don't have any more, Mrs Moore" - and looks, by far, "more"
crazy
> >than the intelligent George W.
>
>
> Billy, he is seriously dim. Did you watch him closely when he was in
> the primary school reading My Pet Goat? RH
>
******************
So he was in a primary school reading a primary school book?
Many politicians do that sort of thing.
And regarding the "interpretation" Mad Moore (the multi-millionaire who
dresses like a trendy working class lefty) made about what was in Bush's
mind?
Such interpretations depend on the disposition of the interpreter.
Another could say he was shocked by what he heard and the horror filled his
mind so much that he sat staring (without really looking at) a book he held.
My wife remarks about the fact that I sometimes sit holding a book and stray
off into another realm of though - whilst looking as if I was still reading.
Many people do that.
********************
> >) paints Bush as a devilishly clever
> >mastermind of all evil, on one side of the canvas, and then on the other
> >side as a brainless moron.
> >The "double portrayal" seems a bit false.
> >Also, on another picture, he paints Iraq under the "innocent" Saddam as a
> >place full of happy little kids and contented mummies and daddies - and
it
> >was only when the devilish Americans "intruded" that the killing started.
>
> That was badly misjudged. RH
>
**************************
Not misjudged. Deliberately distorted.
**************************
> >(Is it a comic film?)
> >His success is in telling the American hating idiots what they wish to
hear
> >and also in preparing the way for the Clinton type "lets be nice to
> >everyone" appeasement, which led up to 9/11.
> >Of course 9/11 was a terrible event because Bush did not panic and fall
on
> >his knees to shed tears
>
> He went on the lam for a day. RH
>
*******************
So? He was faced with such an unexpected enormity (which no-one even thought
could happen and had never experienced in America) and he went where? To
seek advice? To have a conference in camera to decide on action? Where...?
*******************
> >and feel everyone's pain (including that of the
> >murderous but innocently faithful Muslims in the planes).
> >His film is a cartoon of history in which he follows Hollywood's trend of
> >"bending the truth" to make it look "real" and give enjoyment to those
who
> >like what they want to see rather than that what they should see.
> >
>
bernard spilman
powerful.
WS
"FransHals" <frans...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b942ce7.04071...@posting.google.com...
Fed Up
news:ccujgd$bfc$9...@titan.btinternet.com...
> > Billy, he is seriously dim. Did you watch him closely when he was in
> > the primary school reading My Pet Goat? RH
> >
> ******************
> So he was in a primary school reading a primary school book?
> Many politicians do that sort of thing.
How many *Presidents* do that sort of thing, as C-in-C, *after* they've just
been told "America is under attack"???
At best, he was criminally negligent in not taking charge while people were
dying. Great leadership. Nor did his SS enter and remove him like they did
with Cheney.
God help America if it should ever come under nuclear attack while Bush is
Pres, since waiting even 15 mins would mean his nation effectively
destroyed. Since he has been found critically wanting on one day, he should
have been removed from office immediately as being unfit to discharge his
duty as C-in-C. The only factor mitigating his woeful conduct, is the fact
that a real madman, Cheney, could have become Pres.
> And regarding the "interpretation" Mad Moore (the multi-millionaire who
> dresses like a trendy working class lefty) made about what was in Bush's
> mind?
> Such interpretations depend on the disposition of the interpreter.
There is no other interpretation of the *fact* that he sat there doing
NOTHING about it.
> Another could say he was shocked by what he heard and the horror filled
his
> mind so much that he sat staring (without really looking at) a book he
held.
Well tough. He didn't have to become Pres., one of his *main*
responsiblities being to defend America. He failed his people that he was
sworn to defend, and at the very least, should have resigned.
--
© 2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider’s main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
Hognoxious
news:v0f5f01eigcg1nbec...@4ax.com...
> >Natch. You are a valve computer. RH
>
> that's not an unfair description hatstand....
"vulva computer" is a better one, yabbertard.
Le Trôle
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:03:38 +0100, "Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>
> >> >> >Residents of Britain, but not British, and certainly not English.
> >> >> >Cricket, anyone?
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry to burst your little bubble le trolly but they are as British
> >> >> as you (presumably) claim to be, even with a foreign handle.
> >> >
> >> >Glad you have the sense to know that a genuine surname
> >> >says more about someone's nationality that anything else.
> >>
> >> There are plenty of Patels in Britain who are British.
> >
> >They don't regard themselves as British, so why should I?
>
> I doubt that very much, although they may not be Christian.
> That doesn't bother me.
They don't regard themselves as British, so why should I?
> >They're not Welsh, English, Scottish, or Irish. They're
> >just a neutral "British" I suppose, even if they happen
> >to be overseas raising arms against Her Majesty's Forces.
>
> Tripe.
Nice comeback.
Doesn't address demonstrated fact,
but it's quite clever.
> >They've been given more than enough opportunity, and
> >even the CRE has acknowledged the failure of allowing
> >immigration without the active integration of foreigners.
>
> Would you want to integrate if you lived in another country.?
If I wanted to leave my own country, yes.
If I found another country that was better than my own, yes.
If another country that offered protection from my own, yes.
But not if I was simply getting the best deal at the time.
> I actually enjoy the different cultures in Britain.
Oh, the food and the music. Let's party.
> What concerns me is all the racist crap stirred up
> by people like you, who I conclude must feel inadequate.
You conclude. I knew you could find another word
instead of presume.
> >> You may not like it or even accept it, but it remains a fact
> >> that you have to live with or move away.
> >
> >Live with it or move away? Think hard about that the next time you
> >or someone of your ilk weeps and moans about ethnic cleansing.
>
> I have never done so.
That's really not surprising.
> >Feeling a bit bolder and stronger each day, aren't you?
>
> ?
First there's forced tolerance, then unwilling acceptance,
then finally, the suggestion to get out if I don't like it.
> >Shall I change the subject line to something else, perhaps reflecting
> >your desire to remove an Englishman from his own country?
>
> Tripe.
You wrote it.
Gosh darn those un-deletable posts.
> >> >From your own lips, a foreign handle indeed.
> >>
> >> Where did my lips come into this.?
> >
> >A few dozen or so lines up.
> >Do seek help with that memory problem.
>
> Since when do I use my lips to write Usenet posts.?
My mistake. They only move whilst you read them.
> >> >You do realise that my real surname isn't French, I hope.
> >>
> >> I've no idea if "Le Trôle" is French or not (it certainly isn't
> >> Portuguese or Spanish) and I've no idea what your *real* surname is.
> >
> >Slowly he twists and turns, but cannot escape his own words.
>
> Tripe. Suggest you read what I wrote.
I did. Anyone else can as well.
Gosh darn those un-deletable posts.
> >> >> They may have dark skins but they are British.
> >> >> Fact of life. Live with it.
> >> >
> >> >Preparing for the imposition of the caliphate already?
> >>
> >> Hardly. I didn't take the decisions which allowed such immigration.
> >> They were taken by *your* elected govt over many years.
> >
> >It's your government as well, unless you simply prefer to think
> >of it as some sort of interim body awaiting moslem rule.Your use
> >of asterisks doesn't appear as odd when that point is considered.
>
> It's not my government because I didn't vote for them.
It's not you government simply because you don't
have loyalty to the people who elected them.
> That they are the British Govt is a constitutional fact.
What value is a constitution when those like you don't
even consider the government to be yours? You may not
like Tony, but he's still the prime minister of the Queen.
> >> Presumably, if the electorate didn't like it, they would have said so.
> >
> >Presumably. That's a word that you tend to use a great deal.
>
> Really.? how many times have I used it.?
<Trôle Off> It's a bad thing to presume. Everyone has words
they use as a habit, but presume carrys the meaning that you
aren't really sure of what you're saying . 'From Your Arse'
is often a fair comment when someone presumes. You used
it twice in this exchange.
> >Perhaps you need to change your presumptions, or at least
> >start using another disclaimer, such as "From My Arse".
>
> That would be more appropriate for you.
That's a bit better than 'I know you are, so what am I?,
but not by much.
> >> >My, how militant you are in your demands.
> >> >Can I simply pay the kaffir tax in lieu of conversion?
> >>
> >> Whatever you wish.
> >
> >How long before no choice is given?
> >What if I abstain altogether?
>
> Don't know what you're babbling about.
That's because I used the wrong term. It's dhimmi tax
that's paid. A Kaffir is the one who pays it.
Oh yeah, you know exactly what I'm referring to now.
> >> >> Stick to posting yarns about Michael Moore's films.
> >> >
> >> >Nope, it's a waste of time, since most of the responses
> >> >seem to be a miserable lot of foaming lefty rantiliations
> >> >that don't actually address the issues raised.
> >>
> >> The film did address the issues but I take it what you mean
> >> is that the debate didn't address the issues *you* wanted.
> >
> >Which part of "most of the responses seem to be a miserable
> >lot of foaming lefty rantiliations that don't actually address
> >the issues raised" goes over your head?
>
> All of it because it's all your opinion.
Welcome to losenet.
> >If I raise a point,
> >nobody has to reply. But if they do reply, it at least needs
> >to be relevant to either my position or to the movie itself.
>
> Who are you referring to.?
Read and see.
Droopus
[...]
> He is more like a fat male version of Leni Refienstahl.
Leni Riefenstahl (note spelling please) was a hagiographer, which is
diametrically opposed to what Michael Moore is doing with his films..
I bet you haven't seen any of Leni's films either. B)
abelard
<hognoxious_kosher@!not!so!hotmail.com>
typed:
i expect you might even get to see one when you're out of short pants....
Stephen Glynn
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:10:20 +0100, Stephen Glynn
> <stephe...@ntlworld.com>
>
> typed:
>
>
>>Don't get me onto the subject of Kipling.
>
>
> always happy to be educated....you are usually very interesting to me....
> i read and have read very little fiction...even when i do read fiction
> it is for content rather than escapism....
>
>
>> He was a great modernist
>>short-story writer and, to a lesser extent, poet. His problem was that
>>he tried to reproduce the speech, in "Barrack Room Ballads" and similar,
>>of the British soldier at the time and, of course, trying to reproduce
>>popular speech can't be done very easily.
>
>
> i get on better with robert service who actually served in ww1 in
> ambulances...
> but the snobs tell me he isn't 'real poetry'.....
>
> ww1...dolls
> http://www.iwvpa.net/servicerw/dolls___.htm
>
> also i think this is fun...as many others of his...
> http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/ballad_of_the_ice-worm_cocktail.htm
>
>
>>Kipling's vision of Empire was a lot darker than was Newbolt's. You
>>could argue -- well, I could -- that when Kipling wrote "The White Man's
>>Burden" he must have had in mind someone like Newbolt's protagonists in
>>"Vitaď Lampada" and "He Fell Among Thieves" in his injunction "Send out
>>the best you breed" (to get killed somewhere in Africa or Asia).
>>
>>Kipling's role on the War Graves Commission is somewhat poignant. He
>>of course wrote the inscription on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier in
>>Westminster Abbey, "Here lies a soldier known only to God".
>
>
> yet another thing of which i was unaware....
>
>
>> He must
>>have had in mind his son, for whom he pulled all manner of strings at
>>the War Office to get him a commission in the Irish Guards during WW1
>>even though his son's poor eyesight should have prevented his serving in
>>any capacity. His son died somewhere in Flanders and his body was
>>never found.
>
>
> regards...and thanx for you help/education...
>
Thank you for the Robert Service reference. I'd not heard of him
before. The Dolls poem certainly touched on an aspect of the Great War
that's not often considered. My mother, who is 89, once explained to
me why so many of of her aunts, my great-aunts, never married or lived
with other spinster ladies of the same generation. Their finances were
killed in Flanders and on the Somme. There was, consequently, a lack
of men of their generation at the end of the War and no one who could
replace the men they had lost. In some ways, ISTM, the poem turns the
dead soldier's lover into a permanent child who's been denied the chance
to relive her childhood with her own children.
Not the way women on either side of my family reacted to that
catastrophe, I can tell you, be they Irish Catholics (my father's side
of the family) or Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire Methodists (my mum's
lot). Resolution, not to say ferocity, in the face of adversity seemed
to be the order of the day.
As to the Ballad of the Ice Worm, Terry Pratchett has a take on this in
his comic novel "Jingo". Sam Vimes, Commander of the Ankh-Morpork
Watch, and his companions have just been taken prisoner by the D'regs, a
fierce desert tribe, but find themselves being made unusually welcome.
He is being given a situation report by his 2 i/c, Captain Carrot.
'And this is Jabbar,' said Carrot. Exhibit A, who looked like a
slightly older version of 71-hour Ahmed, stood up and salaamed to Vimes.
'Offendi,' he said.
'He's their ... well, he's like an offical wise man,' said Carrot.
'Oh, so he's not the one who tells them to charge?' said Vimes. His
head buzzed in the heat.
'No, that's the leader,' said Carrot. 'Whenever they have one.'
'So perhaps Jabba tells them when it's _wise_ to charge?' said Vimes
brightly.
'It's always wise to charge, offendi,' said Jabba. He bowed again.
'My tent is your tent,' he said.
'It is?' said Vimes.
'My wives are your wives ...'
Vimes looked panicky. 'They are? Really?'
'My food is your food...' Jabbar went on.
Vimes stared down at the dish by the fire. It looked like a sheep or a
goad had been the main course. And the man bent down, picked up a
morsel and handed it to him.
Vimes looked at the mouthful. And it looked back.
'The best part,' said Jabbar, and made appreciative sucking noises. He
added something in Klatchian. There was muffled laughter from the
other men round the fire.
'This looks like a sheep's eyeball,' said Vimes, doubtfully.
'Yes sir,' said Carrot. 'But it is unwise to ---'
'You know what?' Vimes went on. 'I think this is a little game called
"Let's see what offendi will swallow." And I'm not swallowing this, my
friend.'
Jabbar gavw him an appraising look.
The sniggering stopped.
'Then it is true that you can see further than most,' he said.
'So can this food, said Vimes. 'My father told me never to eat anything
that could wink back.'
There was one of those _hanging-by-a-thread_ moments, which might
suddenly rock one way or the other into a gale of laughter or sudden
death.
Then Jabbar slapped Vimes on the back. The eyeball shot off his palm
and into the shadows.
'Well done! Extremely good! First time it have not worked in twenty
year. Now sit down and have proper rice and sheep like mother!'
Steve
Richard Hutnik
Explain to me who murdered who? Are you saying the murdered people
are Iraqis, and the U.S troops murdered them?
Are you sure you are right wing? Your post looks like a wacked out
leftwinger making fun of right wing complaints.
- Richard Hutnik
Robert Henderson
LETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>>
>> Billy, he is seriously dim. Did you watch him closely when he was in
>> the primary school reading My Pet Goat? RH
>>
>******************
>So he was in a primary school reading a primary school book?
Not exactly reading it, more vacantly staring at it. Like Archie Rice in
the Entertainer he's "Dead behind the eyes, lady, dead behind the eyes".
RH
>Many politicians do that sort of thing.
Not stare in bewilderment like that. RH
Get out on the ground in NY to lead from the front. That is what any
great pr3esident would have done. RH
Robert Henderson
<stephe...@ntlworld.com> writes
>Thank you for the Robert Service reference. I'd not heard of him before.
Not heard of Robert Service? And you an Eng Lit graduate? RH
Halberd
> In article <2lgpadF...@uni-berlin.de>, Stephen Glynn
> <stephe...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>Thank you for the Robert Service reference. I'd not heard of him before.
>
> Not heard of Robert Service? And you an Eng Lit graduate? RH
I'm surprised that people haven't heard of authors and poets who were
'household names'. I blame soaps.
abelard
<stephe...@ntlworld.com>
typed:
>Thank you for the Robert Service reference. I'd not heard of him
>before.
i believe there is a certain snobbery in would-be 'academia'...
newbolt was 'one of us'.....
service merely was one of the very few poets who actually made
a considerable living from his craft.....
the anthology takes up around 3x600 page books as i recall....
if you like dolls and the ice worm cocktail....
you may well like some others....the cremation of sam magee
is a hoot if you're in the mood....and many others....i dip into
service from time to time....
there is to me much of interest...he had a full life among other factors..
much of it can be dull....and then one comes across interesting
patches...often things that don't appear in 'the best of' collections,
when what i regard as more dull items do appear there...
> The Dolls poem certainly touched on an aspect of the Great War
rest of your post read with interest as usual....
regards...
FransHals
> On 12 Jul 2004 07:40:20 -0700, frans...@hotmail.com (FransHals)
> wrote:
>
> >Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<QZuua+Aq...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> >> Michael Moore's shockumentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has the usual Moore
> >> shortcomings of a clanking right-on-ness* and a certain freedom with
> >
> >
> >Fat Moore cashes in on making movies about people who were murdered
> >then makes up lis to ry to blame people he does not like.
>>
>
>
> bush has been gleefully dancing on the bodies of the 911 dead since
> 911. You can bet that bush is down on his knees every night thanking
> God that the towers crumbled.
I think a better bet is you get down on your knees to do something
besides pray.
> With out the attack he would be nothing.
> That's why he refused to stop it.
How did Bush refuse to stop it? Is this one of Moore's fantasies?
Because Bush was reading a book to children? Was Bush supposed to
jump in a fighter jet and shoot the plane down himself?
You are delusional like Moore. Bin Laden bomb Americans SIX time snad
Ambushed us once and Clinton did NOTHING! The Sudan offered to turn
Bin Laden over TWICE and Clinon said no.
I love how the "intelligensia" fawn over Moore the fat slob.
Bob Curtin
wrote:
Intelligensia does not describe today's college professors.
Propagandists and Indoctrinators is closer, much like Jabba The Moore
himself.
Bob Curtin
billy
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:58:37 +0000 (UTC), "billy"
> <jo...@billy100.DELETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >
> >>
>
> >you implicitly support Mad Saddam by complaining of him being "removed".
>
*****************
Definition of "implicitly"
Implied though not directly expressed.
Therefore, the fact that you complain about the Americans disposing of Mad
Saddam "implies" that you do not think he should have been disposed.
In this, you thereby "support" him staying in is dictatorial position.
However:
I would not expect a person (you) who condones paedophilia, necrophilia,
cannibalism, sadistic brutality and human sacrifice to really understand
what his postings imply.
*******************
billy
thought
> >could happen and had never experienced in America) and he went where? To
> >seek advice? To have a conference in camera to decide on action?
Where...?
>
> Get out on the ground in NY to lead from the front. That is what any
> great pr3esident would have done. RH
>
> Robert Henderson
********************
All this "the look in his eyes" and "the way he stared" is all subjective
and could be interpreted anyway to suit a person's bias - as Mad Moore did
to suit his.
Anyway, one could not imagine a greater act of "leading from the front" when
George W declared war on Mad Saddam - in spite of all the devious objections
of Russia, France and Germany who were owed a lot of money by Mad Saddam.
*********************
billy
"Fed Up" <returnt...@MtEverest.peak> wrote in message
news:bhBIc.1728$_s2.20...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> "billy" <jo...@billy100.DELETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ccujgd$bfc$9...@titan.btinternet.com...
> > > Billy, he is seriously dim. Did you watch him closely when he was in
> > > the primary school reading My Pet Goat? RH
> > >
> >
Doing nothing about it?
What did you expect him to do? Rebuild the towers and resurrect the Islamic
fanatics from the dead and arrest them?
He has cleared out Afghanistan and destroyed it as a training base for other
"adventures" and also held down many of the murderous fanatics now raging in
Iraq (who would now be attacking more American cities if they were not in
Iraq).
If Clinton would have been in charge, he would still be in his cupboard with
Monica.
******************