mental and emotional cowardice is the key....
abelard
i have wondered and studied long to understand the effete, mindless
and soul-less left.....
i have wondered how often apparently intelligent people could embrace
a cult that has so little to offer.....
or as keynes put it in 1926...
"Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of
Opinion - how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so
powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and, through
them, the events of history."
by watching in great detail the behaviour of many who subscribe to the
nonsense....i am at last beginning to have some idea of the real
driving forces behind joining cult socialism...
in my view the over-arching drive is *cowardice*....it is a cowardice
brought on by living lives wrapped in cotton wool with no serious
pressures to produce or take *real* responsibilities.....
over-grown children protected from birth from the real world by a
powerful civilisation and the rule of law.....
unfortunately this tends to reduce people who appear from their years
and physical bulk to be 'adults', but remain squalling children in a
nursery, expecting their every wish and desire to be supplied by
mummy in the guise of the state.....
it has been observed that middle-class people raised in complex societies
to complex philosophies and religions are the most vulnerable to
cults...after years of exams and pressure the cults offer them a
simplistic world view where to their relief they no longer have the
pressure to think and learn...
the cult plays on the idealism of the young raised in such an environment,
tells them conformity to the group makes them 'special' and 'caring'
while taking the responsibility and stress of making decisions out of
their lives...
this mindset at the heart of the socialist dream also reduces populations
to a mental and physical slavery.....strangely, it is those under the
full developed socialist dictatorships of soviet russia and irak who
end up developing the guts to oppose and fight for freedom.....
it is the christianist right with the emphasis on individual
responsibility, that fights to free the enslaved, while the
socialists of the west under socialism lite wander slowly towards the
abattoirs of the unfree states that are the *inevitable* outcome of
socialism....
the mindless societies where 'personality' is expressed in fashionable
(that is copied conformity) clothes, musac and slack, pre-formed,
cliched 'opinions'....
another expression of cowardice in the drive to conform.....
just as socialism preys on the children of middle-class strivers, so also
the jihadi cult masters masters with their political ambitions trade
a form of islam lite to the drones of the middle east, an 'islam'
where mayhem and murder are no longer forbidden but encouraged
and advocated.....another fashionable route to 'being special' without
serious work or study....
little wonder the two cults are now joined at the hip...
as you will see from the outline caricature in the hanson article below...
these people do not care for the poor, the oppressed or uneducated....
they do not *do* anything productive or meaningful for others....
instead they just whine and caterwaul when brave and more caring
people do *act*
i was particularly interested to note the pseudo-outrage of the left at
the 'emotionalism' on the death of 'princess' diana....you see diana
actually did *act* in a caring manner, visiting the sick, being open
hearted and working against the mines that blew off the legs of the
poor and disenfranchised.....
now, why is this?
i think it is because a person like diana shows up the cowardly would-be
cosmopolitan left....while the masses respond to a generous and caring
person....
the left wish to talk a good fight...but want nothing of the real, nasty,
dirty world from which they cocoon themselves in suburbia.....
they simply don't care about the suffering in an irak....they just wish
to pretend to care....
i am amazed by how often the left accuse those who are brave and
who do act of 'cowardice'.....i think this is a large key to their
behaviour....
i believe they are projecting their own cowardice upon others in order
to distract attention from their own real behaviour....
all the obvious dishonesty and inconsistency in their 'arguments'....all
the contradictory reasons for leaving the irakis in the shit....all
stem from a fear that *they* may be expected to act rather that lie
around in their protected cotton-wool world without and responsibility
let alone any request, let alone that they get off their steadily
expanding bottoms and act to help others...or even be taxed that
others with more guts continue to protect their narrow selfish 'lives'
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson020405.html
"Perhaps the result of this frustration is that European intellectuals
damn the United States for action in Iraq, but lament that they could do
nothing in the Balkans. Democrats at home talk of the need for idealism
abroad, but fear the dirty road of war that sometimes is part of that
bargain - thus the retreat into "democracy is good, BUT..." So here we
have the global throng that focuses on one purported American crime to the
next, as it simmers in the luxury of its privilege, education, and
sophistication - and exhibits little power, new ideas, intellectual
seriousness, or relevance.
In this context, the Iraqi elections were surely poorly attended, or
illegitimate, or ruined by violence, or irrelevant, or staged by America -
or almost anything other than a result of a brave, very risky, and costly
effort by the United States military to destroy a fascist regime and offer
something better in its place."
######
meanwhile the real world of among the un parasites who spend so much time
whining about the freeing of irak....while being involved in the vast
theft of money from the iraki people...
these of course are the self same people the lefties want to be taken as
the legitimate 'moral' authority.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=3BVGI3SCFQVBBQFIQMFCM5OAVCBQYJVC?xml=/opinion/2005/02/06/do0604.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/02/06/ixop.html
"If Paul Volcker's preliminary report on Oil-for-Food dealt with the
organisation's unofficial interests, the UN's other report of the week
accurately captured their blithe insouciance to their official one. As you
may have noticed, the good people of Darfur have been fortunate enough not
to attract the attention of the arrogant cowboy unilateralist Bush and
have instead fallen under the care of the Polly Toynbee-Clare
Short-approved multilateral compassion set. So, after months of expressing
deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave
concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan managed to
persuade the UN to set up a committee to look into what's going on in
Darfur. They've just reported back that it's not genocide.
That's great news, isn't it? For as yet another Annan-appointed UN
committee boldly declared in December: "Genocide anywhere is a threat to
the security of all and should never be tolerated." So thank goodness this
isn't genocide. Instead, it's just 70,000 corpses who all happen to be
from the same ethnic group - which means the UN can go on tolerating it
until everyone's dead, and Polly and Clare don't have to worry their
pretty little heads about it."
regards....
related item
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist_religion.htm
links thanx to tas blog....
http://www.aoiko.net/mind/diary.asp
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,150,913 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolseley 6-80
news:h14d01lcp2kvf8780...@4ax.com...
>
> i have wondered and studied long to understand the effete, mindless
> and soul-less left.....
> i have wondered how often apparently intelligent people could embrace
> a cult that has so little to offer.....
>
abelard
typed:
that is probably all to the good....
i take no great joy in disturbing children....
the post is directed to the more thoughtful and intelligent reader.....
it is a useful filter that means i am not pressed into dealing with the
mindless tendency....from them one learns little and gains nothing
Harold
<wotanesque drivel snipped>
I think you should have used lots of capital letters and many more
'MARXISTS' for that posts and signed it Wotan.
<Cue Cuckoo Wrass impersonation>
Harold
Long on words. Short on content. The BNP I'm afraid.
Chris X
"Harold" <gr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cu65hb$pp5$2...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Wolseley 6-80 wrote:
>
>> "abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>> news:h14d01lcp2kvf8780...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>i have wondered and studied long to understand the effete, mindless
>>> and soul-less left.....
>>>i have wondered how often apparently intelligent people could embrace
>>> a cult that has so little to offer.....
>>>
>>
>> Too long & boring to read I'm afraid.
Uncle Abie never has understood the concept of "Less is more".
> Long on words. Short on content. The BNP I'm afraid.
Abelard is nothing to do with the British National Party, and for that we're
eternally grateful.
Harold
That tend to reinforce the view that you are a mole intent on wrecking.
You are doing a first class job.
john browne
astounding.
David Platt
john browne wrote:
> Well worth reading, the similarities between Abe and his life work are
> astounding.
Exactly. As if this sad excuse for a man has ever stood up and fought
for anything in his entire life.
Ian Bailey
He's stood up for being a pompous old twat who drones on and on and on
about socialists until he foams at the mouth and falls over backwards.
Ian
Joe Hutcheon
> the 'emotionalism' on the death of 'princess' diana....
Surely the objection was to the 'emotionalism' of the people 'mourning' the
death of someone they never knew, rather than a criticism of Diana herself?
Indeed, such 'mourning' with its accompanying teaddy bears and floral
tributes, was surely an example of the sort of infantilism you condemn in
others?
you see diana
> actually did *act* in a caring manner, visiting the sick, being open
> hearted and working against the mines that blew off the legs of the
> poor and disenfranchised.....
This is rich, coming from someone who supported the US blowing the legs,
heads and other limbs off Iraqis!
abelard
typed:
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:h14d01lcp2kvf8780...@4ax.com...
>> i was particularly interested to note the pseudo-outrage of the left at
>> the 'emotionalism' on the death of 'princess' diana....
>
>Surely the objection was to the 'emotionalism' of the people 'mourning' the
>death of someone they never knew, rather than a criticism of Diana herself?
i am moving to the view that these justification for 'criticism' do not
relate to reality...
it is very easy to construct excuses to justify 'criticism'....
you will note a catalogue of such excuses for not removing madsam
in the accompanying hanson item....
what is particularly interesting (to me) is both the contradictory and the
irrational nature of those excuses....
my case is not built merely upon the diana fest but upon studying much
detail over a long period.....
it interests me that apparently otherwise intelligent people can put
forward 'reasons' for their opposition that are incredibly obvious
bullshit....
this is far different from not understanding sommat or making some error
of fact or logic
there is obviously a dog which isn't barking...although the proposers
of the excuses are!
i have wondered long and hard how much is due to conformity....imbibing
the fossil press or whatever....
i have wondered if there were many different reasons.....but on testing
these variants the only consistent reading i can make is unfortunately
'cowardice'....
i mean to make no slighting reference to cowardice....after all as shaw
puts it....
"As an old soldier I admit the cowardice: it’s as universal as sea
sickness, and matters just as little." 1903
but i must add from my own perspective not facing cowardice i do
regard as 'character flaw' in the sense of being non-survival fit
>Indeed, such 'mourning' with its accompanying teaddy bears and floral
>tributes, was surely an example of the sort of infantilism you condemn in
>others?
i don't even 'condemn' the cowardice.....i do regard it as 'immaturity' in
'adults'....
however, 'cowardice' is far more dangerous to a modern civilisation that
a little wallowing in unhappiness or maybe looked at otherwise...the
semi-maudlin celebration of a 'good caring life'
in the case of diana what was impressive was the wish to denigrate her
because she was 'rich' or 'dressed well' or had holidays....
imv driven far more by envy that reasonable comment.....
>you see diana
>> actually did *act* in a caring manner, visiting the sick, being open
>> hearted and working against the mines that blew off the legs of the
>> poor and disenfranchised.....
>
>This is rich, coming from someone who supported the US blowing the legs,
>heads and other limbs off Iraqis!
don't struggle....it is undignified....
regards....
Joe Hutcheon
I think you're just plain wrong. Being a conscientious objector in WW1 was
actually quite dangerous (as indeed was opposing Britain's invlovement in
the Boer War some 15 years previously. It's actually very easy to support
war if you're not actually going to be out there fighting or having bombs
dropped on you. It has little to do with 'cowardice', plenty to do with
deciding whether or not a situation warrants war, with all its unintended
consquences.
> i mean to make no slighting reference to cowardice....after all as shaw
> puts it....
>
> "As an old soldier I admit the cowardice: it's as universal as sea
> sickness, and matters just as little." 1903
>
> but i must add from my own perspective not facing cowardice i do
> regard as 'character flaw' in the sense of being non-survival fit
How do you display bravery?
> >Indeed, such 'mourning' with its accompanying teaddy bears and floral
> >tributes, was surely an example of the sort of infantilism you condemn in
> >others?
>
> i don't even 'condemn' the cowardice.....i do regard it as 'immaturity' in
> 'adults'....
> however, 'cowardice' is far more dangerous to a modern civilisation that
> a little wallowing in unhappiness or maybe looked at otherwise...the
> semi-maudlin celebration of a 'good caring life'
'Semi-maudlin' indeed! It was way over the top.
> in the case of diana what was impressive was the wish to denigrate her
> because she was 'rich' or 'dressed well' or had holidays....
> imv driven far more by envy that reasonable comment.....
She was a 'poor little rich girl', floundering around in a world she didn't
really understand. My criticism would be aimed more at Charles for marrying
someone he didn't really care for, and for not marrying someone he *did*
care for, than at Diana who was more sinned against than sinning..
> >you see diana
> >> actually did *act* in a caring manner, visiting the sick, being
open
> >> hearted and working against the mines that blew off the legs of the
> >> poor and disenfranchised.....
> >
> >This is rich, coming from someone who supported the US blowing the legs,
> >heads and other limbs off Iraqis!
>
> don't struggle....it is undignified....
You think Diana would have supported the war had she lived? I expect, having
seen the effect bombs can have at first hand, she would have opposed it.
abelard
typed:
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>> i am moving to the view that these justification for 'criticism' do not
>> relate to reality...
>> it is very easy to construct excuses to justify 'criticism'....
>>
>> you will note a catalogue of such excuses for not removing madsam
>> in the accompanying hanson item....
>> what is particularly interesting (to me) is both the contradictory and the
>> irrational nature of those excuses....
>>
>> my case is not built merely upon the diana fest but upon studying much
>> detail over a long period.....
>> it interests me that apparently otherwise intelligent people can put
>> forward 'reasons' for their opposition that are incredibly obvious
>> bullshit....
>> this is far different from not understanding sommat or making some error
>> of fact or logic
>> there is obviously a dog which isn't barking...although the proposers
>> of the excuses are!
>>
>> i have wondered long and hard how much is due to conformity....imbibing
>> the fossil press or whatever....
>> i have wondered if there were many different reasons.....but on testing
>> these variants the only consistent reading i can make is unfortunately
>> 'cowardice'....
>
>I think you're just plain wrong. Being a conscientious objector in WW1 was
>actually quite dangerous (as indeed was opposing Britain's invlovement in
>the Boer War some 15 years previously.
it is no longer 1914....
further....by 1917 i would have though being a conchie was a balance
of risks....
> It's actually very easy to support
>war if you're not actually going to be out there fighting or having bombs
>dropped on you.
is it?
> It has little to do with 'cowardice', plenty to do with
>deciding whether or not a situation warrants war, with all its unintended
>consquences.
but the central point is that is not the way most are arguing it.....
neither are those who are arguing it engaging in much analysis.....
just constant repetitions not backed by any reasoning.....
but....
they are attempting to back it with arrant nonsense....
it is reasons like this that have my attention....
things would be of a different sort of interest if the dork tendency
argued anything even marginally persuasive.....mostly they do not....
when they do...and they are in error....they don't usually withdraw from
the false claims....
>> i mean to make no slighting reference to cowardice....after all as shaw
>> puts it....
>>
>> "As an old soldier I admit the cowardice: it's as universal as sea
>> sickness, and matters just as little." 1903
>>
>> but i must add from my own perspective not facing cowardice i do
>> regard as 'character flaw' in the sense of being non-survival fit
>
>How do you display bravery?
do something you which frightens you because you deem it 'right'.....
often sommat as simple as standing apart from a crowd....or perhaps
a preparedness to have the chickens cackling around the place....
very obviously flying fighter jets or going into fallujah are possible
indicators....
you can no more be sure an individual is 'a coward' than you can read
minds at large...
that is why the negativism to freeing irak or even the responses to diana
have interested me to the extent of applying much time and effort to
understanding the responses....
i wish to understand clearly irrational behaviour...especially in people
who are not entirely dumb....
>> >Indeed, such 'mourning' with its accompanying teaddy bears and floral
>> >tributes, was surely an example of the sort of infantilism you condemn in
>> >others?
>>
>> i don't even 'condemn' the cowardice.....i do regard it as 'immaturity' in
>> 'adults'....
>> however, 'cowardice' is far more dangerous to a modern civilisation that
>> a little wallowing in unhappiness or maybe looked at otherwise...the
>> semi-maudlin celebration of a 'good caring life'
>
>'Semi-maudlin' indeed! It was way over the top.
it's a pov....
perhaps you mean the scale of the event....a matter essentially of numbers
....was 'over the top'.....
or perhaps you mean a few thousand queueing up to make their mark in
some book....as for the latter....any society has a ration of idiots..
>> in the case of diana what was impressive was the wish to denigrate her
>> because she was 'rich' or 'dressed well' or had holidays....
>> imv driven far more by envy that reasonable comment.....
>
>She was a 'poor little rich girl', floundering around in a world she didn't
>really understand.
not the impression i got....
she had a great deal more impact than most people...she focussed that
impact....she did rather a lot to bring her dumb in-laws down to
earth...she refused to curl up in the face of the firm.....
all that despite considerable youth and pressures....
she even dressed with some style and grace even before being caught
up with dim bat ears....look at the old photos....
she was working and moving towards a carers job in before being caught
in the machine....
i see very little 'floundering' or lack of real world grasp.....
aids and mines are very real world....so is the dysfunctional lot down the
mall....
> My criticism would be aimed more at Charles for marrying
>someone he didn't really care for, and for not marrying someone he *did*
>care for, than at Diana who was more sinned against than sinning..
but she climbed out of that steadily against all the pressures....
charles has less brains than a horse....he is one great big sham....
diana, despite her youth, made her bed and lay upon it.....
there is little sign of whining....though there was an element of
venom of the woman scorned towards the end.....
that imv is a character weakness....but that is the only one
that immediately comes to my remembrance.....
however, i emphasise...my interest is more upon the irrational
reactions to her....and irrational reactions to the 'nation in
mourning' reaction to her end....
>> >you see diana
>> >> actually did *act* in a caring manner, visiting the sick, being
>open
>> >> hearted and working against the mines that blew off the legs of the
>> >> poor and disenfranchised.....
>> >
>> >This is rich, coming from someone who supported the US blowing the legs,
>> >heads and other limbs off Iraqis!
>>
>> don't struggle....it is undignified....
>
>You think Diana would have supported the war had she lived?
i have no idea...
> I expect, having
>seen the effect bombs can have at first hand, she would have opposed it.
that is (or would be) irrational.....
war is a matter of the lesser of evils....
anybody knows was is a considerable evil.....
though there is....
"It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it."
attributed to robert e lee 1862
regards...
Joseph Hutcheon
In article <od5f01ttn0go9mmmc...@4ax.com>, abelard
<abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 16:18:37 -0000, "Joe Hutcheon" <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>>
>>> i don't even 'condemn' the cowardice.....i do regard it as 'immaturity' in
>>> 'adults'....
>>> however, 'cowardice' is far more dangerous to a modern civilisation that
>>> a little wallowing in unhappiness or maybe looked at otherwise...the
>>> semi-maudlin celebration of a 'good caring life'
>>
>>'Semi-maudlin' indeed! It was way over the top.
>
> it's a pov....
> perhaps you mean the scale of the event....a matter essentially of numbers
> ....was 'over the top'.....
Indeed.
> or perhaps you mean a few thousand queueing up to make their mark in
> some book....as for the latter....any society has a ration of idiots..
That too.
>
>>> in the case of diana what was impressive was the wish to denigrate her
>>> because she was 'rich' or 'dressed well' or had holidays....
>>> imv driven far more by envy that reasonable comment.....
>>
>>She was a 'poor little rich girl', floundering around in a world she didn't
>>really understand.
>
> not the impression i got....
> she had a great deal more impact than most people...she focussed that
> impact....she did rather a lot to bring her dumb in-laws down to
> earth...she refused to curl up in the face of the firm.....
> all that despite considerable youth and pressures....
> she even dressed with some style and grace even before being caught
> up with dim bat ears....look at the old photos....
> she was working and moving towards a carers job in before being caught
> in the machine....
She was working at a nursery school IIRC, but I don't think this was ever
meant to be other than a stop-gap job.
> i see very little 'floundering' or lack of real world grasp.....
> aids and mines are very real world....so is the dysfunctional lot down the
> mall....
Oh sure, though the way she handled her personal life post-divorce suggests
a lack of common sense, to put it mildly.
>> My criticism would be aimed more at Charles for marrying
>>someone he didn't really care for, and for not marrying someone he *did*
>>care for, than at Diana who was more sinned against than sinning..
>
> but she climbed out of that steadily against all the pressures....
> charles has less brains than a horse....he is one great big sham....
> diana, despite her youth, made her bed and lay upon it.....
>
> there is little sign of whining....though there was an element of
> venom of the woman scorned towards the end.....
> that imv is a character weakness....but that is the only one
> that immediately comes to my remembrance.....
There was also the reliance on various 'therapists' of dubious value.
> however, i emphasise...my interest is more upon the irrational
> reactions to her....and irrational reactions to the 'nation in
> mourning' reaction to her end....
Well, those most opposed to Diana seem to fall into 3 main categories:
1. Hard-line monarchists who felt she had 'let the side down'
2. Moralists who felt she behaved badly by having several affairs
3. Anti-monarchists in general (though Diana's most avid supporter on this
group is a Marxist!)
No clear left/right split there. I'd say women and gay men tended to
support Diana rather than Charles, and that older people were more likely to
disapprove of her conduct than younger people. But I think you're
misreading the reaction to her death on political lines, when it was
essentially a non-political matter.
light
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:14:47 -0000, "Joe Hutcheon" <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>
>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>news:h14d01lcp2kvf8780...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>i was particularly interested to note the pseudo-outrage of the left at
>>> the 'emotionalism' on the death of 'princess' diana....
>>
>>Surely the objection was to the 'emotionalism' of the people 'mourning' the
>>death of someone they never knew, rather than a criticism of Diana herself?
>
>
> i am moving to the view that these justification for 'criticism' do not
> relate to reality...
> it is very easy to construct excuses to justify 'criticism'....
>
> you will note a catalogue of such excuses for not removing madsam
> in the accompanying hanson item....
> what is particularly interesting (to me) is both the contradictory and the
> irrational nature of those excuses....
What is particularly interesting (to me) is both the contradictory and
the irrational nature of those who use words to obscure truth, as you do
on so many occasions here. Hanson's article does likewise. Neither of
you make any mention of how Saddam came to power, no mention of Al Bakr
- in fact no groundwork or historical perspective at all... Typical of
those who funnel and filter their 'opinions' from Murdoch-dominated
sources...
You must have been particularly bored to even start such a meaningless
thread...
[snip]
As for cowardice, how do you view the likes of Chavez, Martin Luther
King, Senator Wellstone that was, etc ad inf throughout the ages? All
men who have stood against capitalist greed to aid the poor and
disadvantaged. Odd how they all end up being hounded to death by the
powers that be, don't you think?
L
Certic
Do put down your back issues of Lobster and try and pay attention.
--
You are Not entering Chapeltown.
We walk on two legs, the one abstract
the other surreal.
They that can give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
abelard
<joseph....@virgin.net>
typed:
>
>In article <od5f01ttn0go9mmmc...@4ax.com>, abelard
>> she was working and moving towards a carers job in before being caught
>> in the machine....
>
>She was working at a nursery school IIRC, but I don't think this was ever
>meant to be other than a stop-gap job.
but her latter interests remained consistent
>> i see very little 'floundering' or lack of real world grasp.....
>> aids and mines are very real world....so is the dysfunctional lot down the
>> mall....
>
>Oh sure, though the way she handled her personal life post-divorce suggests
>a lack of common sense, to put it mildly.
yes....but that is, shall i put it thus....culturaly common!
>>> My criticism would be aimed more at Charles for marrying
>>>someone he didn't really care for, and for not marrying someone he *did*
>>>care for, than at Diana who was more sinned against than sinning..
>>
>> but she climbed out of that steadily against all the pressures....
>> charles has less brains than a horse....he is one great big sham....
>> diana, despite her youth, made her bed and lay upon it.....
>>
>> there is little sign of whining....though there was an element of
>> venom of the woman scorned towards the end.....
>> that imv is a character weakness....but that is the only one
>> that immediately comes to my remembrance.....
>
>There was also the reliance on various 'therapists' of dubious value.
poor judgement that is currently widespread in the culture...
even uk courts commonly err thus....let alone the us....
>> however, i emphasise...my interest is more upon the irrational
>> reactions to her....and irrational reactions to the 'nation in
>> mourning' reaction to her end....
>
>Well, those most opposed to Diana seem to fall into 3 main categories:
>
>1. Hard-line monarchists who felt she had 'let the side down'
ho ho ho....they would though wouldn't they....
>2. Moralists who felt she behaved badly by having several affairs
so would they!
>3. Anti-monarchists in general (though Diana's most avid supporter on this
>group is a Marxist!)
he wants a 'revolution'!
>No clear left/right split there. I'd say women and gay men tended to
>support Diana rather than Charles, and that older people were more likely to
>disapprove of her conduct than younger people. But I think you're
>misreading the reaction to her death on political lines, when it was
>essentially a non-political matter.
with your comments above...'non-political' seems out the window and
down the lift shaft!
however, it is the driving motives behind foolish attack or defence that
interests me rather than having to label it 'political' or otherwise..
i chose the diana fest more because the responders argued irrationally
according to their own hang-ups rather than to any merit or demerits
intrinsic to the happenings....
imv that is what is going down over irak......
over irak the 'excuses' are so outrageous/irrational....*and* repetitive
that i have been interested in the driving emotion.....
in the main i now think i have a grasp of that.....
as usual i have been very patient in reaching any tentative view....
i now have a view!
Certic
> and soul-less left.....
> i have wondered how often apparently intelligent people could
embrace
> a cult that has so little to offer.....
Why "effete" exactly? You probably don't really have any reason...
it's simply one of those buzzwords you use. The East Germans used to
use it about the British establishment, curiously enough; all
oppressors or would-be oppressors like to question the sexual
proclivities of their opponents.
--------
> or as keynes put it in 1926...
> "Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of
> Opinion - how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised
so
> powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and,
through
> them, the events of history."
Keynes was, as anyone who has studied 20th century history past the
age of 14 knows, a socialist himself. He was talking about Marxism as
an economic system as conceived by 19th century Marxists specifically.
Odd that an arch capitalist such as yourself would quote Keynes,
although less odd if you have no idea who he was.
--------
> by watching in great detail the behaviour of many who subscribe to
the
> nonsense....i am at last beginning to have some idea of the real
> driving forces behind joining cult socialism...
This use of the word "cult" is very odd. It evokes an idea of tight
control and close connexions; ocialism is rather too broad a church to
be a "cult". In a British context, even suggesting Roy Hattersley and
Arthur Scargill as members of the the same "cult" seems eccentric.
--------
> in my view the over-arching drive is *cowardice*....it is a
cowardice
> brought on by living lives wrapped in cotton wool with no
serious
> pressures to produce or take *real* responsibilities.....
> over-grown children protected from birth from the real world by a
> powerful civilisation and the rule of law.....
If this were true, then, we would expect only the wealthy and
privileged in the richest nations to be influenced by socialism. We
would find an inverse relationship between poverty and left politics.
How strange that we find the reverse to be true.
--------
> unfortunately this tends to reduce people who appear from their
years
> and physical bulk to be 'adults', but remain squalling children
in a
> nursery, expecting their every wish and desire to be supplied
by
> mummy in the guise of the state.....
>
> it has been observed that middle-class people raised in complex
societies
> to complex philosophies and religions are the most vulnerable to
> cults...after years of exams and pressure the cults offer them a
> simplistic world view where to their relief they no longer have
the
> pressure to think and learn...
Well, suppose you're a cult. A real one, that is, like the Moonies or
the Scientologists, because we don't want to suddenly switch from
"cult" in a metaphorical sense to "cult" in a literal sense, as you
have just tried to do. Your objective is to make lots of money for
leadership. Now, will you do this by recruiting poor kids? Of course
not. You target the wealthy ones with indulgent parents, the better
the milk them dry. Not hard.
--------
> the cult plays on the idealism of the young raised in such an
environment,
> tells them conformity to the group makes them 'special' and
'caring'
> while taking the responsibility and stress of making decisions
out of
> their lives...
>
> this mindset at the heart of the socialist dream also reduces
populations
> to a mental and physical slavery.....strangely, it is those
under the
> full developed socialist dictatorships of soviet russia and
irak who
> end up developing the guts to oppose and fight for freedom.....
> it is the christianist right with the emphasis on individual
> responsibility, that fights to free the enslaved, while the
> socialists of the west under socialism lite wander slowly
towards the
> abattoirs of the unfree states that are the *inevitable*
outcome of
> socialism....
Meaningless sub-Patrick Pearse rhetoric aside, how does the relgious
right place any emphasis on individual responsibility? Everything they
do from campaigning against abortion, to campaigning against rock
music, to campaigning against nudity on television, to trying to force
schoolchildren to be taught superstition over science, reveals a
belief that the individual is weak and corruptible and must be
insulated from dangerous ideas.
--------
> the mindless societies where 'personality' is expressed in
fashionable
> (that is copied conformity) clothes, musac and slack,
pre-formed,
> cliched 'opinions'....
> another expression of cowardice in the drive to conform.....
Here you wander off at a tangent... the fashion and music industries
are now socialist?
--------
> just as socialism preys on the children of middle-class strivers, so
also
> the jihadi cult masters masters with their political ambitions
trade
> a form of islam lite to the drones of the middle east, an
'islam'
> where mayhem and murder are no longer forbidden but encouraged
> and advocated.....another fashionable route to 'being special'
without
> serious work or study....
> little wonder the two cults are now joined at the hip...
And how is this precisely? The USSR was apparently the epitome of
socialism. Was it "joined at the hip" then, to the mujahideen fighters
who ejected it from Afghanistan with NATO military assistance? How
have things changed since that time? More basely fantasising with no
facts.
--------
> as you will see from the outline caricature in the hanson article
below...
> these people do not care for the poor, the oppressed or
uneducated....
> they do not *do* anything productive or meaningful for others....
> instead they just whine and caterwaul when brave and more caring
> people do *act*
>
> i was particularly interested to note the pseudo-outrage of the left
at
> the 'emotionalism' on the death of 'princess' diana....you see
diana
> actually did *act* in a caring manner, visiting the sick, being
open
> hearted and working against the mines that blew off the legs of
the
> poor and disenfranchised.....
The weirdness grows and grows. Princess Diana, an aristocrat, a member
of the British royal family, is now a Che Guevara for our times...
-------
> now, why is this?
> i think it is because a person like diana shows up the cowardly
would-be
> cosmopolitan left....while the masses respond to a generous and
caring
> person....
> the left wish to talk a good fight...but want nothing of the real,
nasty,
> dirty world from which they cocoon themselves in suburbia.....
>
> they simply don't care about the suffering in an irak....they just
wish
> to pretend to care....
> i am amazed by how often the left accuse those who are brave and
> who do act of 'cowardice'.....i think this is a large key to
their
> behaviour....
Is there no letter Q on your keyboard?
--------
> i believe they are projecting their own cowardice upon others in
order
> to distract attention from their own real behaviour....
> all the obvious dishonesty and inconsistency in their
'arguments'....all
> the contradictory reasons for leaving the irakis in the
shit....all
> stem from a fear that *they* may be expected to act rather that
lie
> around in their protected cotton-wool world without and
responsibility
>
> let alone any request, let alone that they get off their steadily
> expanding bottoms and act to help others...or even be taxed
that
> others with more guts continue to protect their narrow selfish
'lives'
...and now socialists are those who don't want to raise taxes. The
circle of barminess is complete. Move over, David Icke.
It looks like an intelligent article, until you actually read it.
abelard
typed:
>abelard wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:14:47 -0000, "Joe Hutcheon" <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>
>>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>>news:h14d01lcp2kvf8780...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>i was particularly interested to note the pseudo-outrage of the left at
>>>> the 'emotionalism' on the death of 'princess' diana....
>>>
>>>Surely the objection was to the 'emotionalism' of the people 'mourning' the
>>>death of someone they never knew, rather than a criticism of Diana herself?
>>
>>
>> i am moving to the view that these justification for 'criticism' do not
>> relate to reality...
>> it is very easy to construct excuses to justify 'criticism'....
>>
>> you will note a catalogue of such excuses for not removing madsam
>> in the accompanying hanson item....
>> what is particularly interesting (to me) is both the contradictory and the
>> irrational nature of those excuses....
>
>What is particularly interesting (to me) is both the contradictory and
>the irrational nature of those who use words to obscure truth, as you do
>on so many occasions here. Hanson's article does likewise.
leave it out!
> Neither of
>you make any mention of how Saddam came to power, no mention of Al Bakr
i make no comment because i regard it as water under the bridge and
irrelevant to 2005...
>- in fact no groundwork or historical perspective at all... Typical of
>those who funnel and filter their 'opinions' from Murdoch-dominated
>sources...
g'wan....do leave it out....
you are not presenting arguments....just rattling the bars of your mental
cage....you won't even get a banana that way....
>You must have been particularly bored to even start such a meaningless
>thread...
not at all....such things are very close to my main interests....
watching the feedback from people is a major data source.....
>As for cowardice, how do you view the likes of Chavez, Martin Luther
>King, Senator Wellstone that was, etc ad inf throughout the ages? All
>men who have stood against capitalist greed to aid the poor and
>disadvantaged.
the only requirement for the triumph of evil is that good people do
nothing....there are many good people and they fit no stereotype....
>Odd how they all end up being hounded to death by the
>powers that be, don't you think?
i take no view on such matters other than on a one by one basis and
on investigations.....
i do not keep a conspiracies file.....
history tend to show that any person who does not look or bleat like
a standard sheep will invite hassle....
and if they are too effective they may meet danger.....
imv anyone who does that knowingly, shows courage....whether their
campaign are well considered or not....
quite often it takes history to distinguish the merit of such campaigns...
though the more able of such campaigners tend to think long and hard
and study incessantly to cross check their own judgement....
this also is a form of courage, let alone dedication....
having a bee in the bonnet is insufficient...
imv there is no merit in courting danger for shallow reasons....
only a fool courts martyrdom....a courageous person faces it however
when judgement suggest the alternative is to be a dog or a sheep....
get yourself a copy of 'a man for all seasons' (possibly the written play
also)....the much better zinnermann-scofield version....
watch it and read it regularly....
quote therefrom....>>
MORE Then it's a poor argument to call it "neat," Meg. When a man takes an
oath, Meg, he's holding his own self in his own hands. Like water. (He
cups his hands) And if he opens his fingers then-he needn't hope to find
himself again. Some men aren't capable of this, but I'd be loathe to think
your father one of them.
MARGARET In any State that was half good, you would be raised up high, not
here, for what you've done already. It's not your fault the State's
three-quarters bad. Then if you elect to suffer for it, you elect yourself
a hero.
MORE That's very neat. But look now . . . If we lived in a State where
virtue was profitable, common sense would make us good, and greed would
make us saintly. And we'd live like animals or angels in the happy land
that needs no heroes. But since in fact we see that avarice, anger, envy,
pride, sloth, lust and stupidity commonly profit far beyond humility,
chastity, fortitude, justice and thought, and have to choose, to be human
at all . . . why then perhaps we must stand fast a little-even at the risk
of being heroes.
MARGARET (Emotionally) But in reason! Haven't you done as much as God can
reasonably want?
MORE Well . . . finally . . . it isn't a matter of reason; finally it's a
matter of love.
ALICE (Hostile) You're content, then, to be shut up here with mice and
rats when you might be home with us!
MORE (Flinching) Content? If they'd open a crack that wide (Between finger
and thumb) I'd be through it. (To MARGARET) Well, has Eve run out of
apples?
Aramis Gunton
<abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>> i was particularly interested to note the pseudo-outrage of the left at
>>> the 'emotionalism' on the death of 'princess' diana....
>>
>>Surely the objection was to the 'emotionalism' of the people 'mourning' the
>>death of someone they never knew, rather than a criticism of Diana herself?
>
>i am moving to the view that these justification for 'criticism' do not
> relate to reality...
Whose 'reality'???
>it is very easy to construct excuses to justify 'criticism'....
>
As it is similarly easy to carte blanche decry all proponents of
'socialism'?
>you will note a catalogue of such excuses for not removing madsam
> in the accompanying hanson item....
Do you know I had not the slightest concern for 'madsam' until it became
apparent that in his name I was deceived by my government.
I felt similar immediate indifference to the 'situation' in both the
Sudan and the Congo.
Niggers are apt to ape niggers.
>what is particularly interesting (to me) is both the contradictory and
>the
> irrational nature of those excuses....
>
'Madsam' kills umpteen Iraqis. This affects my 'council tax' in just
what dimension?
>my case is not built merely upon the diana fest but upon studying much
> detail over a long period..... it interests me that apparently
>otherwise intelligent people can put
> forward 'reasons' for their opposition that are incredibly obvious
> bullshit.... this is far different from not understanding sommat
>or making some error
> of fact or logic there is obviously a dog which isn't
>barking...although the proposers
> of the excuses are!
Master Abe. Cut that essay by 50% now!
>
>i have wondered long and hard how much is due to conformity....
Conformity is I must concede akin to social cowardice. A point to Abe!
>imbibing
> the fossil press or whatever.... i have wondered if there were many
>different reasons.....but on testing
> these variants the only consistent reading i can make is
>unfortunately
> 'cowardice'....
>
You want to share.
"Bless you my brother"
However you have that which I would covert in abundance. What if the tap
of plenty developed 'washer trouble'. My hand remains outstretched but
of late the crumbs from your table now effectively constitute your
family's 3 daily meals.
Us the dispossessed persist in our expectation of charity.
What is your liberal stance now?
>i mean to make no slighting reference to cowardice....after all as shaw
> puts it....
>
>"As an old soldier I admit the cowardice: it’s as universal as sea
>sickness, and matters just as little." 1903
>
Yeah but he was not inundated with 3rd world scum!
>but i must add from my own perspective not facing cowardice i do
> regard as 'character flaw' in the sense of being non-survival fit
>
Stroll over here and attempt to take something from me.
Your immediate demands pale into insignificance when juxtaposed against
the potential of my reality to come.
>>Indeed, such 'mourning' with its accompanying teaddy bears and floral
>>tributes, was surely an example of the sort of infantilism you condemn in
>>others?
>
>i don't even 'condemn' the cowardice.....
No quite obviously you perceive it as a by product of plentitude.
>i do regard it as 'immaturity' in
> 'adults'....
'Fat fucker' adults or 'bread line' adults????
> however, 'cowardice' is far more dangerous to a modern civilisation
>that
> a little wallowing in unhappiness or maybe looked at
>otherwise...the
> semi-maudlin celebration of a 'good caring life'
>
So you would propose an enforcement of self interest perchance?
After all the coward bequeaths all to the potential adversary as a pure
act of avoidance.
>in the case of diana what was impressive was the wish to denigrate her
> because she was 'rich' or 'dressed well' or had holidays.... imv
>driven far more by envy that reasonable comment.....
>
Most I knew simply desired to fuck her. Most f them anally!
There again I move in different [More honest??] circles than most.
>>you see diana
>>> actually did *act* in a caring manner, visiting the sick, being open
>>> hearted and working against the mines that blew off the legs of the
>>> poor and disenfranchised.....
>>
>>This is rich, coming from someone who supported the US blowing the legs,
>>heads and other limbs off Iraqis!
>
>don't struggle....it is undignified....
The cry of the prison bully with a perpetually unsated erection?
--
Aramis Gunton
abelard
typed:
>
>abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:h14d01lcp2kvf8780...@4ax.com...
>>
>> i have wondered and studied long to understand the effete, mindless
>> and soul-less left.....
>> i have wondered how often apparently intelligent people could
>embrace
>> a cult that has so little to offer.....
>--------
>Why "effete" exactly? You probably don't really have any reason...
>it's simply one of those buzzwords you use. The East Germans used to
>use it about the British establishment, curiously enough; all
>oppressors or would-be oppressors like to question the sexual
>proclivities of their opponents.
effete adj.
1feeble and incapable.
2worn out; exhausted of its essential quality or vitality.
nothing to do with 'sexual'
>> or as keynes put it in 1926...
>> "Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of
>> Opinion - how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised
>so
>> powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and,
>through
>> them, the events of history."
>--------
>Keynes was, as anyone who has studied 20th century history past the
>age of 14 knows, a socialist himself. He was talking about Marxism as
>an economic system as conceived by 19th century Marxists specifically.
>Odd that an arch capitalist such as yourself would quote Keynes,
>although less odd if you have no idea who he was.
then you'd better go do some reading....
>> by watching in great detail the behaviour of many who subscribe to
>the
>> nonsense....i am at last beginning to have some idea of the real
>> driving forces behind joining cult socialism...
>--------
>This use of the word "cult" is very odd. It evokes an idea of tight
>control and close connexions; ocialism is rather too broad a church to
>be a "cult". In a British context, even suggesting Roy Hattersley and
>Arthur Scargill as members of the the same "cult" seems eccentric.
cult n.
1a system of religious worship esp. as expressed in ritual.
2a devotion or homage to a person or thing (the cult of aestheticism). b a
popular fashion esp. followed by a specific section of society.
3(attrib.) denoting a person or thing popularized in this way (cult film;
cult figure).
>> in my view the over-arching drive is *cowardice*....it is a
>cowardice
>> brought on by living lives wrapped in cotton wool with no
>serious
>> pressures to produce or take *real* responsibilities.....
>> over-grown children protected from birth from the real world by a
>> powerful civilisation and the rule of law.....
>--------
>If this were true, then, we would expect only the wealthy and
>privileged in the richest nations to be influenced by socialism. We
>would find an inverse relationship between poverty and left politics.
>How strange that we find the reverse to be true.
religion is the opium of the people....marx....
ie a means to keep the people submissive....
look at boltneck and teddy kennedy....both children of privilege
>> unfortunately this tends to reduce people who appear from their
>years
>> and physical bulk to be 'adults', but remain squalling children
>in a
>> nursery, expecting their every wish and desire to be supplied
>by
>> mummy in the guise of the state.....
>>
>> it has been observed that middle-class people raised in complex
>societies
>> to complex philosophies and religions are the most vulnerable to
>> cults...after years of exams and pressure the cults offer them a
>> simplistic world view where to their relief they no longer have
>the
>> pressure to think and learn...
>--------
>Well, suppose you're a cult. A real one, that is, like the Moonies or
>the Scientologists, because we don't want to suddenly switch from
>"cult" in a metaphorical sense to "cult" in a literal sense, as you
>have just tried to do. Your objective is to make lots of money for
>leadership. Now, will you do this by recruiting poor kids? Of course
>not. You target the wealthy ones with indulgent parents, the better
>the milk them dry. Not hard.
those who are conditioned to conformity....the 'good' children
are already subservient....
they do their homework and complain little....
all you need do is redirect their gaze....
you don't understand christianism....
the argument against abortion is the value of each individual.....
indeed the young are taught to 'avoid occasions of sin' in order
that they may not be 'corrupted'....
rome still bans books....but you may not realise that a person
considered sufficiently mature is able to apply for permission
to read as it is judged they may still keep their footing under the
onslaught of 'false' ideas'.....
~the problem with people not believing in god is not that they
will believe nothing....but that they will believe anything...
chesterton
say socialism or astrology....
>> the mindless societies where 'personality' is expressed in
>fashionable
>> (that is copied conformity) clothes, musac and slack,
>pre-formed,
>> cliched 'opinions'....
>> another expression of cowardice in the drive to conform.....
>--------
>Here you wander off at a tangent... the fashion and music industries
>are now socialist?
no....my meaning is that the mind-set of conformity ranges wide....
some may buy eminem's output because they enjoy it....
many will buy because 'all' their contemporaries are buying it....
>> just as socialism preys on the children of middle-class strivers, so
>also
>> the jihadi cult masters masters with their political ambitions
>trade
>> a form of islam lite to the drones of the middle east, an
>'islam'
>> where mayhem and murder are no longer forbidden but encouraged
>> and advocated.....another fashionable route to 'being special'
>without
>> serious work or study....
>> little wonder the two cults are now joined at the hip...
>--------
>And how is this precisely? The USSR was apparently the epitome of
>socialism. Was it "joined at the hip" then, to the mujahideen fighters
>who ejected it from Afghanistan with NATO military assistance? How
>have things changed since that time? More basely fantasising with no
>facts.
authoritarian often find themselves in the same bed while struggling
for power...once one side has grabbed control a first action is to
shoot all of the opposing group....
eg adolf shot the communists and khomenei the secularists....
but in each case both sides were authoritarian.....
there is no use in publicising against dictatorship if you intend to form
one....just against the rival gangs....
>> as you will see from the outline caricature in the hanson article
>below...
>> these people do not care for the poor, the oppressed or
>uneducated....
>> they do not *do* anything productive or meaningful for others....
>> instead they just whine and caterwaul when brave and more caring
>> people do *act*
>>
>> i was particularly interested to note the pseudo-outrage of the left
>at
>> the 'emotionalism' on the death of 'princess' diana....you see
>diana
>> actually did *act* in a caring manner, visiting the sick, being
>open
>> hearted and working against the mines that blew off the legs of
>the
>> poor and disenfranchised.....
>-------
>The weirdness grows and grows. Princess Diana, an aristocrat, a member
>of the British royal family, is now a Che Guevara for our times...
where you got that in the sewer of your mind only you can determine....
che guevara was btw a mass murderer....
your socialist tracts and cult conditioning seem to have left you rather
unprepared for debate....
>> now, why is this?
>> i think it is because a person like diana shows up the cowardly
>would-be
>> cosmopolitan left....while the masses respond to a generous and
>caring
>> person....
>> the left wish to talk a good fight...but want nothing of the real,
>nasty,
>> dirty world from which they cocoon themselves in suburbia.....
>>
>> they simply don't care about the suffering in an irak....they just
>wish
>> to pretend to care....
>> i am amazed by how often the left accuse those who are brave and
>> who do act of 'cowardice'.....i think this is a large key to
>their
>> behaviour....
>--------
>Is there no letter Q on your keyboard?
there are no capital letters on my keyboard....
your interests seem somewhat catholic and highly disorganised....
try to concentrate...
>> i believe they are projecting their own cowardice upon others in
>order
>> to distract attention from their own real behaviour....
>> all the obvious dishonesty and inconsistency in their
>'arguments'....all
>> the contradictory reasons for leaving the irakis in the
>shit....all
>> stem from a fear that *they* may be expected to act rather that
>lie
>> around in their protected cotton-wool world without and
>responsibility
>>
>> let alone any request, let alone that they get off their steadily
>> expanding bottoms and act to help others...or even be taxed
>that
>> others with more guts continue to protect their narrow selfish
>'lives'
>--------
>...and now socialists are those who don't want to raise taxes. The
>circle of barminess is complete. Move over, David Icke.
>It looks like an intelligent article, until you actually read it.
i think you may have problems maintaining your arrogance...
or maybe not....
tax to defend a community is regarded as acceptable to most minimum
state proponents....
it is common for socialists in the early stages to weaken the military...
after all....it removes a source of competitive power...
like to try another shot?
abelard
typed:
>In message <304f01tkjft4of7g3...@4ax.com>, abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>>> i was particularly interested to note the pseudo-outrage of the left at
>>>> the 'emotionalism' on the death of 'princess' diana....
>>>
>>>Surely the objection was to the 'emotionalism' of the people 'mourning' the
>>>death of someone they never knew, rather than a criticism of Diana herself?
>>
>>i am moving to the view that these justification for 'criticism' do not
>> relate to reality...
>
>Whose 'reality'???
the one where different weights dropped from the leaning tower tend to
fall at similar speeds...
>>it is very easy to construct excuses to justify 'criticism'....
>>
>
>As it is similarly easy to carte blanche decry all proponents of
>'socialism'?
this is bad logic....only a socialist could confuse socialism with a
reality...
each person who 'believes' in 'socialism' in fact has different (usually
confused) notions of what 'socialism' 'is'
large numbers of people imagine that 'socialism' is an object....
i must deal with society as i find it....
therefore i have taken the trouble to list the approximate dogmas of that
benighted creed....
at least you now have a reference point from which to start....
>>you will note a catalogue of such excuses for not removing madsam
>> in the accompanying hanson item....
>
>Do you know I had not the slightest concern for 'madsam' until it became
>apparent that in his name I was deceived by my government.
i am almost amazed that you are so easily 'deceived'.....
>I felt similar immediate indifference to the 'situation' in both the
>Sudan and the Congo.
>
>Niggers are apt to ape niggers.
i'm certain sure that means sommat to you....
>>what is particularly interesting (to me) is both the contradictory and
>>the
>> irrational nature of those excuses....
>>
>'Madsam' kills umpteen Iraqis. This affects my 'council tax' in just
>what dimension?
your council ambulance will in due time be unable to reach your door....
your tomatoes from spain will be unable to reach your supermarket....
those poor spaniards won't even be able to start their tractors of obtain
fertile liza not insecticides....
meanwhile start growing your beard and burn all those porn videos
>>my case is not built merely upon the diana fest but upon studying much
>> detail over a long period..... it interests me that apparently
>>otherwise intelligent people can put
>> forward 'reasons' for their opposition that are incredibly obvious
>> bullshit.... this is far different from not understanding sommat
>>or making some error
>> of fact or logic there is obviously a dog which isn't
>>barking...although the proposers
>> of the excuses are!
>
>Master Abe. Cut that essay by 50% now!
always wwelcome...less effort for one...
>>i have wondered long and hard how much is due to conformity....
>
>Conformity is I must concede akin to social cowardice. A point to Abe!
perhaps you're not then a socialist!
>>imbibing
>> the fossil press or whatever.... i have wondered if there were many
>>different reasons.....but on testing
>> these variants the only consistent reading i can make is
>>unfortunately
>> 'cowardice'....
>>
>You want to share.
>
>"Bless you my brother"
>
>However you have that which I would covert in abundance. What if the tap
>of plenty developed 'washer trouble'. My hand remains outstretched but
>of late the crumbs from your table now effectively constitute your
>family's 3 daily meals.
>
>Us the dispossessed persist in our expectation of charity.
>
>What is your liberal stance now?
you're getting fearful inscrutable again....
your table of copious abundance is being threatened....the barbarian
wants your dinner...
>>i mean to make no slighting reference to cowardice....after all as shaw
>> puts it....
>>
>>"As an old soldier I admit the cowardice: it’s as universal as sea
>>sickness, and matters just as little." 1903
>>
>Yeah but he was not inundated with 3rd world scum!
>
>>but i must add from my own perspective not facing cowardice i do
>> regard as 'character flaw' in the sense of being non-survival fit
>>
>Stroll over here and attempt to take something from me.
i have sufficient....the walk is not profitable....though thanx for
the invitation and offer...
>Your immediate demands pale into insignificance when juxtaposed against
>the potential of my reality to come.
more inscrutability...
>>>Indeed, such 'mourning' with its accompanying teaddy bears and floral
>>>tributes, was surely an example of the sort of infantilism you condemn in
>>>others?
>>
>>i don't even 'condemn' the cowardice.....
>
>No quite obviously you perceive it as a by product of plentitude.
ok...that's probably reasonable....
>>i do regard it as 'immaturity' in
>> 'adults'....
>
>'Fat fucker' adults or 'bread line' adults????
or both in one hand-out bloated bod....
>> however, 'cowardice' is far more dangerous to a modern civilisation
>>that
>> a little wallowing in unhappiness or maybe looked at
>>otherwise...the
>> semi-maudlin celebration of a 'good caring life'
>>
>So you would propose an enforcement of self interest perchance?
i believe firmly in evolution in action....
>After all the coward bequeaths all to the potential adversary as a pure
>act of avoidance.
true...but where is the good archie headed?
>>in the case of diana what was impressive was the wish to denigrate her
>> because she was 'rich' or 'dressed well' or had holidays.... imv
>>driven far more by envy that reasonable comment.....
>>
>Most I knew simply desired to fuck her. Most f them anally!
your experiences are beyond my data bank....though 'ironman' is
a jolt!
>There again I move in different [More honest??] circles than most.
so you can't possibly be a socialist!
>>>you see diana
>>>> actually did *act* in a caring manner, visiting the sick, being open
>>>> hearted and working against the mines that blew off the legs of the
>>>> poor and disenfranchised.....
>>>
>>>This is rich, coming from someone who supported the US blowing the legs,
>>>heads and other limbs off Iraqis!
>>
>>don't struggle....it is undignified....
>
>The cry of the prison bully with a perpetually unsated erection?
i was unaware the voter was typing from prison...
regards.....
Certic
> 1feeble and incapable.
> 2worn out; exhausted of its essential quality or vitality.
>
> nothing to do with 'sexual'
It usually does.
-------
> >> or as keynes put it in 1926...
> >age of 14 knows, a socialist himself. He was talking about Marxism
as
> >an economic system as conceived by 19th century Marxists
specifically.
> >Odd that an arch capitalist such as yourself would quote Keynes,
> >although less odd if you have no idea who he was.
>
> then you'd better go do some reading....
Pointless invective won't make up for a lack of a reply.
--------
> >This use of the word "cult" is very odd. It evokes an idea of tight
> >control and close connexions; ocialism is rather too broad a church
to
> >be a "cult". In a British context, even suggesting Roy Hattersley
and
> >Arthur Scargill as members of the the same "cult" seems eccentric.
>
> cult n.
> 1a system of religious worship esp. as expressed in ritual.
> 2a devotion or homage to a person or thing (the cult of
aestheticism). b a
> popular fashion esp. followed by a specific section of society.
> 3(attrib.) denoting a person or thing popularized in this way (cult
film;
> cult figure).
When someone cuts and pastes dictionary definitions, you know
instantly they are intellectually bankrupt, and lazy to boot - which
is confirmed when none of the definitions support your use of the term
at all. Is socialism a system of worship expressed in ritual? No. Is
homage or devotion paid to a person or thing in socialism, or is it a
popular fashion? No. Is it part of "pop culture"? No.
--------
> >If this were true, then, we would expect only the wealthy and
> >privileged in the richest nations to be influenced by socialism. We
> >would find an inverse relationship between poverty and left
politics.
> >How strange that we find the reverse to be true.
>
> religion is the opium of the people....marx....
> ie a means to keep the people submissive....
A total non-sequitur.
---------
> look at boltneck and teddy kennedy....both children of privilege
The Frankenstein Monster and the man who wanted to invade Cuba to
overthrow a left wing regime? And your point is...?
---------
> >Meaningless sub-Patrick Pearse rhetoric aside, how does the
relgious
> >right place any emphasis on individual responsibility? Everything
they
> >do from campaigning against abortion, to campaigning against rock
> >music, to campaigning against nudity on television, to trying to
force
> >schoolchildren to be taught superstition over science, reveals a
> >belief that the individual is weak and corruptible and must be
> >insulated from dangerous ideas.
>
> you don't understand christianism....
Do too.
---------
> the argument against abortion is the value of each individual.....
> indeed the young are taught to 'avoid occasions of sin' in order
> that they may not be 'corrupted'....
>
> rome still bans books....but you may not realise that a person
> considered sufficiently mature is able to apply for permission
> to read as it is judged they may still keep their footing under
the
> onslaught of 'false' ideas'.....
However, permission may be refused, and this does not alter the signal
fact that the aim is to prevent access because the swinish multitude
are not deemed capable of making their own decisions. The process has
been taken out of their hands and put into the hands of the
authorities. This reduces individual responsibility.
--------
> >Here you wander off at a tangent... the fashion and music
industries
> >are now socialist?
>
> no....my meaning is that the mind-set of conformity ranges wide....
> some may buy eminem's output because they enjoy it....
> many will buy because 'all' their contemporaries are buying
it....
Yes, and so what? How long ago was this article written? It may been
cool and trendy for art students in late 60s and early 70s to adopt a
pose of Marxism, but that fad for radical chique went 30 years ago.
--------
> >And how is this precisely? The USSR was apparently the epitome of
> >socialism. Was it "joined at the hip" then, to the mujahideen
fighters
> >who ejected it from Afghanistan with NATO military assistance? How
> >have things changed since that time? More basely fantasising with
no
> >facts.
>
> authoritarian often find themselves in the same bed while struggling
> for power...once one side has grabbed control a first action is
to
> shoot all of the opposing group....
> eg adolf shot the communists and khomenei the secularists....
>
> but in each case both sides were authoritarian.....
> there is no use in publicising against dictatorship if you intend to
form
> one....just against the rival gangs....
Very true, but that doesn't support your previous argument.
---------
> >The weirdness grows and grows. Princess Diana, an aristocrat, a
member
> >of the British royal family, is now a Che Guevara for our times...
>
> where you got that in the sewer of your mind only you can
determine....
> che guevara was btw a mass murderer....
I'm sure he was far worse than Hitler, but you don't deny that he was
the poster boy - literally - for the aforementioned trendy lefty
students?
---------
> your socialist tracts and cult conditioning seem to have left you
rather
> unprepared for debate....
Tracts?
---------
> >Is there no letter Q on your keyboard?
>
> there are no capital letters on my keyboard....
That wasn't what I asked
---------
> your interests seem somewhat catholic and highly disorganised....
>
> try to concentrate...
Nyer!
---------
> >...and now socialists are those who don't want to raise taxes. The
> >circle of barminess is complete. Move over, David Icke.
> >It looks like an intelligent article, until you actually read it.
>
> i think you may have problems maintaining your arrogance...
> or maybe not....
Certainly not - pseuds like you who can't think their way out of a
paper big make anyone feel arrogant.
abelard
typed:
>
>abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:self015rfo3q03401...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 20:15:17 -0000, "Certic"
><P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
>>
>> effete adj.
>> 1feeble and incapable.
>> 2worn out; exhausted of its essential quality or vitality.
>>
>> nothing to do with 'sexual'
>-------
>It usually does.
>-------
>> >> or as keynes put it in 1926...
>> >Keynes was, as anyone who has studied 20th century history past the
>> >age of 14 knows, a socialist himself. He was talking about Marxism
>as
>> >an economic system as conceived by 19th century Marxists
>specifically.
>> >Odd that an arch capitalist such as yourself would quote Keynes,
>> >although less odd if you have no idea who he was.
>>
>> then you'd better go do some reading....
>--------
>Pointless invective won't make up for a lack of a reply.
in view of the poor quality of your previous post and the shallow
level of your above comments i cannot be presently be bothered
with you further...
rest binned unread
Joe Hutcheon
> >support Diana rather than Charles, and that older people were more likely
to
> >disapprove of her conduct than younger people. But I think you're
> >misreading the reaction to her death on political lines, when it was
> >essentially a non-political matter.
>
> with your comments above...'non-political' seems out the window and
> down the lift shaft!
You speak in riddles again.
> however, it is the driving motives behind foolish attack or defence that
> interests me rather than having to label it 'political' or otherwise..
Why assunme there's a 'driving force'? By its very nature, irrational
beahvioue defies logical interpretation.
> i chose the diana fest more because the responders argued irrationally
> according to their own hang-ups rather than to any merit or demerits
> intrinsic to the happenings....
Well, yes...
> imv that is what is going down over irak......
> over irak the 'excuses' are so outrageous/irrational....*and* repetitive
> that i have been interested in the driving emotion.....
There were/are a range of reasons for oppposing the invasion of Iraq, some
driven by emotion, some driven by political prejudice, some driven by
pragmatism ('better the devil you know')
> in the main i now think i have a grasp of that.....
> as usual i have been very patient in reaching any tentative view....
>
> i now have a view!
Well, as long as you've convinced yourself, that's all that really mattters.
light
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:49:10 +0000, light <li...@darkness.org>
>
> typed:
>
>
>>abelard wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>>you will note a catalogue of such excuses for not removing madsam
>>> in the accompanying hanson item....
>>>what is particularly interesting (to me) is both the contradictory and the
>>> irrational nature of those excuses....
>>
>>What is particularly interesting (to me) is both the contradictory and
>>the irrational nature of those who use words to obscure truth, as you do
>>on so many occasions here. Hanson's article does likewise.
>
>
> leave it out!
Ah, the heat, the facts, the reality? Yours is the standard response.
>
>>Neither of
>>you make any mention of how Saddam came to power, no mention of Al Bakr
>
>
> i make no comment because i regard it as water under the bridge and
> irrelevant to 2005...
Compare this response with the one marked below with ***
>
>>- in fact no groundwork or historical perspective at all... Typical of
>>those who funnel and filter their 'opinions' from Murdoch-dominated
>>sources...
>
>
> g'wan....do leave it out....
> you are not presenting arguments....just rattling the bars of your mental
> cage....you won't even get a banana that way....
>
>
>>You must have been particularly bored to even start such a meaningless
>>thread...
>
>
> not at all....such things are very close to my main interests....
> watching the feedback from people is a major data source.....
>
>
>>As for cowardice, how do you view the likes of Chavez, Martin Luther
>>King, Senator Wellstone that was, etc ad inf throughout the ages? All
>>men who have stood against capitalist greed to aid the poor and
>>disadvantaged.
>
>
> the only requirement for the triumph of evil is that good people do
> nothing....there are many good people and they fit no stereotype....
Slippery non-answer.
>
>
>>Odd how they all end up being hounded to death by the
>>powers that be, don't you think?
>
>
> i take no view on such matters other than on a one by one basis and
> on investigations.....
> i do not keep a conspiracies file.....
>
> history tend to show that any person who does not look or bleat like
> a standard sheep will invite hassle....
> and if they are too effective they may meet danger.....
>
> imv anyone who does that knowingly, shows courage....whether their
> campaign are well considered or not....
> quite often it takes history to distinguish the merit of such campaigns...
****************************************************************************
Why do you argue from both sides in the same reponse if not merely trolling?
>
> though the more able of such campaigners tend to think long and hard
> and study incessantly to cross check their own judgement....
>
> this also is a form of courage, let alone dedication....
> having a bee in the bonnet is insufficient...
Once again you are advocating careful, deep and considered research into
the history of wrong-doings - but only when it suits your narrow world
view. From what you said above about Saddam, it seems obvious to me that
you are not prepared to think about just how he came to power or under
what circumstances. Cognitive dissonance or blind faith in far
right-wing leaders?
I would imagine you actually enjoy building houses from packs of cards?
>
> imv there is no merit in courting danger for shallow reasons....
Just who decides the gravity of any situation - certainly not the
oppressors!
> only a fool courts martyrdom....
Sure, Jesus was a fool...
a courageous person faces it however
> when judgement suggest the alternative is to be a dog or a sheep....
>
> get yourself a copy of 'a man for all seasons' (possibly the written play
> also)....the much better zinnermann-scofield version....
> watch it and read it regularly....
I could give you the same advice but I know you ain't listening...
l
Joe Hutcheon
> effete adj.
> 1feeble and incapable.
> 2worn out; exhausted of its essential quality or vitality.
>
> nothing to do with 'sexual'
'effete' orginally meant 'having just given birth' so the word has an
indirect sexual connotation.
light
And 'some' driven by international law...?
>
>>in the main i now think i have a grasp of that.....
Wonderful :(
>>as usual i have been very patient in reaching any tentative view....
>>
>>i now have a view!
Man, you (abe) sound like Bush more every day
>
>
> Well, as long as you've convinced yourself, that's all that really mattters.
>
>
LOL
l
abelard
typed:
>abelard wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:49:10 +0000, light <li...@darkness.org>
>>>abelard wrote:
>>>
>[snip]
>
>>>>you will note a catalogue of such excuses for not removing madsam
>>>> in the accompanying hanson item....
>>>>what is particularly interesting (to me) is both the contradictory and the
>>>> irrational nature of those excuses....
>>>
>>>What is particularly interesting (to me) is both the contradictory and
>>>the irrational nature of those who use words to obscure truth, as you do
>>>on so many occasions here. Hanson's article does likewise.
>>
>>
>> leave it out!
>
>Ah, the heat, the facts, the reality? Yours is the standard response.
>
>>
>>>Neither of
>>>you make any mention of how Saddam came to power, no mention of Al Bakr
>>
>>
>> i make no comment because i regard it as water under the bridge and
>> irrelevant to 2005...
>
>Compare this response with the one marked below with ***
one must guess you meant market with
****************************************************************************
be assured i was well aware of that in the post when i sent it....
perhaps you may understand better with the notes below....
to help you even more....
if i am repairing a jet fighter i may remember my previous efforts
to bake a cherry cake.....
but i will not use a cake recipe as much of a guide to the functioning
of a jet engine....
>>>- in fact no groundwork or historical perspective at all... Typical of
>>>those who funnel and filter their 'opinions' from Murdoch-dominated
>>>sources...
>> g'wan....do leave it out....
>> you are not presenting arguments....just rattling the bars of your mental
>> cage....you won't even get a banana that way....
>>>You must have been particularly bored to even start such a meaningless
>>>thread...
>> not at all....such things are very close to my main interests....
>> watching the feedback from people is a major data source.....
>>>As for cowardice, how do you view the likes of Chavez, Martin Luther
>>>King, Senator Wellstone that was, etc ad inf throughout the ages? All
>>>men who have stood against capitalist greed to aid the poor and
>>>disadvantaged.
>> the only requirement for the triumph of evil is that good people do
>> nothing....there are many good people and they fit no stereotype....
>
>Slippery non-answer.
that you cannot follow any subtlety is a measure your ignorance....
>>>Odd how they all end up being hounded to death by the
>>>powers that be, don't you think?
>>
>>
>> i take no view on such matters other than on a one by one basis and
>> on investigations.....
>> i do not keep a conspiracies file.....
>>
>> history tend to show that any person who does not look or bleat like
>> a standard sheep will invite hassle....
>> and if they are too effective they may meet danger.....
>>
>> imv anyone who does that knowingly, shows courage....whether their
>> campaign are well considered or not....
>> quite often it takes history to distinguish the merit of such campaigns...
>
>****************************************************************************
>Why do you argue from both sides in the same reponse if not merely trolling?
it is very difficult to discuss/promote balance with those locked
into on/off....
>> though the more able of such campaigners tend to think long and hard
>> and study incessantly to cross check their own judgement....
>>
>> this also is a form of courage, let alone dedication....
>> having a bee in the bonnet is insufficient...
>
>Once again you are advocating careful, deep and considered research into
>the history of wrong-doings - but only when it suits your narrow world
>view.
no, when it is relevant....
> From what you said above about Saddam, it seems obvious to me that
>you are not prepared to think about just how he came to power or under
>what circumstances. Cognitive dissonance or blind faith in far
>right-wing leaders?
i've told you...i regard it as irrelevant....water under the bridge.....
to show it to be relevant you would have to connect it with present acts..
i don't see you making any convincing job of that.....
>I would imagine you actually enjoy building houses from packs of cards?
>> imv there is no merit in courting danger for shallow reasons....
>
>Just who decides the gravity of any situation - certainly not the
>oppressors!
you are using words as if you are trapped by them along with your
religion....
the oppressors are madsam's killing machine, the un gangsters who
siphoned off the funds directed at food for irakis and now the
jihadis and ba'athists who are blowing up their fellow irakis as they
each in turn and in conspiracy, battle to be the new dictators....
the coalition is working to put in place a system that allows irakis more
say in their own lives....in the west we call this 'democracy'...
maybe you have heard tell off it....
that you're against it says much of you.....
zakawi, binliner, madsam, stalin and many others have been against it
using words inappropriately such as 'oppression' in a dishonest attempt
to sell your cult aims is not purposeful unless among those who
cannot see through your dishonesty...
>> only a fool courts martyrdom....
>
>Sure, Jesus was a fool...
why believe everything you're told?
perhaps you'd like to come more up to date....some young arabs are
courting martyrdom....
you may substitute terms like 'mad' or 'uneducated' or 'conditioned'
as a substitute for the more general, 'fool'....if you so wish...i
will not mind....
you might find things easier if you concentrated on the real world in
place of the patterns of (often rather disconnected) words running
around your head....
>a courageous person faces it however
>> when judgement suggest the alternative is to be a dog or a sheep....
>>
>> get yourself a copy of 'a man for all seasons' (possibly the written play
>> also)....the much better zinnermann-scofield version....
>> watch it and read it regularly....
>
>I could give you the same advice but I know you ain't listening...
oh i'm listening already....but only a fool will give a person advice they
have just received....
so, what i am hearing much of the time is the words of a fool....or
perhaps an empty echo box....
abelard
typed:
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:dsgf01lfeho85ve3d...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:50:13 GMT, "Joseph Hutcheon"
>> <joseph....@virgin.net>
>>
>> typed:
>> >No clear left/right split there. I'd say women and gay men tended to
>> >support Diana rather than Charles, and that older people were more likely
>to
>> >disapprove of her conduct than younger people. But I think you're
>> >misreading the reaction to her death on political lines, when it was
>> >essentially a non-political matter.
>>
>> with your comments above...'non-political' seems out the window and
>> down the lift shaft!
>
>You speak in riddles again.
being in favour of the monarchy is political....
being against divorce to the degree you wish to construct 'laws' for
others to live under....is political....
women and queers seem to think they have political 'issues'....
where is the riddle?
>> however, it is the driving motives behind foolish attack or defence that
>> interests me rather than having to label it 'political' or otherwise..
>
>Why assunme there's a 'driving force'? By its very nature, irrational
>beahvioue defies logical interpretation.
if i took that attitude i'd be in favour of the methods of bedlam or
burning at the stake....i am not in favour of such practices.....
i believe irrational behaviour can be understood....it is just very
complex and difficult....
this being aggravated by a highly dysfunctional culture/language.
>> i chose the diana fest more because the responders argued irrationally
>> according to their own hang-ups rather than to any merit or demerits
>> intrinsic to the happenings....
>
>Well, yes...
>
>> imv that is what is going down over irak......
>> over irak the 'excuses' are so outrageous/irrational....*and* repetitive
>> that i have been interested in the driving emotion.....
>
>There were/are a range of reasons for oppposing the invasion of Iraq, some
>driven by emotion, some driven by political prejudice, some driven by
>pragmatism ('better the devil you know')
the last may carry some merit.....the rest is pap....
to attempt to attack the 30 year old record of a politician who has
clearly much changed in the meanwhile....etc....
>> in the main i now think i have a grasp of that.....
>> as usual i have been very patient in reaching any tentative view....
>>
>> i now have a view!
>
>Well, as long as you've convinced yourself, that's all that really mattters.
not at all....
1)my understanding is not entirely crystal as yet....but it is more
robust than simply not comprehending....
2)it is heavily based in facts....
3)others may well add to my current level of understanding...
a)this last is a major part of building psychological
understanding....put forward a hypothesis (though i am now
beyond that point) and see who it stands up under probing...
b)psychological 'hypotheses' are not like those in physics where
most 'particles' operate according to similar 'rules'....
human particles often tend to veer off course for reasons
difficult to determine....
eg...in this case clearly nonsense 'reasons' for a particular
'inaction'...but argued with great ferocity....this suggests an
underlying motive (or 'three') at the very least....
when these 'reasons' are clung to as a drowning man clings
to a toy balloon even after it has gone 'pop'....and for many
moons...
to me it is 'obvious' something interesting is going down!
regards....
abelard
typed:
one takes it you mean the international law as determined by a bunch of
dictators and baksheesh collectors....
you don't think much
abelard
typed:
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
sure....
it is hardly the literate use however....
of course i have seen it used thus by the uneducated....but britain
is serious screwed up that way.....
i've even known who imagined they could determine gender* (whatever
that may be) by attention to mental style.....
there is truth in that in england...but not nearly so much in more
culturally civilised societies....
the english are incredibly (unusually) insecure sexually.....though they
are not entirely alone
*pseud-academe seems 'bent' on twisting this word also....so the infection
spreads....
regards...
DaveVH
>
> i have wondered and studied long to understand the effete, mindless
> and soul-less left.....
> i have wondered how often apparently intelligent people could embrace
> a cult that has so little to offer.....
<snipped>
Well, me too. But from a reductionist answer like yours I've moved to
embracing something more complex. There are a thousand reasons why people
are socialists; only one of them is cowardice, and even that reason doesn't
fit half the time.
What about the man who's courageous enough to go out and slave every day to
keep his family? And then goes and votes socialist? In this case it could
be ignorance.
What about the politician who shows extreme bravery in war, then runs for
office on a socialist ticket? Venality? Good intentions wrongly directed?
What about the man who'll fight for his own cause, but will also fight for
that of others by supporting socialism? Foolishness?
By the same token, one could ask questions about the libertarian who beats
his wife, or the freedom fighter who disowns his kids. Apart from revealing
the complexity of individuals, it rather turns the mirror to face any
attempts at partisanship. By all means crush socialism, but crushing
socialists isn't the done thing.
And by the way, some of us who consistently support the war in Iraq think
Diana was a dull slapper, and that the fountain of emotion following her
death was undignified and shallow.
Best regards,
DaveVH.
abelard
typed:
>
>abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:h14d01lcp2kvf8780...@4ax.com...
>>
>> i have wondered and studied long to understand the effete, mindless
>> and soul-less left.....
>> i have wondered how often apparently intelligent people could embrace
>> a cult that has so little to offer.....
>
><snipped>
>
>Well, me too. But from a reductionist answer like yours I've moved to
>embracing something more complex. There are a thousand reasons why people
>are socialists; only one of them is cowardice, and even that reason doesn't
>fit half the time.
>
>What about the man who's courageous enough to go out and slave every day to
>keep his family? And then goes and votes socialist? In this case it could
>be ignorance.
>
>What about the politician who shows extreme bravery in war, then runs for
>office on a socialist ticket? Venality? Good intentions wrongly directed?
>
>What about the man who'll fight for his own cause, but will also fight for
>that of others by supporting socialism? Foolishness?
>
>By the same token, one could ask questions about the libertarian who beats
>his wife, or the freedom fighter who disowns his kids. Apart from revealing
>the complexity of individuals, it rather turns the mirror to face any
>attempts at partisanship. By all means crush socialism, but crushing
>socialists isn't the done thing.
thanx for your comments....
i must say i have probably mis-expressed myself somewhat in the starter
item for this fred....
my conclusions really concentrate on their *pseudo-objections* to irak....
and what is driving them....
it is possible i should re-write somewhat to clarify this.....
as often i do not wish to make the 'message' over complex by dragging
in a load of half 'qualifications'.....
>And by the way, some of us who consistently support the war in Iraq think
>Diana was a dull slapper, and that the fountain of emotion following her
>death was undignified and shallow.
oh, i can see people taking such a view....
personally i don't see signs of 'dullness'....anything but....i see mostly
an insufficiently educated but unusually bright female....
the end result was a mishandling of her actions...but at 19 what was
obvious from the outside ....ie that she was marrying way below
her intellectual class, would not have been obvious to a star struck
and inadequately educated teenager....
at 19 even with the best of education few are seriously mature or worldly
wise in their ways...often only experience (such as diana
encountered) will go anyway to repairing lack of wariness....
you live in a society that puts false value on people by virtue of they
house were born in or the advertising of large corporations in
the manufacture of 'stars'.....
you even have government tv giving air time to faces famous for
being famous and asking their 'opinions' on the irak invasion or
the theory of relativity....such a culture does not encourage
independence of mind judgement....
####
back to the main and more interesting (for me) theme of my article....
how to 'adjust' it to 'socialists in the context of the irak incursion'
and what to me is a growing belief that it is cowardice that really
drives them and all the rest is so much crap?
full admission! i'm always at least marginally surprised when a socialist
talks sense....same as when a mormon starts talking sense...rather
disorienting!
some avowed socialists have certainly tried to argue pragmatism in a
manner i would much more have expected to hear from the likes
of alan clark.....
that in itself puts up warning lights....socialists don't habitually
appeal to pragmatism!! bit like a fish praising the advantages of
fresh air....
i have also noted some of those defectors who the real dorks call
'neocons'....probably by virtue of their defection from the cult......
not easy to hold onto double-think, unless you are a complete mug with
no ethical roots, in the face of idiots opposing the removal of
madsam!......as people like chris hitchens and jakinaid are
obviously finding....
of course it is hard to be cut off from your would-be family when
you just won't accept their low standards....the oft repeated problem
for the kid from the lower classes getting above themselves by being
bookish and moving into more complex social millieu...'getting
ideas above their station'....'class traitors' etc....
so...if i can't believe the what they are attempting to peddle re irak....
and even when they do try to use more 'respectable' arguments
i am faced with dissonance....
and i trace the/a major driver down to cowardice (note the reference to
envy re diana....this is not always the sole driver) in just about
every would-be socialist that i engage....
it is not a great leap of imagination to start looking at cowardice as
a central driver for cult 'membership' quite apart from irak....
(i am at least vaguely reminded of the oftimes claim that an attachment
to religion is matter of a security blanket....though i am less
convinced by that approach)
so i am left asking just the why of a (strong) relationship between the
cult and cowardice....
i s'pose that is about where my mulling is now focussed....
next week in one mighty bound etc.....
regards....
BOEDICIA
>From: abelard abel...@abelard.org
>Date: 2/8/05 4:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ieki019te5gdk4gq4...@4ax.com>
>back to the main and more interesting (for me) theme of my article....
>how to 'adjust' it to 'socialists
That's 1.
>full admission! i'm always at least marginally surprised when a socialist
That's 2.
> talks sense....same as when a mormon starts talking sense...rather
> disorienting!
>some avowed socialists
That's 3.
> that in itself puts up warning lights....socialists
That's 4.
>so...if i can't believe the what they are attempting to peddle re irak....
> and even when they do try to use more 'respectable' arguments
> i am faced with dissonance....
When you *should* be faced by 2 men in white.
>and i trace the/a major driver down to cowardice (note the reference to
> envy re diana....this is not always the sole driver) in just about
> every would-be socialist
That's 5.
>it is not a great leap of imagination to start looking at cowardice as
> a central driver for cult 'membership' quite apart from irak....
>(i am at least vaguely reminded of the oftimes claim that an attachment
> to religion is matter of a security blanket....though i am less
> convinced by that approach)
NURSE!
>so i am left asking just the why of a (strong) relationship between the
> cult and cowardice....
>i s'pose that is about where my mulling is now focussed....
>next week in one mighty bound etc.....
>
And Hurry!!!
snip silly overlong sig.
...........................................
_______________________________
________________________
Joe Hutcheon
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:34:17 -0000, "Joe Hutcheon" <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
> >news:self015rfo3q03401...@4ax.com...
> >> effete adj.
> >> 1feeble and incapable.
> >> 2worn out; exhausted of its essential quality or vitality.
> >>
> >> nothing to do with 'sexual'
> >
> >'effete' orginally meant 'having just given birth' so the word has an
> >indirect sexual connotation.
>
> sure....
> it is hardly the literate use however....
> of course i have seen it used thus by the uneducated....but britain
> is serious screwed up that way.....
Interestingly, my awareness of the 'literal' meaning of effete comes from a
letter from Nancy Miford to Evelyn Waugh!
Joe Hutcheon
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:00:45 -0000, "Joe Hutcheon" <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
> >news:dsgf01lfeho85ve3d...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:50:13 GMT, "Joseph Hutcheon"
> >> <joseph....@virgin.net>
> >>
> >> typed:
> >> >No clear left/right split there. I'd say women and gay men tended to
> >> >support Diana rather than Charles, and that older people were more
likely
> >to
> >> >disapprove of her conduct than younger people. But I think you're
> >> >misreading the reaction to her death on political lines, when it was
> >> >essentially a non-political matter.
> >>
> >> with your comments above...'non-political' seems out the window and
> >> down the lift shaft!
> >
> >You speak in riddles again.
>
> being in favour of the monarchy is political....
Right-wingers tend to favour the monarchy
> being against divorce to the degree you wish to construct 'laws' for
> others to live under....is political....
Right-wingers tend to oppose easy divorce
> women and queers seem to think they have political 'issues'....
Mostly such are left-wingers.
> where is the riddle?
The riddle is why you try to fit the Diana-fest in with your
socialist=cowardice equation. Those who were most anti-Diana were on the
right politically (ie non-socialists), whilst those who were pro-Diana were
more likely to be left-wing, including such Socialists as Tony Blair, who
led the blub-fest.
> >> however, it is the driving motives behind foolish attack or defence
that
> >> interests me rather than having to label it 'political' or
otherwise..
> >
> >Why assunme there's a 'driving force'? By its very nature, irrational
> >beahvioue defies logical interpretation.
>
> if i took that attitude i'd be in favour of the methods of bedlam or
> burning at the stake....i am not in favour of such practices.....
But do you support the practice of placing clearly insane/etremely
irrational murderers in mental institutions rather than prison?
> i believe irrational behaviour can be understood....it is just very
> complex and difficult....
> this being aggravated by a highly dysfunctional culture/language.
Or, put more simply, irrational behaviour is not susceptible to rational
explanation.
> >Well, as long as you've convinced yourself, that's all that really
mattters.
>
> not at all....
> 1)my understanding is not entirely crystal as yet....but it is more
> robust than simply not comprehending....
> 2)it is heavily based in facts....
> 3)others may well add to my current level of understanding...
> a)this last is a major part of building psychological
> understanding....put forward a hypothesis (though i am now
> beyond that point) and see who it stands up under probing...
> b)psychological 'hypotheses' are not like those in physics where
> most 'particles' operate according to similar 'rules'....
> human particles often tend to veer off course for reasons
> difficult to determine....
But those of us with a more pragmatic bent simply realise that many people
think and behave in an entirely irrational manner, and leave it there. Or
do you think it is possible to legislate against stupidity?
Joe Hutcheon
All well said. What is baffling is that abelard, who frequently castigates
others for an 'on/off' mentality, simply can't see that sometimes people
sincerely hold mistaken beliefs. Indeed, the very fact that many of those
who are currently hawking a NeoCon line were themselves extreme left-wing
socialists not so long age, which would seem to suggest a sudden veering
from one extreme to another, rather than a considered weighing-up of the
issues.
> >And by the way, some of us who consistently support the war in Iraq think
> >Diana was a dull slapper, and that the fountain of emotion following her
> >death was undignified and shallow.
>
> oh, i can see people taking such a view....
> personally i don't see signs of 'dullness'....anything but....i see mostly
> an insufficiently educated but unusually bright female....
She went to a good enough school, perhaps one might say 'not of an academic
bent' rather than simply 'uneducated'. Her brother certainly comes across
as less than bright, and Harry is clearly no Einstein.
> the end result was a mishandling of her actions...but at 19 what was
> obvious from the outside ....ie that she was marrying way below
> her intellectual class, would not have been obvious to a star struck
> and inadequately educated teenager....
> at 19 even with the best of education few are seriously mature or worldly
> wise in their ways...often only experience (such as diana
> encountered) will go anyway to repairing lack of wariness....
But unfortunately her experience did not lead to an increase in 'wariness'
on her part; rather to a series of affairs, conducted with the minimum of
discretion, with a series of blokes including several outright cads or
bounders. The usual triumph of hope over experience, in fact.
abelard
typed:
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>> >the complexity of individuals, it rather turns the mirror to face any
>> >attempts at partisanship. By all means crush socialism, but crushing
>> >socialists isn't the done thing.
>
>All well said. What is baffling is that abelard, who frequently castigates
>others for an 'on/off' mentality, simply can't see that sometimes people
>sincerely hold mistaken beliefs.
of course i can see that....
it is the persistence with 'beliefs' clung too long after any serious
possibility of 'belief' or even distant plausibility has long passed
that interests me....
easy to accept in a dummy like jerky....but not in any person who
shows they have more than one moving part upstairs....
therefore i make the hypothesis that other forces are at work keeping
the machinery glued to the ground.....
> Indeed, the very fact that many of those
>who are currently hawking a NeoCon line were themselves extreme left-wing
>socialists not so long age, which would seem to suggest a sudden veering
>from one extreme to another, rather than a considered weighing-up of the
>issues.
imv that is potentially reasonable comment....
it accords also with my comments concerning switching from one cult
mental frame to another.....
>> >And by the way, some of us who consistently support the war in Iraq think
>> >Diana was a dull slapper, and that the fountain of emotion following her
>> >death was undignified and shallow.
>>
>> oh, i can see people taking such a view....
>> personally i don't see signs of 'dullness'....anything but....i see mostly
>> an insufficiently educated but unusually bright female....
>
>She went to a good enough school, perhaps one might say 'not of an academic
>bent' rather than simply 'uneducated'. Her brother certainly comes across
>as less than bright, and Harry is clearly no Einstein.
no dissent on those observations....
>> the end result was a mishandling of her actions...but at 19 what was
>> obvious from the outside ....ie that she was marrying way below
>> her intellectual class, would not have been obvious to a star struck
>> and inadequately educated teenager....
>> at 19 even with the best of education few are seriously mature or worldly
>> wise in their ways...often only experience (such as diana
>> encountered) will go anyway to repairing lack of wariness....
>
>But unfortunately her experience did not lead to an increase in 'wariness'
>on her part; rather to a series of affairs, conducted with the minimum of
>discretion,
i've seen this often with people when to lid comes off.....
then there is Donne
Sweetest love, I do not go,
For weariness of thee,
Nor in hope the world can show
A fitter love for me;
But since that I
Must die at last, 奏is best,
To use my self in jest
Thus by feigned deaths to die.
> with a series of blokes including several outright cads or
>bounders.
it is strange to me that some very bright women have very poor judgement
regarding males....
maggie thatcher showed a similar weakness....
> The usual triumph of hope over experience, in fact.
but from this i dissent....
if a person is to live....they must take risks....
young lad to his more sophisticated big brother.....
little bro'..."hey brother, you're always going out with the girls.....
how do you manage it?"
big bro'...."well younger fellow.....i just go up to them and say
'wanna date' and they usually say yes, that's all
you have to do"
little bro'...mightily impressed by this worldly wisdom......
and with an embarrassed blush
"i don't know quite how to put this....but do you ever
get to make love to them"?
big bro'...."oh yes, often young tyke"
little bro'...even more impressed......
"how do you go about it.?
big bro'....lording his greater knowledge somewhat....
"it's very simple really, i just go up to them and say
'do you fuck?' "
little bro'...."that's crazy" says little bro'....surely you get your
face slapped a lot.....
big bro'....."sure do young'n....but i also get a lot of fucks!"
you can never know whether a person is going to cheat on contracts......
often enuf the person themselves do not know that.....
the only (serious) way to find out if a person (of whom you have
little experience) is a cheat is to trust them...and wait see if
they slap your face....
not trusting is effectively a paranoid position which has worse downsides
(at least by my calcs)
abelard
typed:
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:ejei019v62mc5psid...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:34:17 -0000, "Joe Hutcheon" <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk>
>> >"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>> >news:self015rfo3q03401...@4ax.com...
>> >> effete adj.
>> >> 1feeble and incapable.
>> >> 2worn out; exhausted of its essential quality or vitality.
>> >>
>> >> nothing to do with 'sexual'
>> >
>> >'effete' orginally meant 'having just given birth' so the word has an
>> >indirect sexual connotation.
>>
>> sure....
>> it is hardly the literate use however....
>> of course i have seen it used thus by the uneducated....but britain
>> is serious screwed up that way.....
>
>Interestingly, my awareness of the 'literal' meaning of effete comes from a
>letter from Nancy Miford to Evelyn Waugh!
at least you read!
abelard
typed:
oh no...i was fitting it with the constructing of ludicrous 'reasons' to
hoe a line....
>> >> however, it is the driving motives behind foolish attack or defence
>that
>> >> interests me rather than having to label it 'political' or
>otherwise..
>> >
>> >Why assunme there's a 'driving force'? By its very nature, irrational
>> >beahvioue defies logical interpretation.
>>
>> if i took that attitude i'd be in favour of the methods of bedlam or
>> burning at the stake....i am not in favour of such practices.....
>
>But do you support the practice of placing clearly insane/etremely
>irrational murderers in mental institutions rather than prison?
as a pragmatist my first concern is to get them off the streets and keep
them trapped and away from their hobbies....
i don't see a great divide between 'irrational' and 'norty'.....
http://www.abelard.org/ethics.htm#mind-read
from this i derive my attitude to imprisonment....whatever the
institution may have written over the front gate....
>> i believe irrational behaviour can be understood....it is just very
>> complex and difficult....
>> this being aggravated by a highly dysfunctional culture/language.
>
>Or, put more simply, irrational behaviour is not susceptible to rational
>explanation.
strongly dissent....given time and effort my experience is that it can
systematically be traced.....
traced to misunderstandings of the real world by the 'sufferer' of the
irrational behaviour....
note....much apparently irrational behaviour is 'a form of' 'addiction'...
eg alcoholism or anger....
the person enjoys the alcohol or the 'emotional' buzz.....
>> >Well, as long as you've convinced yourself, that's all that really
>mattters.
>>
>> not at all....
>> 1)my understanding is not entirely crystal as yet....but it is more
>> robust than simply not comprehending....
>> 2)it is heavily based in facts....
>> 3)others may well add to my current level of understanding...
>> a)this last is a major part of building psychological
>> understanding....put forward a hypothesis (though i am now
>> beyond that point) and see who it stands up under probing...
>> b)psychological 'hypotheses' are not like those in physics where
>> most 'particles' operate according to similar 'rules'....
>> human particles often tend to veer off course for reasons
>> difficult to determine....
>
>But those of us with a more pragmatic bent simply realise that many people
>think and behave in an entirely irrational manner, and leave it there.
indeed....but my karma drives me beyond that pragmatism to seek to
advance understanding to a place where a more productive
approach/outcome is available
> Or
>do you think it is possible to legislate against stupidity?
it is (usually) stupid to 'be a criminal'......
obviously if your education system was radically improved the quantity
of stupidity could be much reduced.....
whether you'd term that as 'legislation' i'll leave to your semantics.
regards...
DaveVH
> >And by the way, some of us who consistently support the war in Iraq think
> >Diana was a dull slapper, and that the fountain of emotion following her
> >death was undignified and shallow.
>
> oh, i can see people taking such a view....
> personally i don't see signs of 'dullness'....anything but....i see mostly
> an insufficiently educated but unusually bright female....
Yes, my comment may have been over-hasty.
BTW, another suggestion for motivations for pseudo-objections to Iraq:
resistance to change. An unhealthy conservatism. We want Clinton back-ism.
Just an idea.
light
what I find hard to tolerate is people who should know better resorting
to falsity to cover up their gaffes and prop up untenable world views,
as in this case.
The much reviled Chomsky got it spot on where he stated:-
"a trick familiar to every petty crook and tenth-rate lawyer: when you
are caught with your hand in someone's pocket, [is to] cry "Thief!
Thief!" Don't try to defend yourself, thus conceding that there is an
issue to confront: rather, shift the onus to your accusers, who must
then defend themselves against your charge. The technique can be highly
effective when control over the doctrinal system is assured. The device
is familiar to propagandists, virtually a reflex, adopted unthinkingly"
Sounds familiar?
When you can back up your assertions with fact, abe, then you might be
worth reading - otherwise you're heading for universal ridicule.
l
Mabon Dane
upon rivals with a high degree of skill.
Mabon Dane
j...@somewhere.com
>When you can back up your assertions with fact, abe, then you might be
>worth reading - otherwise you're heading for universal ridicule.
He caught that train a long time ago.
JRP
light
> He's already reached the nut-house. Check out the crank's recent
> testimony on the US economy where he compares himself favourably to
> World Bank Chief Economist Stiglitz, because Stiglitz is retired and
> somehow over the hill.
Nah - he read Stiglitz's disclosures on the World Bank and found they
didn't fit his rosy view of capitalism.
>
> Or when he called the head of JP Morgan an "armageddon theorist" for
> calling an interest-rate hike and some sort of closing of the deficit.
Perhaps JP is more aware (and has far more to lose) of NESARA than most...
>
> The idiot doesn't even know what a US Treasury Bill (T-Bill) is. I
> posted an explanation a while back but the loon ran off and never
> bothered to reply. I guess he found something he didn't know and had to
> go check up on it in a Core Economics for Beginners booklet :)
>
If you look at some of the stuff on his site, he had a brain once...
That more than anything else is what saddens me - perhaps he's been
'coerced'?
j...@somewhere.com
<mickey_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Even by your low standards this was an appallingly bad post, Ab.
>Something tells me you haven't been getting enough sex recently.
Lardy has SEX!!
Do Yaks count?
JRP
abelard
typed:
>
sure...but even that is clinging to an imagined security blanket....
again a form of fear/cowardice....
i s'pose the 'how much better it was in the olden days' is another
expression of that kind....
regards...
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:45:21 +0000 (UTC), "DaveVH" <da...@vvhhvvhh.com>
>
> typed:
>
>>
>>abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>news:ieki019te5gdk4gq4...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> >And by the way, some of us who consistently support the war in Iraq think
>>> >Diana was a dull slapper, and that the fountain of emotion following her
>>> >death was undignified and shallow.
>>>
>>> oh, i can see people taking such a view....
>>> personally i don't see signs of 'dullness'....anything but....i see mostly
>>> an insufficiently educated but unusually bright female....
>>
>>Yes, my comment may have been over-hasty.
>>
>>BTW, another suggestion for motivations for pseudo-objections to Iraq:
>>resistance to change. An unhealthy conservatism. We want Clinton back-ism.
>>Just an idea.
>
>sure...but even that is clinging to an imagined security blanket....
>again a form of fear/cowardice....
Cowardice!! Lardy's word of the week.
He is so brave behind his keyboard watching others doing his fighting.
JRP
abelard
typed:
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:56:05 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:45:21 +0000 (UTC), "DaveVH" <da...@vvhhvvhh.com>
>>>abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>>news:ieki019te5gdk4gq4...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> >And by the way, some of us who consistently support the war in Iraq think
>>>> >Diana was a dull slapper, and that the fountain of emotion following her
>>>> >death was undignified and shallow.
>>>>
>>>> oh, i can see people taking such a view....
>>>> personally i don't see signs of 'dullness'....anything but....i see mostly
>>>> an insufficiently educated but unusually bright female....
>>>
>>>Yes, my comment may have been over-hasty.
>>>
>>>BTW, another suggestion for motivations for pseudo-objections to Iraq:
>>>resistance to change. An unhealthy conservatism. We want Clinton back-ism.
>>>Just an idea.
>>
>>sure...but even that is clinging to an imagined security blanket....
>>again a form of fear/cowardice....
>
>Cowardice!! Lardy's word of the week.
>
>He is so brave behind his keyboard watching others doing his fighting.
having problems jerky?
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>>>sure...but even that is clinging to an imagined security blanket....
>>>again a form of fear/cowardice....
>>
>>Cowardice!! Lardy's word of the week.
>>
>>He is so brave behind his keyboard watching others doing his fighting.
>
>having problems jerky?
Nope, pointing our your contradictions and absurdities is like taking
sweeties from a child.
JRP
abelard
typed:
so that's how you spend your time between collecting dole payments
i'll bet you're not much cop at that either...
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:50:42 +0000, j...@somewhere.com
>
> typed:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:49:11 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>sure...but even that is clinging to an imagined security blanket....
>>>>>again a form of fear/cowardice....
>>>>
>>>>Cowardice!! Lardy's word of the week.
>>>>
>>>>He is so brave behind his keyboard watching others doing his fighting.
>>>
>>>having problems jerky?
>>
>>Nope, pointing our your contradictions and absurdities is like taking
>>sweeties from a child.
>
>so that's how you spend your time between collecting dole payments
>i'll bet you're not much cop at that either...
Is that the best you can do?
Oh dear.
JRP
abelard
typed:
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:55:50 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:50:42 +0000, j...@somewhere.com
>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:49:11 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>sure...but even that is clinging to an imagined security blanket....
>>>>>>again a form of fear/cowardice....
>>>>>
>>>>>Cowardice!! Lardy's word of the week.
>>>>>
>>>>>He is so brave behind his keyboard watching others doing his fighting.
>>>>
>>>>having problems jerky?
>>>
>>>Nope, pointing our your contradictions and absurdities is like taking
>>>sweeties from a child.
>>
>>so that's how you spend your time between collecting dole payments
>>i'll bet you're not much cop at that either...
>
>Is that the best you can do?
>
>Oh dear.
still there i note....
got problems jerky?
do you keep babbling in remedial class like that?
and with nothing to say....
have you been suspended yet?
is it how you get your dole without having to get work?
or do you, wonder of wonders, believe you are 'contributing'?
this last question i'd actually like you to answer...i'm interested....
or do you just blather for attention?
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>>>Nope, pointing our your contradictions and absurdities is like taking
>>>>sweeties from a child.
>>>
>>>so that's how you spend your time between collecting dole payments
>>>i'll bet you're not much cop at that either...
>>
>>Is that the best you can do?
>>
>>Oh dear.
>
>still there i note....
>got problems jerky?
>do you keep babbling in remedial class like that?
>and with nothing to say....
>have you been suspended yet?
>is it how you get your dole without having to get work?
>or do you, wonder of wonders, believe you are 'contributing'?
>this last question i'd actually like you to answer...i'm interested....
>or do you just blather for attention?
You really are crap at this usenet lark.
JRP
abelard
typed:
shame you always evade....you could be a useful laboratory rat....
after the rat had a lobectomy....
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:35:52 +0000, j...@somewhere.com
>
> typed:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:51:23 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>Nope, pointing our your contradictions and absurdities is like taking
>>>>>>sweeties from a child.
>>>>>
>>>>>so that's how you spend your time between collecting dole payments
>>>>>i'll bet you're not much cop at that either...
>>>>
>>>>Is that the best you can do?
>>>>
>>>>Oh dear.
>>>
>>>still there i note....
>>>got problems jerky?
>>>do you keep babbling in remedial class like that?
>>>and with nothing to say....
>>>have you been suspended yet?
>>>is it how you get your dole without having to get work?
>>>or do you, wonder of wonders, believe you are 'contributing'?
>>>this last question i'd actually like you to answer...i'm interested....
>>>or do you just blather for attention?
>>
>>You really are crap at this usenet lark.
>
>shame you always evade....you could be a useful laboratory rat....
> after the rat had a lobectomy....
Evade what, your "post" was full of the usual drivel. Get a new macro
lardy.
JRP
Boed...@isp.com
abelard wrote:
> i have wondered and studied long to understand the effete, mindless
> and soul-less left.....
> i have wondered how often apparently intelligent people could embrace
> a cult that has so little to offer.....
>
> "Marxian Socialism
That's 1.
must always remain a portent to the historians of
> Opinion - how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised
so
> powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and,
through
> them, the events of history."
>
> by watching in great detail the behaviour of many who subscribe to
the
> nonsense....i am at last beginning to have some idea of the real
> driving forces behind joining cult socialism...
That's 2.
Snip.
>
> this mindset at the heart of the socialist
That's 3.
dream also reduces populations
> to a mental and physical slavery.....strangely, it is those
under the
> full developed socialist
4.
dictatorships of soviet russia and irak who
> end up developing the guts to oppose and fight for freedom.....
> it is the christianist right with the emphasis on individual
> responsibility, that fights to free the enslaved, while the
> socialists
5.
of the west under socialism
6.
lite wander slowly towards the
> abattoirs of the unfree states that are the *inevitable* outcome
of
> socialism....
7.
> the mindless societies where 'personality' is expressed in
fashionable
> (that is copied conformity) clothes, musac and slack, pre-formed,
> cliched 'opinions'....
> another expression of cowardice in the drive to conform.....
>
> just as socialism
8.
preys on the children of middle-class strivers, so also
> the jihadi cult masters masters with their political ambitions
trade
> a form of islam lite to the drones of the middle east, an
'islam'
> where mayhem and murder are no longer forbidden but encouraged
> and advocated.....another fashionable route to 'being special'
without
> serious work or study....
> little wonder the two cults are now joined at the hip...
Another big snip, I'm falling asleep.
this is a large key to their
>
>
> http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson020405.html
>
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=3BVGI3SCFQVBBQFIQMFCM5OAVCBQYJVC?xml=/opinion/2005/02/06/do0604.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/02/06/ixop.html
> "If Paul Volcker's preliminary report on Oil-for-Food dealt with the
> organisation's unofficial interests, the UN's other report of the
week
> accurately captured their blithe insouciance to their official one.
As you
> may have noticed, the good people of Darfur have been fortunate
enough not
> to attract the attention of the arrogant cowboy unilateralist Bush
and
> have instead fallen under the care of the Polly Toynbee-Clare
> Short-approved multilateral compassion set. So, after months of
expressing
> deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep
grave
> concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan managed
to
> persuade the UN to set up a committee to look into what's going on in
> Darfur. They've just reported back that it's not genocide.
>
> That's great news, isn't it? For as yet another Annan-appointed UN
> committee boldly declared in December: "Genocide anywhere is a threat
to
> the security of all and should never be tolerated." So thank goodness
this
> isn't genocide. Instead, it's just 70,000 corpses who all happen to
be
> from the same ethnic group - which means the UN can go on tolerating
it
> until everyone's dead, and Polly and Clare don't have to worry their
> pretty little heads about it."
Do let us know when all those WMD have been found won't you abie.
Snip the daftest sig on the net. He's bonkers
[] a big stick.
Duh.
only when it's funny -- woger wabbit
It isn't, it's barmy.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
typed:
>
>abelard wrote:
>> i have wondered and studied long to understand the effete, mindless
>> and soul-less left.....
>> i have wondered how often apparently intelligent people could embrace
>> a cult that has so little to offer.....
>>
>> or as keynes put it in 1926...
>> "Marxian Socialism
>
>That's 1.
your devotion may know no limits....
but please stop importuning me through e-mail.....
the answer is still no!!!
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,150,913 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------