Private for John Hyphen-Name
Kevin Gowen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974998,00.html
In an extraordinary departure from the diplomatic language with which he has
come to be associated, Mr Blix assailed his critics in both Washington and
Iraq.
Speaking exclusively to the Guardian from his 31st floor office at the UN in
New York, Mr Blix said: "I have my detractors in Washington. There are
bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in
the media. Not that I cared very much."
--
Kevin Gowen
Michael Cash
<kgowen...@myfastmail.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going
with:
In the military, that is known as "short-timer's attitude".
a = x + w/u
Where "a" is attitude, "x" is amount of time remaining in service, and
"w/u" is "a wake up"
The interesting thing about this equation is that as "x" approaches
zero, "a" approaches infinity.
--
Michael Cash
"I am Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht."
Elmer J. Fudd
Millionaire
Kevin Gowen
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:34:30 -0400, "Kevin Gowen"
> <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going
> with:
>
>> How's *this* for protocol?
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974998,00.html
>>
>> In an extraordinary departure from the diplomatic language with
>> which he has come to be associated, Mr Blix assailed his critics in
>> both Washington and Iraq.
>> Speaking exclusively to the Guardian from his 31st floor office at
>> the UN in New York, Mr Blix said: "I have my detractors in
>> Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course,
>> who planted nasty things in the media. Not that I cared very much."
>
> In the military, that is known as "short-timer's attitude".
>
> a = x + w/u
>
> Where "a" is attitude, "x" is amount of time remaining in service, and
> "w/u" is "a wake up"
>
> The interesting thing about this equation is that as "x" approaches
> zero, "a" approaches infinity.
I saw Sergeant Blix on TV just now. He assured me that he was not referring
to anyone in the administration. I could smell the rubber burning all the
way down here.
http://kevingowen.webhop.org/schultzblix.jpg
I SEE NUSSINGK! I KNOW NUSSINGK!
--
Kevin Gowen
John W.
> How's *this* for protocol?
>
>
> come to be associated, Mr Basuboru assailed his critics in both Japan and
> Japan.
> Speaking exclusively to the Japanese from his 31st floor office at the Japan
> in
> Japan, Mr Basuboru said: "I have my detractors in Japan. There are
> Japans who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in
> the Japan. Not that I Japaned very much."
I fixed your post so it would be more on-topic for a Japan-related NG.
John W.
Kevin Gowen
Wow. I really *do* get your goat. I've reduced you to picking nits over the
topics of my posts. It's almost enough to inspire me to make Japan-related
posts about getting fired and mercy me what will I do now that I have just
bought this suit from the clearance rack and the Men's Wearhouse, but not
quite.
ObJapan: People in Japan get fired sometimes.
--
Kevin Gowen
John W.
> ObJapan: People in Japan get fired sometimes.
Yes they do. Come back to me when you're employed, Mr.
Wannabealawyerfromasecondrateschool.
John W.
Kevin Gowen
No, I know so.
http://tinyurl.com/e50s
"Yes, you pushed my buttons. Have many times. Like now."
Push, push, push, all day long.
Push, push, push, while I sing this song.
Gonna push those buttons, gonna make John whine.
He's gonna wear that suit to see Richard Bernstein
Ehi, Figaro! Son qua.
> Wow. You really *are* clueless.
I'm sure that's a demolishing comeback in the break room at Arthur
Treacher's Fish & Chips. Good to know that you are gainfully employed again.
>> ObJapan: People in Japan get fired sometimes.
>
> Yes they do. Come back to me when you're employed,
I am employed. In fact, I am posting from my workplace right now. Now, stop
replying to me so I can get back to pretending to work.
> Mr.
> Wannabealawyerfromasecondrateschool.
Hey, be nice to KWW. They'll get ABA accreditation one of these days.
ObJapan: Japan is a country in Asia populated by many Japanese.
--
Kevin Gowen
Michael Cash
the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Yes they do. Come back to me when you're employed, Mr.
>Wannabealawyerfromasecondrateschool.
Know what they call the guy who graduates from medical school at the
bottom of his class?
Kevin Wayne Williams
> On 12 Jun 2003 06:27:12 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com (John W.) belched
> the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>>Yes they do. Come back to me when you're employed, Mr.
>>Wannabealawyerfromasecondrateschool.
>
>
> Know what they call the guy who graduates from medical school at the
> bottom of his class?
Doctor?
Doesn't work for law ... you have to pass the bar. I don't think that
will be an obstacle for KGII. I hope he is more personable in the flesh
than he is over Usenet (and similar entities like fj.*), or the
"attracting and retaining clients" part might prove a wee bit difficult.
KWW
Michael Cash
<nih...@paxonet.kom> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Michael Cash wrote:
>
>> On 12 Jun 2003 06:27:12 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com (John W.) belched
>> the alphabet and kept on going with:
>>
>>>Yes they do. Come back to me when you're employed, Mr.
>>>Wannabealawyerfromasecondrateschool.
>>
>>
>> Know what they call the guy who graduates from medical school at the
>> bottom of his class?
>
>Doctor?
>
>Doesn't work for law ... you have to pass the bar.
For all practical purposes, it doesn't work for medicine either. Still
have to pass the state licensing exam.
>I don't think that
>will be an obstacle for KGII. I hope he is more personable in the flesh
>than he is over Usenet (and similar entities like fj.*), or the
>"attracting and retaining clients" part might prove a wee bit difficult.
Don't some attorneys go into prosecution? Those guys don't have to
"attract and retain" clients. The cops will out out and "detain and
restrain" clients for them.
Kevin Gowen
> Michael Cash wrote:
>
>> On 12 Jun 2003 06:27:12 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com (John W.) belched
>> the alphabet and kept on going with:
>>
>>> Yes they do. Come back to me when you're employed, Mr.
>>> Wannabealawyerfromasecondrateschool.
>>
>>
>> Know what they call the guy who graduates from medical school at the
>> bottom of his class?
>
> Doctor?
>
> Doesn't work for law ... you have to pass the bar.
The United States Medical Licensing Examination is a three step exam: one
step at the end of the second year of medical school, one step during the
fourth year, and the last step taken during the first year of residency.
They get to call themselves "doctor" as soon as they get their diplomas, but
they cannot practice until they licensed to do so by a state.
> I don't think that
> will be an obstacle for KGII.
I don't guess it will. In recent years the school has generally led the
Florida bar pass rate (>90%). I am pretty sure that I am not in the bottom
10% of my class.
> I hope he is more personable in the
> flesh than he is over Usenet (and similar entities like fj.*), or the
> "attracting and retaining clients" part might prove a wee bit
> difficult.
Handing me a wad of cash does wonders for my personality.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Wayne Williams
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:15:34 GMT, Kevin Wayne Williams
> <nih...@paxonet.kom> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>>
>>Doesn't work for law ... you have to pass the bar.
>
[snip]
>
>>I don't think that
>>will be an obstacle for KGII. I hope he is more personable in the flesh
>>than he is over Usenet (and similar entities like fj.*), or the
>>"attracting and retaining clients" part might prove a wee bit difficult.
>
>
> Don't some attorneys go into prosecution? Those guys don't have to
> "attract and retain" clients. The cops will out out and "detain and
> restrain" clients for them.
Yes, but I don't think that is particularly compatible with his
specialty of "international law." Besides, it is one of the lower paid
sections of the legal profession, which doesn't strike me as compatible
with his career goals.
KWW
>
John W.
crap that has absolutely nothing at all to do with Japan.
John W.
Michael Cash
I have no idea what his career goals are. My point was that not every
attorney has to be able to attract clients.
Kevin Wayne Williams
>
> I have no idea what his career goals are.
Surely you jest.
KWW
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> Handing me a wad of cash does wonders for my personality.
I fear I would get little satisfaction from that. My imagination ranged from
getting him working in a Salvation Army soup kitchen to giving him six weeks
solitary in a coal cellar. Anyone got any other ideas for achieving the
desired effect?
Ryan Ginstrom
"Kevin Wayne Williams" <nih...@paxonet.kom> wrote in message
> Michael Cash wrote:
>
> >
> > I have no idea what his career goals are.
>
> Surely you jest.
And you know what his career goals are?
--
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom
Ryan Ginstrom
"John Yamamoto-Wilson" <jo...@rarebooksinjapan.com> wrote in message
news:bcbcqe$hkift$1...@ID-169501.news.dfncis.de...
Telling him where his wife keeps his balls so he can take them when he goes
out instead of his laptop with wireless connection?
--
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom
Kevin Wayne Williams
No, but I have ideas about them.
KWW
Ryan Ginstrom
"Kevin Wayne Williams" <nih...@paxonet.kom> wrote in message
> Ryan Ginstrom wrote:
> > And you know what his career goals are?
> >
>
> No, but I have ideas about them.
Based on the abandon with which you jump onto his Ladka impersonations, I
have ideas about the accuracy of your ideas.
--
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom
Kevin Wayne Williams
No doubt my ideas are inaccurate ... I simply was surprised at Mike's
assertion that he had none.
Still, I suspect a general theme of world domination and wealth pervades
KGII's career ambitions, and would be surprised if public defender is
anywhere on the list.
Just curious, which parts of his on-line personality do you view as
"Ladka impersonations"? The religious bigot part? Or his political views?
KWW
Ryan Ginstrom
"Kevin Wayne Williams" <nih...@paxonet.kom> wrote in message
> Ryan Ginstrom wrote:
> No doubt my ideas are inaccurate ... I simply was surprised at Mike's
> assertion that he had none.
I would also say I have none. I basically view each of Kevin's posts here as
a piece of performance art (pretty fitting, as I think that most performance
art stinks, especially the stuff done by random dorks on the sidewalk).
Taken in this context, they are tolerable and even mildly amusing at times.
There is one thread semi-ongoing right now that I think is pretty funny, in
a twisted sort of way. The Morty stuff was hilarious. Lately it's getting a
bit tedious though, perhaps he needs to take a break or narrow down his
targets.
I really have no idea why he persists -- it would certainly have gotten old
for me by now if I were doing it. Maybe his sense of humor is much different
from mine.
--
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom
John W.
I figure he'll be a lot the comic book guy from the Simpsons. Very
smart but not much in the way of social skills. However, he did manage
to get a wife somehow, so there's hope, assuming she's still around;
he's having delusions about my wife now (and he has emailed her).
John W.
Brett Robson
>
>ObJapan: People in Japan get fired sometimes.
>
Some people in Japan have had jobs (and blow jobs).
---
"he [John Ashcroft] deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid
offending non-Christians." - Ben Shapiro 27/2/2003
Brett Robson
>
>
>Doesn't work for law ... you have to pass the bar. I don't think that
>will be an obstacle for KGII. I hope he is more personable in the flesh
>than he is over Usenet (and similar entities like fj.*), or the
>"attracting and retaining clients" part might prove a wee bit difficult.
>
He's not. He has a rather shifty and nervous demeanor and unable to maintain eye
contact.
Brett Robson
>
> he did manage
>to get a wife somehow, so there's hope, assuming she's still around;
>he's having delusions about my wife now (and he has emailed her).
>
In contrast to Ryan's assertion (*) that Gowan is basically a harmless net geek,
some of us know that is is a rather nasty individual, in a slimey sneeky way.
He'll get his comeuppance one day and only he will be surprised.
* sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.
Michael Cash
<nih...@paxonet.kom> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Michael Cash wrote:
>
>>
>> I have no idea what his career goals are.
>
>Surely you jest.
No <obligatory> and don't call me Shirley </obligatory>.
I have kinda sorta guessed he plans on doing something lawyerly.
Beyond that, it really isn't any of my business and I haven't spent
any time pondering it.
(XML sure is handy, don't you think?)
Michael Cash
<nih...@paxonet.kom> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>No doubt my ideas are inaccurate ... I simply was surprised at Mike's
>assertion that he had none.
>
>Still, I suspect a general theme of world domination and wealth pervades
>KGII's career ambitions, and would be surprised if public defender is
>anywhere on the list.
I realize that there is no clear connection between the two paragraphs
above to indicate that I ever thought Kevin would be interested in
working as a public defender. But I thought I would just chime in for
the sake of clarity and point out that the legal specialty I mentioned
earlier is usually seated at a different table when in court.
Do you think KGII is so without principle that he wouldn't consider a
legal career which doesn't involve amassing great wealth?
>
>Just curious, which parts of his on-line personality do you view as
>"Ladka impersonations"? The religious bigot part? Or his political views?
I've got to start reading *all* the posts again. I completely missed
the religious bigotry.
Michael Cash
<gins...@hotmail.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
There are (or ought to be) laws in Florida against sending someone out
into the public like that.
Michael Cash
the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Kevin Wayne Williams <nih...@paxonet.kom> wrote in message news:<aW%Fa.31$%8....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
>> Michael Cash wrote:
>>
>> > On 12 Jun 2003 06:27:12 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com (John W.) belched
>> > the alphabet and kept on going with:
>> >
>> >>Yes they do. Come back to me when you're employed, Mr.
>> >>Wannabealawyerfromasecondrateschool.
>> >
>> >
>> > Know what they call the guy who graduates from medical school at the
>> > bottom of his class?
>>
>> Doctor?
>>
>> Doesn't work for law ... you have to pass the bar. I don't think that
>> will be an obstacle for KGII. I hope he is more personable in the flesh
>> than he is over Usenet (and similar entities like fj.*), or the
>> "attracting and retaining clients" part might prove a wee bit difficult.
>>
>We can all hope that he'll be busier and won't be posting nonsensical
>crap that has absolutely nothing at all to do with Japan.
Not me. And don't take this personally or as siding with or against
either of you, but if this group were on-topic I'd be bored to tears.
If I want a bunch of people with stars in their eyes or their panties
in a wad over Japan, there are plenty of other places to get that.
John W.
> On 12 Jun 2003 22:23:28 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com ...
> >
> > he did manage
> >to get a wife somehow, so there's hope, assuming she's still around;
>
>
> >he's having delusions about my wife now (and he has emailed her).
> >
>
>
> In contrast to Ryan's assertion (*) that Gowan is basically a harmless net geek,
> some of us know that is is a rather nasty individual, in a slimey sneeky way.
> He'll get his comeuppance one day and only he will be surprised.
>
and times of frustration, but they rarely last long.
>
>
>
> * sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.
>
the term 'spot on'.
John W.
Kevin Gowen
> "John Yamamoto-Wilson" <jo...@rarebooksinjapan.com> wrote in message
> news:<bcbcqe$hkift$1...@ID-169501.news.dfncis.de>...
>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>
>>> Handing me a wad of cash does wonders for my personality.
>>
>> I fear I would get little satisfaction from that. My imagination
>> ranged from
>> getting him working in a Salvation Army soup kitchen to giving him
>> six weeks
>> solitary in a coal cellar. Anyone got any other ideas for achieving
>> the
>> desired effect?
>
> I figure he'll be a lot the comic book guy from the Simpsons. Very
> smart but not much in the way of social skills. However, he did manage
> to get a wife somehow, so there's hope, assuming she's still around;
What makes you think that the way I delight in ridiculing you might be in
any way similar to how I treat people in real life?
> he's having delusions about my wife now (and he has emailed her).
Stop smeering me! Your spiteful lies are smeering my good name like doo doo.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Wayne Williams
>
>
> ... but if this group were on-topic I'd be bored to tears.
> If I want a bunch of people with stars in their eyes or their panties
> in a wad over Japan, there are plenty of other places to get that.
Gotta agree with that. An on-topic FJLIJ would be remarkably dull.
KWW
Kevin Wayne Williams
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 03:52:09 GMT, Kevin Wayne Williams
> <nih...@paxonet.kom> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>
>
>>No doubt my ideas are inaccurate ... I simply was surprised at Mike's
>>assertion that he had none.
>>
>>Still, I suspect a general theme of world domination and wealth pervades
>>KGII's career ambitions, and would be surprised if public defender is
>>anywhere on the list.
>
>
> I realize that there is no clear connection between the two paragraphs
> above to indicate that I ever thought Kevin would be interested in
> working as a public defender. But I thought I would just chime in for
> the sake of clarity and point out that the legal specialty I mentioned
> earlier is usually seated at a different table when in court.
True. You had proposed public prosecuter.
>
> Do you think KGII is so without principle that he wouldn't consider a
> legal career which doesn't involve amassing great wealth?
What part of amassing great wealth do you think is a shallow ambition?
Besides, I never said that he wouldn't consider more philanthropic
opportunities. I just don't think that they are high on his ambition list.
>
>>Just curious, which parts of his on-line personality do you view as
>>"Ladka impersonations"? The religious bigot part? Or his political views?
>
>
> I've got to start reading *all* the posts again. I completely missed
> the religious bigotry.
At least on-line, I tend to define a man by his stated heroes. Ashcroft
and Scalia point in a pretty unpleasant direction.
KWW
Ryan Ginstrom
"Michael Cash" <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:jghjevsvrtdis3gqv...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:40:40 +0900, "Ryan Ginstrom"
goes
> >out instead of his laptop with wireless connection?
>
> There are (or ought to be) laws in Florida against sending someone out
> into the public like that.
With a wireless laptop? They should start with those damn cell phones first.
--
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom
Michael Cash
<gins...@hotmail.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
Wha'chu talkin' 'bout Willis? I was referring to sending married men
out unsupervised and in possession of their balls.
John W.
> John W. wrote:
> > "John Yamamoto-Wilson" <jo...@rarebooksinjapan.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bcbcqe$hkift$1...@ID-169501.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >>
> >>> Handing me a wad of cash does wonders for my personality.
> >>
> >> I fear I would get little satisfaction from that. My imagination
> >> ranged from
> >> getting him working in a Salvation Army soup kitchen to giving him
> >> six weeks
> >> solitary in a coal cellar. Anyone got any other ideas for achieving
> >> the
> >> desired effect?
> >
> > I figure he'll be a lot the comic book guy from the Simpsons. Very
> > smart but not much in the way of social skills. However, he did manage
> > to get a wife somehow, so there's hope, assuming she's still around;
>
> What makes you think that the way I delight in ridiculing you might be in
> any way similar to how I treat people in real life?
>
not surprising and speaks tons about you. And yes, I agree with that
end part.
> > he's having delusions about my wife now (and he has emailed her).
>
> Stop smeering me! Your spiteful lies are smeering my good name like doo doo.
Well, you said it, not me.
John W.
John W.
John W.
John W.
about Japan in some way or other, at least in the beginning. Of note
are those Gary used to post (peeing on wife and sex in shrine come to
mind) and the long threads involving Eric and the freeters etc.
John W.
Brett Robson
>
>If I want a bunch of people with stars in their eyes or their panties
>in a wad over Japan, there are plenty of other places to get that.
>
why don't you join community Japan?
Dave Fossett
> why don't you join community Japan?
Because he has been black-listed, that's why. ;-)
--
Dave Fossett
Saitama, JAPAN
Michael Cash
<re...@via.newsgroup> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Brett Robson wrote:
>
>> why don't you join community Japan?
>
>Because he has been black-listed, that's why. ;-)
I wonder if I am the first to ever barred without even being let in.
Declan Murphy
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:39:07 +0900, "Dave Fossett"
> <re...@via.newsgroup> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>>Brett Robson wrote:
>>
>>>why don't you join community Japan?
>>
>>Because he has been black-listed, that's why. ;-)
>
> I wonder if I am the first to ever barred without even being let in.
The crusader got it right though - kept "The Community" pure with a
magnificent example of the effectiveness of profiling. I bet that
*every* ying-yong speaking big white well informed truck driver that he
has ever met has given him nothing but pain, suffering and anguish
(which apparently is what embarrassment is called these days).
--
"All FDR undid was the value of the dollar"
Kevin Gowen (really)
Kevin Gowen
> Michael Cash wrote:
>>> Just curious, which parts of his on-line personality do you view as
>>> "Ladka impersonations"? The religious bigot part? Or his political
>>> views?
>>
>>
>> I've got to start reading *all* the posts again. I completely missed
>> the religious bigotry.
>
>
> At least on-line, I tend to define a man by his stated heroes.
> Ashcroft and Scalia point in a pretty unpleasant direction.
I see. You missed the religious bigotry, too. Which class at LLS covers
making things up?
I never said that Scalia and Ashcroft were my heroes. I only seem to recall
stating Justice Samuel Kent as one of my heroes. Let's pretend that I did
say that Scalia and Ashcroft are two of my heroes. How does this point to my
being a religious bigot? Not that I expect you to reply to me, of course.
Please feel free to reply to me by proxy through a reply to a third party as
has become your MO.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Wayne Williams
> I never said that Scalia and Ashcroft were my heroes. I only seem to recall
> stating Justice Samuel Kent as one of my heroes. Let's pretend that I did
> say that Scalia and Ashcroft are two of my heroes. How does this point to my
> being a religious bigot? Not that I expect you to reply to me, of course.
> Please feel free to reply to me by proxy through a reply to a third party as
> has become your MO.
I do reply directly on occasion. I did mispeak on one point. While you
have made admiring comments about Ashcroft and Scalia, you have never
actually used the word "hero" in regard to them.
Ashcroft is a slam-dunk. He is the guy that said "Civilized people --
Muslims, Christians and Jews -- all understand that the source of
freedom and human dignity is the Creator" on 2/18/2002, isn't he? I
guess that around half the world (including myself) doesn't meet his
base definition of "civilized." Still, I would seem that when he has
those office prayers, leaving "Jesus" out assures that he only offends
the uncivilised portion of his office.
Scalia is admittedly a little harder. I think he is smarter than John.
He adamantly defends the right of the government to endorse monotheism
(note the absence of any competitors in the quote "Government will not
favor Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, but the tradition was never
that the government had to be neutral between religiousness and
nonreligiousness." 1/13/2003), but he never goes down the slope of
portraying other folks as uncivilized or evil. He does, however, endorse
discouraging the democratic process when it comes to his religious beliefs:
".. It seems to me that the reaction of people of faith to this tendency
of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should be
not resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectively as
possible, and a principal way of combating it, in my view, is constant
public reminder that - in the words of one of the Supreme Court's
religion cases in the days when we understood the religion clauses
better than I think we now do - 'we are a religious people whose
institutions presuppose a supreme being.'" (1/25/2002)
His whole philosophy is calculated to encourage, as a natural
consequence, privileges and benefits to people whose religous beliefs
are similar to his own. An intellectually sophisticated bigotry, but
bigotry none the less.
Then the question comes to you. Do you admire these men? Yes, you do.
Do you believe that it is the proper place of the government to endorse
belief in the god that you worship, and that there is no requirement for
religious neutrality? You have said so, and there was no sign of it
being a simple intellectual exercise.
Do you believe that it is correct for the government to include
acknowledgement of this god as a portion of pledging allegiance to the
government? You have said so, and there was no sign of it being a simple
intellectual exercise.
Do you believe that there is a public need to honor this god at various
times of day, in completely secular functions, so that people that
object to participating in your worship would have to go out of their
way to avoid it? You have spoken in favor of it in relation to school
children and government office functions, and there was no sign of it
being a simple intellectual exercise.
When confronted with an Attorney General that leads his office in
prayer, you thought it was fine. You are smart enough to see that it
creates an environment where people of different religious beliefs feel
like they receive less justice and less protection than your group on a
large scale (or reduced chance for professional advancement on the
smaller scale of the office workers themselves),but you don't care.
In short, you believe that your group has the authority, right, and
justification to make the rest of us accomodate you, while you have no
concommittant obligation to accomodate us. Preferential treatment for
the group which you belong, and an apparent belief that your group
deserves this from some natural superiority...in other words, bigotry.
If there is some other reason that your group deserves this exalted
position, feel free to let me know.
Somewhere in that last Pledge debate, you slipped from being a source of
amusement to being genuinely vile. You don't seem to be arguing that a
technical reading of the constitution could justify an absurd result;
instead, you seem to be arguing something that you believe to be correct
and desirable.
If it is, as Robson claims, simply a piece of performance art, I leave
you with a quote from Vonnegut:
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to
be. ."
KWW
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> I never said that Scalia and Ashcroft were my heroes. I only seem to
>> recall stating Justice Samuel Kent as one of my heroes. Let's
>> pretend that I did say that Scalia and Ashcroft are two of my
>> heroes. How does this point to my being a religious bigot? Not that
>> I expect you to reply to me, of course. Please feel free to reply to
>> me by proxy through a reply to a third party as has become your MO.
>
> I do reply directly on occasion.
Yes, a practice you describe as being "weak" in http://tinyurl.com/encx
I thought power-lifters were supposed to be strong?
> I did mispeak on one point. While you
> have made admiring comments about Ashcroft and Scalia, you have never
> actually used the word "hero" in regard to them.
>
> Ashcroft is a slam-dunk. He is the guy that said "Civilized people --
> Muslims, Christians and Jews -- all understand that the source of
> freedom and human dignity is the Creator" on 2/18/2002, isn't he? I
> guess that around half the world (including myself) doesn't meet his
> base definition of "civilized."
I am surprised to learn that half of the world's population does not believe
in a creator.
> Still, I would seem that when he has
> those office prayers, leaving "Jesus" out assures that he only offends
> the uncivilised portion of his office.
I see. Where's the religious bigotry?
> Scalia is admittedly a little harder. I think he is smarter than John.
> He adamantly defends the right of the government to endorse monotheism
> (note the absence of any competitors in the quote "Government will not
> favor Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, but the tradition was
> never
> that the government had to be neutral between religiousness and
> nonreligiousness." 1/13/2003), but he never goes down the slope of
> portraying other folks as uncivilized or evil. He does, however,
> endorse discouraging the democratic process when it comes to his
> religious beliefs: ".. It seems to me that the reaction of people of
> faith to this tendency
> of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should
> be
> not resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectively as
> possible, and a principal way of combating it, in my view, is constant
> public reminder that - in the words of one of the Supreme Court's
> religion cases in the days when we understood the religion clauses
> better than I think we now do - 'we are a religious people whose
> institutions presuppose a supreme being.'" (1/25/2002)
Where was the part where he talked about discouraging democracy when it
comes to his religious beliefs? What did he say about his religious beliefs
in the slightest?
> His whole philosophy is calculated to encourage, as a natural
> consequence, privileges and benefits to people whose religous beliefs
> are similar to his own. An intellectually sophisticated bigotry, but
> bigotry none the less.
I see. What privilege and benefit does he seek to confer on what group?
> Then the question comes to you. Do you admire these men? Yes, you do.
You're not doing well so far, KWW. Trying to use my admiration of Ashcroft
and Scalia (assuming that they are religious bigots, although you have
proved nothing of the kind) to prove me to be a religious bigot is like
using Bill Clinton's admiration of his mentor, J. William Fulbright, to
prove that Clinton is a racist segregationist.
> Do you believe that it is the proper place of the government to
> endorse belief in the god that you worship, and that there is no
> requirement for religious neutrality? You have said so, and there was
> no sign of it
> being a simple intellectual exercise.
When did I say there was no requirement for religious neutrality?
> Do you believe that it is correct for the government to include
> acknowledgement of this god as a portion of pledging allegiance to the
> government? You have said so, and there was no sign of it being a
> simple intellectual exercise.
Yes.
> Do you believe that there is a public need to honor this god at
> various
> times of day, in completely secular functions, so that people that
> object to participating in your worship would have to go out of their
> way to avoid it? You have spoken in favor of it in relation to school
> children and government office functions, and there was no sign of it
> being a simple intellectual exercise.
I never said anything about a "need". I simply said (as the courts have)
that it is legally permissible.
> When confronted with an Attorney General that leads his office in
> prayer, you thought it was fine.
Yup.
> You are smart enough to see that it
> creates an environment where people of different religious beliefs
> feel
> like they receive less justice and less protection than your group on
> a
> large scale (or reduced chance for professional advancement on the
> smaller scale of the office workers themselves),but you don't care.
Yes, I don't care if their feelings are hurt. I only care if the law is
being broken. If they in fact have a reduced chance for professional
advancement because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) or are
receiving less justice/protection, then I think they should contact the EEOC
immediately, and then sue if they get a "permission to sue" letter.
> In short, you believe that your group has the authority, right, and
> justification to make the rest of us accomodate you, while you have no
> concommittant obligation to accomodate us.
Whoa! Now there's a leap that defies logic. What is my "group"? What
"accomodations" have I requested?
> Preferential treatment for
> the group which you belong,
What preferential treatment have I advocated?
> and an apparent belief that your group
> deserves this from some natural superiority...in other words, bigotry.
When did I evidence such a belief?
> If there is some other reason that your group deserves this exalted
> position, feel free to let me know.
I never gave a single reason for my "group" (whatever that is) for being in
an exalted position. Sorry that you think otherwise.
> Somewhere in that last Pledge debate, you slipped from being a source
> of amusement to being genuinely vile.
Can you please speak more about the genuine vileness? Is it more vile that
telling one's daughter that her choice to belief in a god would be extremely
disappointing?
> You don't seem to be arguing
> that a technical reading of the constitution could justify an absurd
> result; instead, you seem to be arguing something that you believe to
> be correct
> and desirable.
Please, talk about this again when you take your night school's
constitutional law classes. The courts were on my side on every point except
for the 9th Circuit pledge case. Why are all of these people absurd, but not
you? BTW, once you take con law in a few years you will learn how silly
"technical reading" arguments are, and I happen to be a strict
constructionist.
> If it is, as Robson claims, simply a piece of performance art, I leave
> you with a quote from Vonnegut:
> "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend
> to
> be. ."
Then allow me to respond in kind:
"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations."
- Sir Winston Churchill, _My Early Life_
--
Kevin Gowen
Brett Robson
>
>
>If it is, as Robson claims, simply a piece of performance art, I leave
>you with a quote from Vonnegut:
>"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to
>be. ."
>
No, that was Ryan. I say quite simply that Gowan is living his little wet dream
here, he is able to express his deeply held views and be offensive in a way that
he is incapable of in real life.
Brett Robson
>
>Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>> Still, I would seem that when he has
>> those office prayers, leaving "Jesus" out assures that he only offends
>> the uncivilised portion of his office.
>
>I see. Where's the religious bigotry?
You can't see bigotry because you hold the same bigotted views?
>> When confronted with an Attorney General that leads his office in
>> prayer, you thought it was fine.
>
>Yup.
as long as it coincides with your own beliefs. What you think if the prayers
where to Shiva?
>Yes, I don't care if their feelings are hurt. I only care if the law is
>being broken.
This time.
>> In short, you believe that your group has the authority, right, and
>> justification to make the rest of us accomodate you, while you have no
>> concommittant obligation to accomodate us.
>
>Whoa! Now there's a leap that defies logic. What is my "group"? What
>"accomodations" have I requested?
Prayer with the boss. Do I get to have a prayer meeting (to Ja) with the boss?
>Then allow me to respond in kind:
>"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations."
>- Sir Winston Churchill, _My Early Life_
Still got that book of Japanese expressions?
Kevin Wayne Williams
> No, that was Ryan.
Sorry about that. Believe me, I hate it when people blur all the Kevins
together, and it is a bit more difficult to blur "Ryan" and "Brent."
KWW