Re; Is the US an enemy of Islam?
Gavin Staples
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:a4jepa$ss0$1...@neon.noos.net...
>
>
>
>
> Is the US an enemy of Islam?
>
> I am currently finishing a book "Muhammad and the Origins of Islam" by F.
E.
> Peters (1994) which deals with period leading up Muhammad`s creation of
> a new religion.
>
> I got a couple of insights which I had not had before.
>
> It has to do with the Islamic radicals' view that the US is the number one
> enemy of Islam. The term "jihad" can also be taken as not a "holy war"
> but a defense of Islam.
>
> Next, from an Islamic point of view, Christianity has been historically
> aggressive with respect to Islam. Muslims remember the Crusades which
> are normally understood by Americans in terms of Hollywood`s contribution
> to world culture. We collectively remember nothing in the West, the
> Islamics have forgotten nothing;
>
> It was a bloody time and at some periods during the
> Christian occupation of the Holy Lands, the cities of Mecca and Medina,
and
> the Islamic Holy sites, were threatened with actually destruction.
> One Christian military campaign intended to do so. Bin Laden still
> invokes this attack and the presence of "infidels" in Saudi Arabia
> is an provocation from their point of view.
>
> Although historically Muhammand himself had problems with Jews in
> Medina, this was the result of their association with Arab tribes which
> opposed him. So the Jews got caught up in the fight and historically got
> the blame. In fact both groups had their common legends and beliefs,
> Abraham himself is attributed with the construction of the Ka'ba in
> Mecca. Nor was Muhammad antagonistic towards the Christians
> although both the Jews and Christians were off the mark as far
> as Islam was conserned. We all being people of the book, had
> an area of common meeting.
>
> They all shared the same basic "monotheistic" base although the
> role of Christ, Mary, and the many Saints gave Christianity a
> polytheistic flavor, especially when many of the early Saints
> were adapted from European pagan gods and goddesses. Islam
> was not so pure either since Muhammad accepted the existence
> of other supernatural entities such as angels, jinns and shaytans
> (satans). Muhammad readapted the satan immages to his enemies and
> and the enemies of Islam. So today, when the US is referred to as
> the "Great Satan" is means that the US is the number one enemy of
> Islam, not merely some manifestion of the Christian concept of the
> evil Satan.
>
> So the question is "Is the US an enemy of Islam?
>
> I think that if one puts oneself into a frame of mind of an Islamic
> radical, YES, the US, its way of life, it representing modern western
> Christianity, is an enemy of Islam. First, in taking sides with Israel
in
> the Palestinian conflict, it has taken the side of its religious mother,
> Judaism. Christianity if a form of Judaism gone global having broken
> out of its tribal constraints. So they are mother and daughter
religions.
>
> Another feature of Western Christianity is its increasing evolution
towards
> materialism, which is most exemplified in the USA, being
hypermaterialistic.
> Europe appears less dangerous in this regard in having gone into a
> postmaterialistic period. Still modern industrial societies appear
> generally materialistic having a facade of religious belief lacking
> authenticity. Of the two, Europe is nearly a-religious, religion playing
> no role in political life.
>
> So in that sense, Europe seems to present less of a threat to Islam than
> the Americans. The apparent role of religion in public and private
> life in the USA, via a protestantism superimposed on capitalism
> (or the inverse, here Max Weber has to be cited), makes globalization
> appear as a combined threat of Christianity wrapped in Capitalism
> seeking domination via a market controlled world economy. In this
> sense, the threat to Islam is evident to believers.
>
> Whatever, I think it important to realized that from one point of
> view, Islam is not a threat to us, but we are a threat to Islam.
>
> Earl
>
>
>
>
>
Excellent topic here. This is what I am researching at the moment. I
agree with most of this but I feel the conclusion is slightly different.
I'll make a more detailed reply very soon.
GAVIN STAPLES.
dirtdog
<gsta...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
<snipped what silly Gavin should have>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Excellent topic here. This is what I am researching at the moment. I
>agree with most of this but I feel the conclusion is slightly different.
>I'll make a more detailed reply very soon.
>
> GAVIN STAPLES.
>
Oooooo goody.
I can't wait.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:jlbu6u8o72t70hc3o...@4ax.com...
seen a post from you yet, that wasn't a 'mystery story' to me.
PV
dirtdog
Talk sense you old cretin.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
and your opinions held within your meaningless rickety
framework of English law, without brain, wit, imagination
or knowledge.
PV
> w00f
>
>
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:JtHb8.156870$Gb1.21...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> news:kcgu6ug9j2nvsk6b2...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 04:58:52 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> > <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> > >news:jlbu6u8o72t70hc3o...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:16:58 -0000, "Gavin Staples"
> > >> <gsta...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> <snipped what silly Gavin should have>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > Excellent topic here. This is what I am researching at the
moment. I
> > >> >agree with most of this but I feel the conclusion is slightly
different.
> > >> >I'll make a more detailed reply very soon.
> > >> >
> > >> > GAVIN STAPLES.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Oooooo goody.
> > >>
> > >> I can't wait.
> > >>
> > >> w00f
> > >>
> > >You know, Dirt, that you put Agatha Christie to shame. I haven't
> > >seen a post from you yet, that wasn't a 'mystery story' to me.
> > >
> > >PV
> >
> >
> > Talk sense you old cretin.
> >
> Alright..
From the OED
1926 H. W. Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage 16/1 There are no such forms as all-right,
allright, or alright, though even the last, if seldom allowed by the
compositors to appear in print, is often seen_in MS.
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:kcgu6ug9j2nvsk6b2...@4ax.com...
<snipped>
>> Talk sense you old cretin.
>>
>Alright.. I find your posts vulgar in tone, sterile in meaning,
>and your opinions held within your meaningless rickety
>framework of English law, without brain, wit, imagination
>or knowledge.
>
>
>PV
>
What brought that on, PV? And what the fuck has it to do with Agatha
Christie?
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> Christie?
>
> w00f
>
She wrote mysteries. Your posts are mysteries of logic
and common sense. You figure it out. You're the one
with a 'classical education.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:XVPb8.95062$H37.12...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Pedant
2. ....one who lays excessive stress upon trifling details of
knowledge or upon strict adherence to formal rules; ..."
PV
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:4pkv6uoc21q52inno...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 05:47:21 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>> >news:kcgu6ug9j2nvsk6b2...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>>
>> >> Talk sense you old cretin.
>> >>
>> >Alright.. I find your posts vulgar in tone, sterile in meaning,
>> >and your opinions held within your meaningless rickety
>> >framework of English law, without brain, wit, imagination
>> >or knowledge.
>> >
>> >
>> >PV
>> >
>>
>>
>> What brought that on, PV? And what the **** has it to do with Agatha
>> Christie?
>>
>> w00f
>>
>She wrote mysteries. Your posts are mysteries of logic
>and common sense. You figure it out. You're the one
>with a 'classical education.'
>
>
>PV
Yes. Common sense and logic.
Very important.
BTW, have you thought of an explanation (using common sense and logic)
as to why POWs in Vietnam and the Gulf War should have the benefit of
the Geneva Convention, but those in Korea and Afghanistan should not?
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
> You're the one
>with a 'classical education.'
>
>
>PV
After all those months of furious denial, I'm glad to note that you
have finally accepted this truth.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>From the OED
>
>Pedant
>
>2. ....one who lays excessive stress upon trifling details of
>knowledge or upon strict adherence to formal rules; ..."
>
>PV
>
Your penchant for selective quoting really is getting to be a problem,
PV. You even do it when reciting dictionary definition!
BTW, have you managed to define the "self" of "society" yet?
Nope, didn't think so.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna6vt3r.bm.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Sun, 17 Feb 2002 17:12:47 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> From the OED
> >> 1926 H. W. Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage 16/1 There are no such forms as
all-right,
> >> allright, or alright, though even the last, if seldom allowed by the
> >> compositors to appear in print, is often seen_in MS.
>
> > From the OED
> >
> > Pedant
> >
> > 2. ....one who lays excessive stress upon trifling details of
> > knowledge or upon strict adherence to formal rules; ..."
>
> who get caught out, and then try to distract attention from their mistakes
> ?
Look under 'prescient.' That would be my observation
which has been rather subtly clipped while concentrating
on a pedantic process. The comment I made, which
can hardly be refuted, was that dirt's posts most generally
meet the criteria I mentioned, which was -- " I find your posts
vulgar in tone, sterile in meaning, and your opinions held
within your meaningless rickety framework of English law,
without brain, wit, imagination or knowledge." The
distraction of attention was the pedantic process of Mr.
John Rennie, rather than any demonstration that the
meat of the content could be argued.
PV
Exador
I bow to your superior knowledge of this technique PV,
Cheers,
Craig
dirtdog
PV, if you think a statement as vague and woolly, not to metion
inaccurate as yours contained any "meat" you are much mistaken.
To be honest, judging by the fact that you unusually qualified your
observations as being opinion, rather than fact, I am confident that
you have little belief that your own conclusions would be fit to stand
up to objective scrutiny.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 17:06:43 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> >news:4pkv6uoc21q52inno...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 05:47:21 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> >> >news:kcgu6ug9j2nvsk6b2...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> <snipped>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Talk sense you old cretin.
> >> >>
> >> >Alright.. I find your posts vulgar in tone, sterile in meaning,
> >> >and your opinions held within your meaningless rickety
> >> >framework of English law, without brain, wit, imagination
> >> >or knowledge.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >PV
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> What brought that on, PV? And what the **** has it to do with Agatha
> >> Christie?
> >>
> >> w00f
> >>
> >She wrote mysteries. Your posts are mysteries of logic
> >and common sense. You figure it out. You're the one
> >with a 'classical education.'
> >
> >
> >PV
>
>
> Yes. Common sense and logic.
>
> Very important.
>
a mystery.
> BTW, have you thought of an explanation (using common sense and logic)
> as to why POWs in Vietnam and the Gulf War should have the benefit of
> the Geneva Convention, but those in Korea and Afghanistan should not?
SHOULD HAVE, and DID HAVE are two different things. Korea,
Vietnam and the Gulf War were all against RECOGNIZED
governments -- Namely, North Korea (an aggressor), China
(an aggressor), North Vietnam (an aggressor), and
Iraq (an aggressor). I will not argue the Vietnam War,
since I have clearly stated we should NOT have been there.
From the moment we lost the first American soldier. But it is
absurd to argue that Korea and the Gulf War should
not have been engaged, by whatever 'name' you wish to call
them. My point has always been that 'war' can be expressed
in the term of an actual DECLARED war, and the rhetorical
term of being 'at war.' None of those nations abided by the
terms of the Geneva Convention, while we did so rather
meticulously. The ragtag in Afghanistan are 'terrorists,'
forming no part of a RECOGNIZED government. And
with WHO would we negotiate as part of the search
for a peace process if we were ACTUALLY in a 'declared
war'?
BTW -- have you thought of an explanation for your
claim that 'Justice is predicated' on the burden of proof
being placed on the defendant? That 'poor defendant'...
needing to prove they're innocent. How easy that
becomes for the State.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
I could well claim I'm Jesus, and have as much expectation
of being believed as you should have of being believed that you
possess a 'classical education.' It is used by me to only
point out the hypocrisy of the bulk of your posts.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
managed to understand the definition of a 'self-sealing envelope'?
You see... put 'defense' in place of 'sealing,' and 'society' in place
of 'envelope,' and voila...
Or perhaps visit the OED, and look at
SELF-GOVERNMENT ---
Administration by a people or state of its own affairs without
external direction or interference.
Or --
SELF-OPENED --
Opened of its own accord.
1667 MILTON P.L. v. 254 The gate self-opend wide On golden Hinges turning.
c1820 S. ROGERS Italy (1839) 13 The door which ever, as self-opened, moves To
them that knock. 1824 HOOD Two Swans xix, A little casement... Widens
self~open'd into the cool air. 1855 BAILEY Mystic, etc. 162 Self~opened like a
magic book.
As in your 'burden of proof' follies, your arguments leave
a lot to be desired in the way of logic.
PV
> w00f
>
>
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
Ahem.
Gone a bit off track there, haven't we, PV. Perhaps you are trying to
make up for the fact that you have no real answer.
Let me remind you.
You stated that the POWs from Afghanistan and Korea should not have
had the protection of the GC, but those in Vietnam and the Gulf should
have.
Why?
You will find answering this extremely hard, and so I expect little
more than a rant in return. My question of course stems from the fact
that you stated that the X-Ray prisoners did not have the benefit of
the GC because they were taken in the course of a military campaign
which was not preceeded by an official declaration of war as defined
by your constitution.
I then reminded you that the US had not declared war since World War
II, no doubt making you feel a bit of a Silly Billy, especially when
you then declared that POWs from other 'undeclared wars' such as
Vietnam and the Gulf should have been protected. In short, you've well
and truly got your knickers in a twist.
Fuckwit.
>
>BTW -- have you thought of an explanation for your
>claim that 'Justice is predicated' on the burden of proof
>being placed on the defendant? That 'poor defendant'...
>needing to prove they're innocent. How easy that
>becomes for the State.
I'm surprised that you haven't got it into your head yet that I rarely
respond to such crude Jiggyesque trolling.
I know that you're livid about being caught out again, but this really
is quite desperate
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:9nsv6uom35l5r9gds...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 17:06:43 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> > You're the one
>> >with a 'classical education.'
>> >
>> >
>> >PV
>>
>>
>> After all those months of furious denial, I'm glad to note that you
>> have finally accepted this truth.
>>
>It is a claim you have made which you have NEVER lived up to.
>I could well claim I'm Jesus, and have as much expectation
>of being believed as you should have of being believed that you
>possess a 'classical education.' It is used by me to only
>point out the hypocrisy of the bulk of your posts.
>
>PV
>
>> w00f
>>
>>
I think you might want to consult the definition of "hypocrisy" in
that OED of yours.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
Ho ho ho.
You know full well, PV that 'self' is prefixed to large numbers of
words as a shorter substitute for any of the reflexive pronouns.
How amusing that you now choose to base your divertionary argument
around lazy grammar. You now appear to be claiming that an envelope
has the ability to exercise self defence.
And you say that I'm mad.
You might wish to look at your OED again and note that the usage of
"self" that you wish to define is when it is used as a noun, and even
that would be unhelpful, considering that the legal doctrine of self
defence which you seek so clumsily to apply to society is clearly
defined and quite abstract from the individual meanings of its
constituent parts.
Self defence for envelopes! LOL!
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
As long as I, and others, see it in your posts, I need not
define it for you. Your posts are generally on a par with
Napoleon's decision to invade Russia. Does the word
'disaster' need defining for you, as well?
PV
> w00f
>
>
dirtdog
<dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
<snipped>
>divertionary
Or even diversionary.
Whew. Got there before PV.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
So what?? What the hell does THAT prove? 'self' is prefixed to
a large number of nouns which are CONNECTED to 'things.'
'Self-seal,' is such a term. Both 'seal' and 'defense' are nouns.
'Self-defense,' means 'defense of self.' 'self-seal' means 'seal
of self.' Society is a THING. An envelope is a THING.
'Self-defense,' is connected to that 'thing,' we call 'society,'
just as 'self-sealing' is connected to that 'thing' we call an
envelope.
.
Your problem has been that you viewed 'self' as only
being a 'living being.' Obviously, that's now been shown to
be the 'insubstantial shit,' you continue to try and squeeze
into this newsgroup.
> How amusing that you now choose to base your divertionary argument
> around lazy grammar. You now appear to be claiming that an envelope
> has the ability to exercise self defence.
>
No.. but it has the ability to 'self-seal.' And an envelope is
to that process as society is to 'self-defense.' I am reminded
of how clumsy and stupid your FIRST argument was in this
dialog, where you said --
"It remains a simple fact that since society has no 'self', it
cannot exercise "self defence" - your hopeless floundering in
your attempts to attribute some form of self to such a vague
collective as "society" simply underlines this truth."
Obviously, 'society' has a VERY REAL 'self.' Just as an 'envelope'
has, and a 'government as well. Each envelope is in fact,
DIFFERENT from every other. Even if we cannot perceive such
a difference with our naked eye.
> And you say that I'm mad.
>
A well-substantiated fact, my friend. Too bad for you.
> You might wish to look at your OED again and note that the usage of
> "self" that you wish to define is when it is used as a noun, and even
> that would be unhelpful, considering that the legal doctrine of self
> defence which you seek so clumsily to apply to society is clearly
> defined and quite abstract from the individual meanings of its
> constituent parts.
>
The word 'defending' is a verbal noun. The word 'sealing' is
a verbal noun. The word 'society' is a noun, the word envelope
is a noun. Saying 'self-sealing' envelope, is EXACTLY the same
as saying 'self-defending' society. 'Self-defense' for society.
'Self-seal' for envelopes. Can't you even understand those two
simple concepts concerning what THINGS (which are self), can
DO? The 'thing' envelope can BE 'self-sealing.' The 'thing' society
can BE 'self-defending.'
> Self defence for envelopes! LOL!
Your argument happens to be the most boring I have ever
had to endure from you, dirt. You're really floundering.
PV
>
>
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
if you only make one, I consider that <applause.. applause...
applause...> to your 'classical education.'
> PV
>
>
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
> Ho ho ho.
>
> You know full well, PV that 'self' is prefixed to large numbers of
> words as a shorter substitute for any of the reflexive pronouns.
As in "self abuse," "self-manipulation," "self-gratification,"
"hand-to-gland-combat"? (OK, I threw that last one in from out of left
field...)
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
Dearie me.
Your inane ramblings on this subject are beginning to bore me, PV.
Quite clearly, you are flapping in the breeze as you use your usual
tactics of selective deafness and subject diversion.
If you wish to continue avoiding my invition to define the "self" and
interests of "society" on which you base so many of your arguments and
dribble about self opening envelopes and self bloody loading
cartridges instead, please feel free.
I'll just sit here and laugh at you.
w00f
dirtdog
I appreciate that many here might killfile a thread once myself and PV
have spoiled it for others, so I thought it would be polite of me to
share with you all what has to be one of the most bizarre statements
which has been posted to aadp for some time....
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:37:39 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>Obviously, 'society' has a VERY REAL 'self.' Just as an 'envelope'
>has, and a 'government as well. Each envelope is in fact,
>DIFFERENT from every other. Even if we cannot perceive such
>a difference with our naked eye.
<snipped>
Sad, I know, but I think the time has come for the men in white coats
to cart good ol' PV off the Nut Hutch.
It'll be so quiet without him.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
to make a fool of myself."
> Gone a bit off track there, haven't we, PV. Perhaps you are trying to
> make up for the fact that you have no real answer.
>
> Let me remind you.
>
> You stated that the POWs from Afghanistan and Korea should not have
> had the protection of the GC, but those in Vietnam and the Gulf should
> have.
>
I believe the question you asked was in respect to A. The Gulf War,
in which I answered 'yes,' and B. The 'actions' against Yugoslavia,
in which I answered 'no.' I don't believe I was asked about Korea.
> Why?
>
You asked 'do you believe.' I certainly don't have to justify a
'belief' to you, sport. Had I said that FACT existed to go beyond
such an opinion, I would have certainly elaborated. But you realize
I simply replied to your question by stating what I 'believe.' Which
is what you asked for. You can be frustratingly stupid some
times, dirt. In fact, you clearly said 'only a yes or no answer
is required.'
> You will find answering this extremely hard, and so I expect little
> more than a rant in return. My question of course stems from the fact
> that you stated that the X-Ray prisoners did not have the benefit of
> the GC because they were taken in the course of a military campaign
> which was not preceeded by an official declaration of war as defined
> by your constitution.
>
A fact beyond doubt.
> I then reminded you that the US had not declared war since World War
> II, no doubt making you feel a bit of a Silly Billy, especially when
> you then declared that POWs from other 'undeclared wars' such as
> Vietnam and the Gulf should have been protected. In short, you've well
> and truly got your knickers in a twist.
>
Hell, dirt, if you don't want my opinion, then don't ask for it.
In Korea we provided protection under the GC to those Koreans
and Chinese we captured, we were not provided the same
protection by those countries in respect to OUR prisoners.
The same goes in spades for Vietnam. And the same goes
for the Gulf War. And in terms of Yugoslavia, you will find that
neither Milosevic nor ANY prisoner from that conflict is being
tried or held in a U.S. war posture of any kind. Call ALL
conflicts what you will, since they can be CALLED either war
or 'war.' Depending upon if you are speaking in terms of
'declared war' or rhetoric war. But make no mistake, the
terrorists we capture in Afghanistan are NOT POW's. They
constitute no regular army nor defend no recognized nation.
> ****wit.
>
Frustrated again? Why do you insist on sophomoric vulgarities
when you find yourself with an inability to offer any meaningful
comment?
> >
> >BTW -- have you thought of an explanation for your
> >claim that 'Justice is predicated' on the burden of proof
> >being placed on the defendant? That 'poor defendant'...
> >needing to prove they're innocent. How easy that
> >becomes for the State.
>
> I'm surprised that you haven't got it into your head yet that I rarely
> respond to such crude Jiggyesque trolling.
>
Oh, but you do... usually with ****wit, as you demonstrate above.
> I know that you're livid about being caught out again, but this really
> is quite desperate
>
Your argument reminds me of the quartet which played on
the deck of the Titanic as it went under. Rather frantic
in orchestration, and doomed to end up going glub...glub...glub...
PV
> w00f
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> Quite clearly, you are flapping in the breeze as you use your usual
> tactics of selective deafness and subject diversion.
>
> If you wish to continue avoiding my invition to define the "self" and
> interests of "society" on which you base so many of your arguments and
> dribble about self opening envelopes and self bloody loading
> cartridges instead, please feel free.
>
I don't define words, dirt. Unlike yourself, I rely on those who
have already defined them. I think I've explained that to you
before. Nevertheless -- From the OED, exactly the same
definition that was there yesterday, will be there tomorrow
and which I have already provided to you --
SELF
A. pron. and pronominal adj. In the sense of the L. ipse. In
concord with a n. or pron., to indicate emphatically that the
reference is to the person or thing mentioned and not, or
not merely, to some other.
Notice that 'self' refers to a 'thing.' A 'thing' is both an
envelope, a government, a book, a society, and a multitude
of other THINGS, that are not necessarily 'living creatures.'
Self refers to 'society,' and 'self-defense' refers to society
defending itSELF. Thus 'society self-defense' is a quite
ordinary phrase, which makes absolutely perfect sense.
As opposed to most of your posts. I can only say that
your compulsion to crow seems as natural as a rooster.
Ummm... And your compulsion to preen seems as natural
as a peacock. Unfortunately you have this other compulsion
to constantly bray like a jackass.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
it's not me that's off to the 'funny farm.' dirt, your ignorance
(not native stupidity but just lack of training) of the 'REAL
WORLD' continues to amaze me. How can you remain so
unenlightened? Do you REALLY believe in creationism as
well? You're actually the resident undying vampire of this
group, dirt. Forcefully thrust the stake of common sense and
logic into your shriveled, impotent comments, one-two-three times.
No matter... You still come back for MORE. It's amazing. Truly
one of the wonders of Usenet.
PV
> w00f
>
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
It appears to me that doggie rarely makes spelling errors, although
typos are not uncommon (the "suprise" incident notwithstanding). His
newsreader is Agent which doesn't, IIRC, come with a spell checker.
No respectable poster to Usenet should be caught using a browser with a
spell check feature, PV. Spelling flames would disappear and then where
would we be?
Now stop using OE and get hold of a real NNTP client.
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>> Gone a bit off track there, haven't we, PV. Perhaps you are trying to
>> make up for the fact that you have no real answer.
>>
>> Let me remind you.
>>
>> You stated that the POWs from Afghanistan and Korea should not have
>> had the protection of the GC, but those in Vietnam and the Gulf should
>> have.
>>
>I believe the question you asked was in respect to A. The Gulf War,
>in which I answered 'yes,' and B. The 'actions' against Yugoslavia,
>in which I answered 'no.' I don't believe I was asked about Korea.
Right you are, I meant Yugoslavia, not Korea - but you can add that
one to the list anyway.
You were, however, asked about Vietnam, which you remain silent on.
>
>> Why?
>>
>You asked 'do you believe.' I certainly don't have to justify a
>'belief' to you, sport. Had I said that FACT existed to go beyond
>such an opinion, I would have certainly elaborated. But you realize
>I simply replied to your question by stating what I 'believe.' Which
>is what you asked for. You can be frustratingly stupid some
>times, dirt. In fact, you clearly said 'only a yes or no answer
>is required.'
What utter squirming. You quite clearly answered as minimally as
possible as the penny dropped about how idiotic you previous
blitherings about nothing being a war unless congress had declared as
such were.
You stated, in your defence of US treatment of POWs that this conflict
was somehow different to others because there was no formal
declaration of war.
Had you forgotten about the fact that the US had been waging wars for
50 years in the absence of such a declaration, or was that something I
taught you?
And as to your other "defence" - that which stated that Afghanistan
was not a war because the Taliban were not a "government", I would be
interested to learn why Omar's boys could not be described as such,
but the Viet Cong were.
>
>> You will find answering this extremely hard, and so I expect little
>> more than a rant in return. My question of course stems from the fact
>> that you stated that the X-Ray prisoners did not have the benefit of
>> the GC because they were taken in the course of a military campaign
>> which was not preceeded by an official declaration of war as defined
>> by your constitution.
>>
>A fact beyond doubt.
Well, it seems that you own government do not take a similar opinion
any more, PV.
I think you've gone and pooed you pants again.
>
>> I then reminded you that the US had not declared war since World War
>> II, no doubt making you feel a bit of a Silly Billy, especially when
>> you then declared that POWs from other 'undeclared wars' such as
>> Vietnam and the Gulf should have been protected. In short, you've well
>> and truly got your knickers in a twist.
>>
>Hell, dirt, if you don't want my opinion, then don't ask for it.
I ask for your opinion and impliedly your justification for it. You
provided the former but not the latter - quite simply because you knew
it would be impossible to justify such opinions consistently with your
views on the POWs.
>In Korea we provided protection under the GC to those Koreans
>and Chinese we captured, we were not provided the same
>protection by those countries in respect to OUR prisoners.
>The same goes in spades for Vietnam.
Erm, PV, you can't decide whether a treaty should be applied to a
situation retrospectively on the basis of whether the other side
adhered to it. What a mental deficient you truly are.
You claim that the US treated VC prisoners with accordance to the GC.
Now this is clearly absolute fairyland bullshit, but let us presume
you are correct. Now, the VC not treating your boys as such is
entirely irrelevant as to the applicability of the Convention. It
simply means they were in breach, and you were not. The fact remains
that POWs from _both_ sides should have been afforded protection since
they fall within the definition of Art 4.
God, you're thick.
>
> And the same goes
>for the Gulf War. And in terms of Yugoslavia, you will find that
>neither Milosevic nor ANY prisoner from that conflict is being
>tried or held in a U.S. war posture of any kind.
What has that got to do with it?
The US had prisoners taken - and I presume you would believe that they
should be afforded the protection of the GC?
> Call ALL
>conflicts what you will, since they can be CALLED either war
>or 'war.' Depending upon if you are speaking in terms of
>'declared war' or rhetoric war.
Blither blither blither blither. Not answering the question. Not
answering the question. Not answering the question. Not answering the
question. Blah blah blah blah.
Tell you what, I'll repeat it:
"Why, PV, does the GC apply to prisoners taken during the Gulf War and
Vietnam, but not those taken in Yugoslavia ?"
> But make no mistake, the
>terrorists we capture in Afghanistan are NOT POW's.
LOL
I know they don't belong to "POW" (whoever he is). However, they are
prisoners of war.
>They
>constitute no regular army
Where in Art 4, or any other part of the GC for that matter, is
protection restricted to a "Regular Army"?
Ill tell you, nowhere. In fact, allow me to repost art 4 for you:
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the
present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following
categories,
who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party
to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps
forming
part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members
of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance
movements,
belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their
own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such
militias
or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements,
fulfil
the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person
responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive
sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations
in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who
profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by
the
Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces
without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of
military
aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of
labour
units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces,
provided
that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they
accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity
card
similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters,
pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil
aircraft
of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable
treatment
under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory,
who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist
the
invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into
regular
armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and
customs
of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated
as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged,
to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power
considers
it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though
it
has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside
the
territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an
unsuccessful
attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are
engaged
in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them
with
a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the
categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received
by
neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these
Powers
are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to
any
more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and
with
the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92,
126
and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the
conflict
and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles
concerning
the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the
Parties
to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform
towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the
present. Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these
Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular
usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect
the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in
Article 33 of the present Convention.
This can be found at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm, BTW,
and I think you'll agree, is a pretty wide definition.
> nor defend no recognized nation.
See above. Fuckwit.
>
>> ****wit.
>>
>Frustrated again? Why do you insist on sophomoric vulgarities
>when you find yourself with an inability to offer any meaningful
>comment?
Indeed not, PV. Quite the contrary.
Arguing with you can sometimes be a frustrating experience, as one
wades through lines and lines of meaningless rhetoric, attempting with
futility to keep your from craftily changing the subject.
However, the sheer groundless nature of your blitherings on this topic
make spanking you a joy. You have in the course of this argument,
inter alia, quoted articles from an irrelevant treaty, been
contradicted by the very government you sought mindlessly to defend,
contradicted yourself on several occasions, committed heinous
apostrophe abuse and become so entrenched into an inescapable hole
that all I have to do is stand at the top and piss all over your head.
To be honest, it's a lot of fun. I am trying to reserve the tag of
"fuckwit" for occasions when you're so off the mark that no other term
could apply. As far as this topic is concerned, nothing is more apt.
<snipped>
>
>> I know that you're livid about being caught out again, but this really
>> is quite desperate
>>
>Your argument reminds me of the quartet which played on
>the deck of the Titanic as it went under. Rather frantic
>in orchestration, and doomed to end up going glub...glub...glub...
Yes, PV. I woul have hated to be one of those passenger's on the
Titanics deck's as it ploughed into the iceberg's and sank to it's
doom.
While you're at it, get me some apple's, orange's and banana's please.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:7qe07usck4kcd2e6b...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I appreciate that many here might killfile a thread once myself and PV
>> have spoiled it for others, so I thought it would be polite of me to
>> share with you all what has to be one of the most bizarre statements
>> which has been posted to aadp for some time....
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:37:39 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> >Obviously, 'society' has a VERY REAL 'self.' Just as an 'envelope'
>> >has, and a 'government as well. Each envelope is in fact,
>> >DIFFERENT from every other. Even if we cannot perceive such
>> >a difference with our naked eye.
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> Sad, I know, but I think the time has come for the men in white coats
>> to cart good ol' PV off the Nut Hutch.
>>
>> It'll be so quiet without him.
>>
>It anyone REALLY believes that my statement is not true,
>it's not me that's off to the 'funny farm.' dirt,
Erm, actually, I doubt you will find many people who believe that
"society' has a VERY REAL 'self.' Just as an 'envelope'
has, and a 'government as well."
I think you'll find that if your say that to most people, they'll
probably just look at you funny.
> your ignorance
>(not native stupidity but just lack of training) of the 'REAL
>WORLD' continues to amaze me. How can you remain so
>unenlightened? Do you REALLY believe in creationism as
>well? You're actually the resident undying vampire of this
>group, dirt. Forcefully thrust the stake of common sense and
>logic into your shriveled, impotent comments, one-two-three times.
>No matter... You still come back for MORE. It's amazing. Truly
>one of the wonders of Usenet.
>
Wonderful, PV. Thanks. That truly brought a tear to my eye.
Cuckoo.
w00f
enigmacat
Now, now, kiddies---play nice or you won't get your treats at recess.
Oh and BTW, i'm watching an old episode of "Law & Order" that has ADA
Jack McCoy, the prosecutor, gunning for the death penalty in the case
of a white-collar cop killer. They don't call him "hang 'em high,
McCoy for nothing."
sincerely,
jane
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<long overdue snip>
#!/bin/spank
#Begin spanking
Case "$1" in
start)
echo -n "Bend over PV and bare your buttocks: "
./
>
>SELF
>A. pron. and pronominal adj. In the sense of the L. ipse. In
>concord with a n. or pron., to indicate emphatically that the
>reference is to the person or thing mentioned and not, or
>not merely, to some other.
Oops. There you go misreading your dictionary again.
This is the irrelevant definition of "self" that I have already pulled
you up on, old boy. You will find that "self" as a noun refers to "the
individuality or essence of a person or thing". The term "thing"
refers to something palpable or definable:
thing n.
An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have
its own existence.
The real or concrete substance of an entity.
An entity existing in space and time.
An inanimate object.
"Society" is neither, and is a wholly subjective and nebulous term.
Which was, of course, my original point.
Furthermore, I am still interested to learn, even if we assume that
"society" can be termed a "thing", just how you define what
constitutes its "self" which it is authorised to defend.
What is amusing, however, is that the word following "thing" in the
dictionary is "thing'umbob", which, funnily enough, is what I put up
your Mum's arse regularly.
>
>Notice that 'self' refers to a 'thing.' A 'thing' is both an
>envelope, a government, a book, a society, and a multitude
>of other THINGS, that are not necessarily 'living creatures.'
So therefore, an envelope may exercise self defence, as may a piece of
chocolate and a lump of poo?
Pull yourself together, for God's sake.
<snipped PV continuing to defend his use of "Society Self Defence"
when he really should say "Protection" or "Restraint">
;;
stop)
esac
exit 0
#Spanking over
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:33:01 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <long overdue snip>
>
> #!/bin/spank
> #Begin spanking
>
> Case "$1" in
> start)
#*chortle*
# Can I have a go... [EOF]
#!/usr/local/unix/geek
# Script to generate AADP trolls
case $1 in
'doggie')
/usr/bin/confuse_non_techies
;;
'qzd')
cat /usr/local/etc/waffling_and_trolling | /usr/local/bin/pedantry
;;
'pv')
cat /var/tmp/long_usenet_post
;;
'donnie')
/usr/bin/change_another_printer_ribbon
;;
'des')
/usr/sbin/conspiracyd -f /etc/conf/conspiracyd/lockerbie.conf
;;
'jiggy')
/usr/local/bin/force_kernel_panic
;;
esac
JIGSAW1695
From: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au
Date: 2/17/2002 4:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <diablo-4BB8E8....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
In article <KkWb8.191985$jO5.23...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> "dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> news:egc07uop4s9glovh0...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:01:34 +0000, dirtdog
> > <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> >
> > >divertionary
> >
> > Or even diversionary.
> >
> > Whew. Got there before PV.
> >
> Not actually... you've made so many spelling mistakes, that
> if you only make one, I consider that <applause.. applause...
> applause...> to your 'classical education.'
It appears to me that doggie rarely makes spelling errors, although
typos are not uncommon (the "suprise" incident notwithstanding). His
newsreader is Agent which doesn't, IIRC, come with a spell checker.
No respectable poster to Usenet should be caught using a browser with a
spell check feature, PV. Spelling flames would disappear and then where
would we be?
===============================
By God, people.....listen to this man.
Jiggy
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:48:00 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> >news:7qe07usck4kcd2e6b...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> I appreciate that many here might killfile a thread once myself and PV
> >> have spoiled it for others, so I thought it would be polite of me to
> >> share with you all what has to be one of the most bizarre statements
> >> which has been posted to aadp for some time....
> >>
> >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:37:39 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snipped>
> >>
> >> >Obviously, 'society' has a VERY REAL 'self.' Just as an 'envelope'
> >> >has, and a 'government as well. Each envelope is in fact,
> >> >DIFFERENT from every other. Even if we cannot perceive such
> >> >a difference with our naked eye.
> >>
> >> <snipped>
> >>
> >> Sad, I know, but I think the time has come for the men in white coats
> >> to cart good ol' PV off the Nut Hutch.
> >>
> >> It'll be so quiet without him.
> >>
> >It anyone REALLY believes that my statement is not true,
> >it's not me that's off to the 'funny farm.' dirt,
>
> Erm, actually, I doubt you will find many people who believe that
> "society' has a VERY REAL 'self.' Just as an 'envelope'
> has, and a 'government as well."
>
that 'society' has a VERY REAL 'self.' Definitionally,
those other items ALL have a self, because they are
'THINGS,' and according to the English Language,
"THINGS' have a self.
> I think you'll find that if your say that to most people, they'll
> probably just look at you funny.
>
Actually, you're not thinking at all, anymore, in this
particular thread. You're only grasping at straws,
predicting what people will think or say.
> > your ignorance
> >(not native stupidity but just lack of training) of the 'REAL
> >WORLD' continues to amaze me. How can you remain so
> >unenlightened? Do you REALLY believe in creationism as
> >well? You're actually the resident undying vampire of this
> >group, dirt. Forcefully thrust the stake of common sense and
> >logic into your shriveled, impotent comments, one-two-three times.
> >No matter... You still come back for MORE. It's amazing. Truly
> >one of the wonders of Usenet.
> >
>
>
> Wonderful, PV. Thanks. That truly brought a tear to my eye.
>
Having been spanked so badly, I can well imagine..
> Cuckoo.
>
SG Seminal observation 5), I do believe.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
<snipped childish rubbish>
> >SELF
> >A. pron. and pronominal adj. In the sense of the L. ipse. In
> >concord with a n. or pron., to indicate emphatically that the
> >reference is to the person or thing mentioned and not, or
> >not merely, to some other.
>
>
> Oops. There you go misreading your dictionary again.
>
Oops... there you go making a fool of yourself again.
> This is the irrelevant definition of "self" that I have already pulled
> you up on, old boy. You will find that "self" as a noun refers to "the
> individuality or essence of a person or thing". The term "thing"
> refers to something palpable or definable:
>
Oh, yeah... now you claim the 'definition' is irrelevant. Get real!!
> thing n.
> An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have
> its own existence.
> The real or concrete substance of an entity.
> An entity existing in space and time.
> An inanimate object.
>
>
> "Society" is neither, and is a wholly subjective and nebulous term.
> Which was, of course, my original point.
>
You're claiming that 'Society' is NOT an 'idea'???? a 'quality
perceived.' A 'quality known.? Apparently 'Things' are simply
confined to that which YOU wish them to be confined to.
Sorry, sad sack, but ANYTHING is a 'thing.' For example,
from the OED --
THINGS
"7. That which exists individually (in the most general sense,
in fact or in idea); that which is or may be in any way an
object of perception, knowledge, or thought;"
Thus a 'thing' can be a thought or an idea or a wholly subjective
'object of perception,' -- a wholly subjective and nebulous
term, which is what you admit is 'society.' You've really gone
off your rocker. You obviously have a 'thing' for looking stupid.
> Furthermore, I am still interested to learn, even if we assume that
> "society" can be termed a "thing", just how you define what
> constitutes its "self" which it is authorised to defend.
>
How many times must I say this?? I do not DEFINE. Unlike
you, I leave the definitions for respected sources who have
made those definitions which we all accept, in the process
of trying to communicate ideas between each other. Apparently,
you've invented a whole new way of communication, called
SISO. You put 'shit' in, and it comes out the same way.
> What is amusing, however, is that the word following "thing" in the
> dictionary is "thing'umbob", which, funnily enough, is what I put up
> your Mum's arse regularly.
>
Still chasing YOUR Mum around the kitchen table, I see.
How sick.
> >
> >Notice that 'self' refers to a 'thing.' A 'thing' is both an
> >envelope, a government, a book, a society, and a multitude
> >of other THINGS, that are not necessarily 'living creatures.'
>
> So therefore, an envelope may exercise self defence, as may a piece of
> chocolate and a lump of poo?
No.. an envelope may possess self-seal, and not
self-defense ability. A society may possess self-defense,
and not self-seal ability. What a 'thing' IS, limits what
it can exercise. For example, the 'thing' called your
brain has obvious limits which preclude it being
exercised to it full capacity. 'It' is self-limited. All
'Things' obviously do not have the same capacity to
do the same. A rock is a thing, but can do NOTHING
but sit there. An envelope may self-seal, because an
adhesive has been applied to it. A flower may self-pollinate
by the transfer of pollen within itself. A society may
self-defend, because it possesses the means to do so.
Clearly, you would not have nearly the trouble with this
term if I said the U.S. was a 'self-centered society.'
You'd jump on THAT bandwagon, like stink on shit.
And the OED would agree that such is reasonable
English, if not reasonable logic -- See OED
SELF-CENTRED -
2. Of persons, their activities, etc.: Centred in oneself
(or itself); independent of external action or influence.
'Itself' being a 'thing,' being Society. Thus, your only
problem is you think the U.S. can be a 'self-centered
society' or 'self-conceited society,' but cannot be a
'self-defense society,' simply because you're too blind
to see.
<snipped further irrationality on the part of dirt>
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:08:10 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>
> <snipped>
>
> >
> >> Gone a bit off track there, haven't we, PV. Perhaps you are trying to
> >> make up for the fact that you have no real answer.
> >>
> >> Let me remind you.
> >>
> >> You stated that the POWs from Afghanistan and Korea should not have
> >> had the protection of the GC, but those in Vietnam and the Gulf should
> >> have.
> >>
> >I believe the question you asked was in respect to A. The Gulf War,
> >in which I answered 'yes,' and B. The 'actions' against Yugoslavia,
> >in which I answered 'no.' I don't believe I was asked about Korea.
>
> Right you are, I meant Yugoslavia, not Korea - but you can add that
> one to the list anyway.
>
> You were, however, asked about Vietnam, which you remain silent on.
>
I was asked specifically -- A. The Gulf War, and B. Yugoslavia.
Which was 'Re: Question regarding US war crimes for PV,"
2002-01-27 12:26:01 PST. In any case I believe we SHOULD have,
but did not receive GC treatment in Vietnam, while we certainly
provided such to those Vietnamese WE took prisoner. I cannot
vouch for those taken by the South Vietnamese.
> >
> >> Why?
> >>
> >You asked 'do you believe.' I certainly don't have to justify a
> >'belief' to you, sport. Had I said that FACT existed to go beyond
> >such an opinion, I would have certainly elaborated. But you realize
> >I simply replied to your question by stating what I 'believe.' Which
> >is what you asked for. You can be frustratingly stupid some
> >times, dirt. In fact, you clearly said 'only a yes or no answer
> >is required.'
>
> You stated, in your defence of US treatment of POWs that this conflict
> was somehow different to others because there was no formal
> declaration of war.
>
I don't have the slightest idea about what you mean 'different.'
We are dealing with 'terrorists' and there is ABSOLUTELY no
possibility of expecting a 'state of war' to exist between a
nation and a band of terrorists. In all other cases, we were
dealing with a 'recognized' government.
> Had you forgotten about the fact that the US had been waging wars for
> 50 years in the absence of such a declaration, or was that something I
> taught you?
>
Have you forgotten that Europe taught us all we ever learned
about war?
> And as to your other "defence" - that which stated that Afghanistan
> was not a war because the Taliban were not a "government", I would be
> interested to learn why Omar's boys could not be described as such,
> but the Viet Cong were.
>
Because the Viet Cong represented North Vietnam. They
were trained, paid and functioned under the direction of a
recognized government. There purpose was to unite North
and South Vietnam, and certainly not intent on taking their
efforts to other countries outside their particular sphere of
influence.
> >
> >> You will find answering this extremely hard, and so I expect little
> >> more than a rant in return. My question of course stems from the fact
> >> that you stated that the X-Ray prisoners did not have the benefit of
> >> the GC because they were taken in the course of a military campaign
> >> which was not preceeded by an official declaration of war as defined
> >> by your constitution.
> >>
> >A fact beyond doubt.
>
> Well, it seems that you own government do not take a similar opinion
> any more, PV.
>
Far be it from me to be pedantic... but what the hell were
you trying to say??? I don't own my government. And
you complain about a misplaced apostrophe, but find yourself
unable to construct a sentence that makes sense.
> I think you've gone and pooed you pants again.
>
SG Seminal Observation 5). God.. you've become lazy.
> >
> >> I then reminded you that the US had not declared war since World War
> >> II, no doubt making you feel a bit of a Silly Billy, especially when
> >> you then declared that POWs from other 'undeclared wars' such as
> >> Vietnam and the Gulf should have been protected. In short, you've well
> >> and truly got your knickers in a twist.
> >>
> >Hell, dirt, if you don't want my opinion, then don't ask for it.
>
> I ask for your opinion and impliedly your justification for it. You
> provided the former but not the latter - quite simply because you knew
> it would be impossible to justify such opinions consistently with your
> views on the POWs.
>
What??? Are you on the sauce again?
<more utter cry-baby shit clipped>
> See above. ****wit.
>
> >
> >> ****wit.
> >>
> >Frustrated again? Why do you insist on sophomoric vulgarities
> >when you find yourself with an inability to offer any meaningful
> >comment?
>
> Indeed not, PV. Quite the contrary.
>
> Arguing with you can sometimes be a frustrating experience, as one
> wades through lines and lines of meaningless rhetoric, attempting with
> futility to keep your from craftily changing the subject.
>
You can't be serious? Have you EVER read one of your own
posts? Like mens rea??? Or the present 'society self-defense.'
You were born into 'meaningless rhetoric.' Spiced with
vulgarity when at a loss for content.
> However, the sheer groundless nature of your blitherings on this topic
> make spanking you a joy. You have in the course of this argument,
> inter alia, quoted articles from an irrelevant treaty, been
> contradicted by the very government you sought mindlessly to defend,
> contradicted yourself on several occasions, committed heinous
> apostrophe abuse and become so entrenched into an inescapable hole
> that all I have to do is stand at the top and piss all over your head.
>
It really doesn't matter. Because the bottom line is that we
are NOT at war with 'terrorists.' It is impossible to BE at war
with what is not a recognized nation, since there is no legal
authority to declare that war on. And thus 'terrorists,' are
not POWs (see -- no apostrophe). And so the GC does not
apply to them.
> To be honest, it's a lot of fun. I am trying to reserve the tag of
> "****wit" for occasions when you're so off the mark that no other term
> could apply. As far as this topic is concerned, nothing is more apt.
>
> <snipped>
>
> >
> >> I know that you're livid about being caught out again, but this really
> >> is quite desperate
> >>
> >Your argument reminds me of the quartet which played on
> >the deck of the Titanic as it went under. Rather frantic
> >in orchestration, and doomed to end up going glub...glub...glub...
>
> Yes, PV. I woul have hated to be one of those passenger's on the
> Titanics deck's as it ploughed into the iceberg's and sank to it's
> doom.
>
You 'woul'????
> While you're at it, get me some apple's, orange's and banana's please.
>
?????????????????????????? It's hilarious how you've picked
up on one meaningless apostrophe, and based your whole
argument on it. I've been very gentle to you in respect to your
spelling and sentence construction, dirt. Such as the content
of this very thread, a post back, where I ignored 'preceeded,' (sic)
whatever the hell that was. Don't press your luck.
PV
> w00f
>
>
enigmacat
Visitor"<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:37:39 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snipped>
>> >>
>> >> >Obviously, 'society' has a VERY REAL 'self.' Just as an 'envelope'
>> >> >has, and a 'government as well. Each envelope is in fact,
>> >> >DIFFERENT from every other. Even if we cannot perceive such
>> >> >a difference with our naked eye.
<snipped>
>that 'society' has a VERY REAL 'self.' Definitionally,
>those other items ALL have a self, because they are
>'THINGS,' and according to the English Language,
>"THINGS' have a self.
Hmmm, now let me get this straight: If an envelope does have a
self-----and i'm not going to dispute your conclusions because i don't
know enough about selves and objects.
What i *do* know is that i'm currently wrestling with the whole idea
behind vegetarianism----not to eat or get anything from an animal. If
and envelope does have a self, then i guess i'll have to stop buying
them----stop buying anything. Tell me, PV, do objects have a soul too?
>PV
sincerely,
jane
JIGSAW1695
From: nothg...@wwdc.com (enigmacat)
Date: 2/18/2002 1:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <3c70c17f...@news.lon.imag.net>
>PV
sincerely,
jane
===============================
Do objects have a soul? Hmmm... well if we look at this objectively we must
understand that only christians, particularly catholics can have souls - this
is based on the theological doctrine of different religions- not personal
opinion.
Therefore, should we consider the value of "things" based on their religion? Is
a catholic car worth more or less that a baptist jeep. How about the worth of a
Hindu manila envelope versus a muslim letter size envelope.
And what about converts? Should a methodist kitchen kife who was once a
lutheran have the same value of "self" before or after conversion.
And what about vegatables? Are they secure in their own concept of self? Is a
radish more confident in its own being that a rutabaga. Are all melons self
equal or does a watermelon rate higher on the self confidence scale that an
cantalope.
Oh well....its four a.m. What the hell am I doing up at this hour writing about
the ego of inanimate objects.
And before leaving, I ask youto ponder this thought: Does an athiest cactus
have a "self" at all.
Jiggy
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <7qe07usck4kcd2e6b...@4ax.com>, dirtdog
<dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> a écrit :
Well, at least the charge that PV is senile is not hitting below the belt.
Only above the neck.
Earl
A Planet Visitor
"enigmacat" <nothg...@wwdc.com> wrote in message
news:3c70c17f...@news.lon.imag.net...
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 04:50:57 GMT, "A Planet
> Visitor"<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:37:39 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <snipped>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Obviously, 'society' has a VERY REAL 'self.' Just as an 'envelope'
> >> >> >has, and a 'government as well. Each envelope is in fact,
> >> >> >DIFFERENT from every other. Even if we cannot perceive such
> >> >> >a difference with our naked eye.
> <snipped>
> >I think there are a huge number of people who believe
> >those other items ALL have a self, because they are
> >'THINGS,' and according to the English Language,
> >"THINGS' have a self.
> <snipped>
> Hmmm, now let me get this straight: If an envelope does have a
> self-----and i'm not going to dispute your conclusions because i don't
> know enough about selves and objects.
>
> What i *do* know is that i'm currently wrestling with the whole idea
> behind vegetarianism----not to eat or get anything from an animal. If
> and envelope does have a self, then i guess i'll have to stop buying
> them----stop buying anything. Tell me, PV, do objects have a soul too?
>
> >PV
> sincerely,
> jane
>
>
have eluded dirt, and I fear you as well.
1) "THINGS" have a 'self.' This is by the definition of 'self,' which
clearly states 'self' IS '...to indicate emphatically that the
reference is to the person or THING mentioned.' 'Objects'
of course, are 'things,' either real or conceptual, such as 'the
object of my thought.'
2) Generally, however; 'things' do not have a soul in the same
way as we think of 'persons' as having souls.
Note that the definition says 'person' OR 'thing' mentioned.
'Persons' can be perceived, or believed to have souls... 'Things'
generally do not. Obviously, a rock or an envelope, while a
thing (self), is not presumed to have a 'soul.' But they ALL
have a 'self.' BY DEFINITION.
To illustrate... think --- all 'killers' are NOT murderers
(self-defense, accidents, etc.), but all murderers are,
of course, killers. Others who kill are not necessarily
murderers, but they are killers, nonetheless. And then
think all 'selves' are NOT persons, but all persons have
a 'self.' Other 'things' can have a 'self' as well, BY
DEFINITION, in both cases.
Rhetorically, one often speaks of the 'soul' of a ship, or the
'soul' of a country, or the 'soul' of society. And just as
obviously, those are NOT 'persons.' A 'self-governed society'
is generally recognized as meaningful, implying a society
governed by 'ITSELF' (the body of the members of the society).
Thus 'society self-defense' is clearly seen as implying a society
which DEFENDS 'ITSELF' (the body of the members of the
society). Self being 'ITSELF.'
The problem is we mistakenly usually THINK of 'self' only in
in terms of 'OUR' self, believing that it MUST refer to what we
ourselves are -- a sentient, living being. But that's absurd.
Things can be thoughts, ideas, concepts. And by definition,
if they ARE 'THINGS,' they have a 'self.' BY DEFINITION.
But if they are 'THINGS' they generally are not seen as having
a soul, as we understand 'soul' in general terms, because things
are generally not assumed to reach such proportions.
PV
yours_most_truly
"A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm:
> >>
> >> I appreciate that many here might killfile a thread once myself and PV
> >> have spoiled it for others, so I thought it would be polite of me to
> >> share with you all what has to be one of the most bizarre statements
> >> which has been posted to aadp for some time....
> >>
> >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:37:39 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snipped>
> >>
> >> >Obviously, 'society' has a VERY REAL 'self.' Just as an 'envelope'
> >> >has, and a 'government as well. Each envelope is in fact,
> >> >DIFFERENT from every other. Even if we cannot perceive such
> >> >a difference with our naked eye.
> >>
> >> <snipped>
> >>
> >> Sad, I know, but I think the time has come for the men in white coats
> >> to cart good ol' PV off the Nut Hutch.
> >>
> >> It'll be so quiet without him.
> >>
> >It anyone REALLY believes that my statement is not true,
> >it's not me that's off to the 'funny farm.' dirt,
>
> Erm, actually, I doubt you will find many people who believe that
> "society' has a VERY REAL 'self.' Just as an 'envelope'
> has, and a 'government as well."
>
> I think you'll find that if your say that to most people, they'll
> probably just look at you funny.
>
> > your ignorance
> >(not native stupidity but just lack of training) of the 'REAL
> >WORLD' continues to amaze me. How can you remain so
> >unenlightened? Do you REALLY believe in creationism as
> >well? You're actually the resident undying vampire of this
> >group, dirt. Forcefully thrust the stake of common sense and
> >logic into your shriveled, impotent comments, one-two-three times.
> >No matter... You still come back for MORE. It's amazing. Truly
> >one of the wonders of Usenet.
> >
>
>
> Wonderful, PV. Thanks. That truly brought a tear to my eye.
>
> Cuckoo.
>
> w00f
>
Dirt, "Planet Visitor" has a point despite his punch drunk response.
You can't be against the death penalty if you're tearing open
helpless envelopes and throwing them away. Do you really believe that
gives the surviving envelopes closure? Or are you claiming that
absolutely "deters" the envelopes you so cruelly destroy from ever
going to a wrong address in the future? Turn in your letter opener
and sin no more, you hypocrite!
enigmacat
(yours_most_truly) wrote:
> Dirt, "Planet Visitor" has a point despite his punch drunk response.
> You can't be against the death penalty if you're tearing open
>helpless envelopes and throwing them away. Do you really believe that
>gives the surviving envelopes closure? Or are you claiming that
>absolutely "deters" the envelopes you so cruelly destroy from ever
>going to a wrong address in the future? Turn in your letter opener
>and sin no more, you hypocrite!
Then there's that hideously overdone cliche that i despise because i
don't understand it: "Pushing the envelope." i can just picture a
larger envelope from Fed Ex looming over a small, flimsy one and
giving it a hard shove.
Or, PV, do you mean that your belief that envelopes have a self is a
clever metaphor for cold-blooded murderers, who's selves and whatever
makes them selves can be easily torn to bits and tossed in the trash?
:)
Hey, i only got two hours sleep last night. Talk about punch drunk.
sincerely,
jane
enigmacat
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>I'm dreadfully sorry that a simple definitional concept seems to
>have eluded dirt, and I fear you as well.
Well, that's possible.
>
>1) "THINGS" have a 'self.' This is by the definition of 'self,' which
>clearly states 'self' IS '...to indicate emphatically that the
>reference is to the person or THING mentioned.' 'Objects'
>of course, are 'things,' either real or conceptual, such as 'the
>object of my thought.'
Define "self." Then i may fully comprehend your argument.
>
>2) Generally, however; 'things' do not have a soul in the same
>way as we think of 'persons' as having souls.
>
>Note that the definition says 'person' OR 'thing' mentioned.
>'Persons' can be perceived, or believed to have souls... 'Things'
>generally do not. Obviously, a rock or an envelope, while a
>thing (self), is not presumed to have a 'soul.' But they ALL
>have a 'self.' BY DEFINITION.
>
>To illustrate... think --- all 'killers' are NOT murderers
>(self-defense, accidents, etc.), but all murderers are,
>of course, killers. Others who kill are not necessarily
>murderers, but they are killers, nonetheless. And then
>think all 'selves' are NOT persons, but all persons have
>a 'self.' Other 'things' can have a 'self' as well, BY
>DEFINITION, in both cases.
Okay, i hear you, but i still would like to see your definition of
"self" as it stands.
>
>Rhetorically, one often speaks of the 'soul' of a ship, or the
>'soul' of a country, or the 'soul' of society. And just as
>obviously, those are NOT 'persons.' A 'self-governed society'
>is generally recognized as meaningful, implying a society
>governed by 'ITSELF' (the body of the members of the society).
>Thus 'society self-defense' is clearly seen as implying a society
>which DEFENDS 'ITSELF' (the body of the members of the
>society). Self being 'ITSELF.'
Ah, the light finally dawns. You have answered my above question. i
never thought of a self-governed society as being run by the entity
which is the country. That actually makes sense.
>
>The problem is we mistakenly usually THINK of 'self' only in
>in terms of 'OUR' self, believing that it MUST refer to what we
>ourselves are -- a sentient, living being. But that's absurd.
>Things can be thoughts, ideas, concepts. And by definition,
>if they ARE 'THINGS,' they have a 'self.' BY DEFINITION.
>But if they are 'THINGS' they generally are not seen as having
>a soul, as we understand 'soul' in general terms, because things
>are generally not assumed to reach such proportions.
This will give a whole new meaning to me when i lick my next envelope.
<g>
>
>PV
sincerely,
jane
>
Exador
That would be a Chinese envelope i suppose Jane?
Cheers,
Craig
>>PV
>>
>
> sincerely,
> jane
>
>
dirtdog
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
<snipped>
> ;;
> 'jiggy')
> /usr/local/bin/force_kernel_panic
ROTFL
Brilliant!
> ;;
>esac
>
>Mr Q. Z. D.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:e4m07uo2kaovmqqkr...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:33:01 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>
><snipped childish rubbish>
>
>> >SELF
>> >A. pron. and pronominal adj. In the sense of the L. ipse. In
>> >concord with a n. or pron., to indicate emphatically that the
>> >reference is to the person or thing mentioned and not, or
>> >not merely, to some other.
>>
>>
>> Oops. There you go misreading your dictionary again.
>>
>Oops... there you go making a fool of yourself again.
>
>> This is the irrelevant definition of "self" that I have already pulled
>> you up on, old boy. You will find that "self" as a noun refers to "the
>> individuality or essence of a person or thing". The term "thing"
>> refers to something palpable or definable:
>>
>
>Oh, yeah... now you claim the 'definition' is irrelevant. Get real!!
It is quite clear that the definition of 'self' you have adopted does
not concern its use as a noun.
In the term "self defence", the word "self" is not being used to
prefix the word "defence" as a shorter substitute for one of the
reflexive pronouns. In fact, in my charming old 1958 Oxford Pocket
Dictionary, the word "self-" is defined completely separately from the
various uses of the word "self".
Even if the term were not a precise legal doctrine whose meaning is
somewhat removed from the sum of its constituent parts, I think you
will find, as I have told you, that it is being used as a noun.
A person does not "self defend" they exercise self defence.
You really are thick.
<remainder of horrendously tedious post based on inaccurate premise
snipped>
>PV
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>No.. an envelope may possess self-seal, and not
>self-defense ability. A society may possess self-defense,
>and not self-seal ability.
>
<snipped (and you'll thank me for it)>
>PV
*Guffaw*
w00f
dirtdog
wrote:
<snipped>
>Define "self." Then i may fully comprehend your argument.
I think you'll find it's more fun asking him to define the "self" of
"society".
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>I think there are a huge number of people who believe
>that 'society' has a VERY REAL 'self.'
Nope.
I think that's just you, and possibly Teflon.
But then again, he's even thicker than you are.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3C714796...@hotmail.com...
You nasty man! Have you been taking lessons from dirt, as well?
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
Once again, a flatulent, inconsequential, turgid post, from the
master of profoundly vast mental limitations Reading one of
dirt's posts can most reasonably be compared to being locked
overnight in a gas station toilet on a secondary road in rural
Oklahoma. One would find it hard to choose which would be
the most disagreeable choice.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:13:40 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm dreadfully sorry that a simple definitional concept seems to
> >have eluded dirt, and I fear you as well.
>
> Well, that's possible.
> >
> >1) "THINGS" have a 'self.' This is by the definition of 'self,' which
> >clearly states 'self' IS '...to indicate emphatically that the
> >reference is to the person or THING mentioned.' 'Objects'
> >of course, are 'things,' either real or conceptual, such as 'the
> >object of my thought.'
>
> Define "self." Then i may fully comprehend your argument.
My dear girl... 'I' do not define words. The recognized
sources that we all should accept as definitions to insure
we are COMMUNICATING, define those words FOR US.
If you expect ME to define a word, then clearly you expect
that YOU should be able to define it... and THAT'S ABSURD.
If I call an 'apple' an 'orange,' and claim it is so because 'I'
have defined it as such, could you possibly not break out
in gales of laughter? Thus, the definition of 'self,' in ALL
respects, is determined by those sources we should both
accept as defining it, so we are both on the same page
in communicating with each other. And I HAVE provided the
definition of 'self,' by the most august body of definition
accepted by those using the English Language. That being the
Oxford English Dictionary (although I find huge gaps in
that body of definition as well, in respect to a language
which is CONSTANTLY in flux).
Once again, NOT MY definition, but the definition we MUST
accept if we are to attempt to communication from the same
page in the English Language. From the Oxford English
Dictionary --
"SELF --
A. pron. and pronominal adj. In the sense of the L. ipse. In
concord with a n. or pron., to indicate emphatically that
the reference is to the person or thing mentioned and not,
or not merely, to some other."
Now clearly, a PERSON is NOT A THING. Yet, just as
clearly both a person and a THING are a self, as defined in
that august tome. Don't argue with ME, argue with the
Oxford English Dictionary, since 'I' do not define words... they
do.
> >
> >2) Generally, however; 'things' do not have a soul in the same
> >way as we think of 'persons' as having souls.
> >
> >Note that the definition says 'person' OR 'thing' mentioned.
> >'Persons' can be perceived, or believed to have souls... 'Things'
> >generally do not. Obviously, a rock or an envelope, while a
> >thing (self), is not presumed to have a 'soul.' But they ALL
> >have a 'self.' BY DEFINITION.
> >
> >To illustrate... think --- all 'killers' are NOT murderers
> >(self-defense, accidents, etc.), but all murderers are,
> >of course, killers. Others who kill are not necessarily
> >murderers, but they are killers, nonetheless. And then
> >think all 'selves' are NOT persons, but all persons have
> >a 'self.' Other 'things' can have a 'self' as well, BY
> >DEFINITION, in both cases.
>
> Okay, i hear you, but i still would like to see your definition of
> "self" as it stands.
Cheee.... it is NOT 'my definition.' I CANNOT define words
in an independent fashion. I can only report how those words
are defined by sources we understand CAN define them, so
we may operate from a platform of mutual understanding of the
meaning and definition of those words.
A Planet Visitor
"yours_most_truly" <asc...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:d9253152.0202...@posting.google.com...
Seeing as how you are hardly worthy of any original thought
in responding, I'll simply repeat what I observed from dirt's
post, since you are obviously cut from the same fabric.
Once again, a flatulent, inconsequential, turgid post, from the
master of profoundly vast mental limitations Reading one of
YMT's posts can most reasonably be compared to being locked
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Mon, 18 Feb 2002 03:27:37 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > /usr/sbin/conspiracyd -f /etc/conf/conspiracyd/lockerbie.conf
>
> Bastard !! :-)))))
Well, I was going to poke fun at you on the basis of something else
(which was probably quite a bit milder) but nobody would've got the joke.
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:kno27uc7afqsmjo7e...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 04:50:57 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> >I think there are a huge number of people who believe
>> >that 'society' has a VERY REAL 'self.'
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> I think that's just you, and possibly Teflon.
>>
>> But then again, he's even thicker than you are.
>>
>
>Once again, a flatulent, inconsequential, turgid post, from the
>master of profoundly vast mental limitations Reading one of
>dirt's posts can most reasonably be compared to being locked
>overnight in a gas station toilet on a secondary road in rural
>Oklahoma. One would find it hard to choose which would be
>the most disagreeable choice.
>
>PV
>
>
>> w00f
>>
>>
Ho ho ho.
Whitness how fucking stupid you are, PV. Your posting expertise really
amounts to little more than dictionary mongering and simple recital
(with a few ludicrous assertions thrown in).
When there's no dictionary defintion for you to selectively quote and
twist, you come all unstuck. This is quite clearly evidenced in the
fact that you couldn't wait to do a bit of dictionary bashing when
'enigmacat' asked you to define a simple word. Lots of cutting, lots
of pasting, lots of tedium.
However, when I, as I have done about seven times now, ask you to
define the "self" of "society", you get selective deafness.
You see, you will not find the answer to that in a dictionary. In
fact, the only place you will find it is in the same place all your
other self-invented rubbish comes from. Your arsehole.
BTW, can you please define the "self" of "society" for me?
Thanks.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 05:43:02 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> >news:e4m07uo2kaovmqqkr...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:33:01 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >
> ><snipped childish rubbish>
> >
> >> >SELF
> >> >A. pron. and pronominal adj. In the sense of the L. ipse. In
> >> >concord with a n. or pron., to indicate emphatically that the
> >> >reference is to the person or thing mentioned and not, or
> >> >not merely, to some other.
> >>
> >>
> >> Oops. There you go misreading your dictionary again.
> >>
> >Oops... there you go making a fool of yourself again.
> >
> >> This is the irrelevant definition of "self" that I have already pulled
> >> you up on, old boy. You will find that "self" as a noun refers to "the
> >> individuality or essence of a person or thing". The term "thing"
> >> refers to something palpable or definable:
> >>
> >
> >Oh, yeah... now you claim the 'definition' is irrelevant. Get real!!
>
> It is quite clear that the definition of 'self' you have adopted does
> not concern its use as a noun.
>
but one adopted by the OED. And it is also quite clear
that you've become delirious. Let's look at yet ANOTHER
OED definition -- that of self-assembly.
Self-Assembly
1. [SELF- 2b.] Subsequent assembly of something bought in the form
of a kit; usu. attrib., denoting items (e.g. furniture) sold in this form.
Now, clearly that 'self' referred to is NOT the 'assembly,' but the
'something.' The 'self-assembly' OF something. Thus,
'self-assembly OF something,' is the SAME as 'self-defense OF
society.' With the 'self' being both the 'something' and 'society,'
respectively.
> In the term "self defence", the word "self" is not being used to
> prefix the word "defence" as a shorter substitute for one of the
> reflexive pronouns. In fact, in my charming old 1958 Oxford Pocket
> Dictionary, the word "self-" is defined completely separately from the
> various uses of the word "self".
>
In the term 'self-defense,' the word 'self' is being used to define
WHO is being defended, and that is the 'self' being defended.
In your Oxford Pocket Dictionary???? ROTFLMAO. In the
OED, 'self-' also has a separate definition, but it is the same
meaning in respect to 'oneself' and 'itself.'
SELF- ---
the word SELF used as a prefix... with reflexive meaning =
'oneself', 'itself' in various relations with the second element
of the compound.
The basis of compounds... is normally a reflexive verbal
phrase; thus, from 'to accuse oneself' is formed a series of
formally related words, self-accusation, self-accusatory,
self-accusing, self-accused, any of which may arise
independently of the others.
Note that it refers to 'itself,' an OBJECT or THING, in addition
to 'oneself.' Note also that the phrase is formed to demonstrate
the 'self-' is related to the 'itself' which in 'society self-defense,'
is the 'self' society, and NOT the 'self' defense. For society
'To defend itself,' we form the normally reflexive verbal phrase
self-defense, which refers to the 'self-defense' of ITSELF =society.
Thus 'society self-defense.'
> Even if the term were not a precise legal doctrine whose meaning is
> somewhat removed from the sum of its constituent parts, I think you
> will find, as I have told you, that it is being used as a noun.
>
I think you will find that you are prancing and cavorting in
utter terror that you have been so thoroughly spanked.
Your Pocket Dictionary???? ROTFLMAO.
> A person does not "self defend" they exercise self defence.
>
They 'defend self.' In exercising 'self-defense,' exactly WHO
are they exercising it FOR? They are of course, exercising
it for 'self.' Not hardly for anyone else. One may BUILD a
defense to protect someone else. And call that 'exercising
defense' for another. But when exercising 'self-defense,' it is
'defense of self.'
> You really are thick.
ROTFLMAO... Is that the BEST you can do, having been
whipped so hard? Even your insults have become feeble
and sterile here. I really thought that about now it was
'my Mother' time again.
>
> <remainder of horrendously tedious post based on inaccurate premise
SPANK... SPANK....SPANK....SPANK. God, it FEELS good.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
contrary argument which you would EVEN presume
could contain any logic. I quite like your current
commentary, as opposed to the cacophony of blaring
barrel organs that usually accompany your posts. Thank
you.
> *Guffaw*
>
What, no 'Mother'?
PV
> w00f
enigmacat
wrote:
>> This will give a whole new meaning to me when i lick my next envelope.
>> <g>
>
>
>That would be a Chinese envelope i suppose Jane?
>Cheers,
>Craig
ROTFLMAO. You got it!! Good thing my dad doesn't read this ng. ;)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> sincerely,
>> jane
>>
>>
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>In your Oxford Pocket Dictionary???? ROTFLMAO.
Dictionary snobbery will get you absolutely no where with me, kiddo.
You see, I don't care. My OPD is simply a keepsake from someone whom I
am not going to discuss with you.
In general, I am so fucking amazingly clever that I don't need a
dictionary. That is the only one that I own, and it is so old that
"gay" does not even have a definition relating to fudgepacking.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<banal nonsensical hysterical babbling snipped>
>
>SPANK... SPANK....SPANK....SPANK. God, it FEELS good.
>
>PV
>
I have retained the only portion of this steaming pile of cow shit
which was worth reading, PV.
I have a feeling that final little ditty might come back to haunt you.
w00f
yours_most_truly
Here you go. Planen Visior has a hing about hah, bu his mirror
doesn care and for him has everyhing.
Hooy as a barn owl.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:54:53 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> >news:kno27uc7afqsmjo7e...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 04:50:57 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snipped>
> >>
> >> >I think there are a huge number of people who believe
> >> >that 'society' has a VERY REAL 'self.'
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >> I think that's just you, and possibly Teflon.
> >>
> >> But then again, he's even thicker than you are.
> >>
> >
> >Once again, a flatulent, inconsequential, turgid post, from the
> >master of profoundly vast mental limitations Reading one of
> >dirt's posts can most reasonably be compared to being locked
> >overnight in a gas station toilet on a secondary road in rural
> >Oklahoma. One would find it hard to choose which would be
> >the most disagreeable choice.
>
>
> Whitness how ****ing stupid you are, PV. Your posting expertise really
> amounts to little more than dictionary mongering and simple recital
> (with a few ludicrous assertions thrown in).
>
'Whitness' (sic) ???? Are you on the sauce yet again?
> When there's no dictionary defintion for you to selectively quote and
> twist, you come all unstuck. This is quite clearly evidenced in the
> fact that you couldn't wait to do a bit of dictionary bashing when
> 'enigmacat' asked you to define a simple word. Lots of cutting, lots
> of pasting, lots of tedium.
>
Good God!! I'd prefer to be locked in that gas station toilet in
rural Oklahoma for a week, rather than read again your turgid,
torpid prose. and 'no dictionary defintion (sic).' Actually,
ROTFLMAO. And you worried about a little ol' misplaced
apostrophe. suprise (sic). ROTFLMAO.
> However, when I, as I have done about seven times now, ask you to
> define the "self" of "society", you get selective deafness.
>
Actually, I've provided it a number of times... you just happen
to be selectively blind. I'll not respond to your boring requests
over and over... do the research yourself.
> You see, you will not find the answer to that in a dictionary. In
> fact, the only place you will find it is in the same place all your
> other self-invented rubbish comes from. Your arsehole.
>
This is again typical of dirt. Relying on insult. Other methods
found ineffective. Lost to attempts at logic. Lost to attempts
at reason. Dirt...frantically searching for a thought... again
reverts to form.
> BTW, can you please define the "self" of "society" for me?
>
You already know the answer to that. And are now simply
fumbling madly trying to draw me out. I have provided the
'self' of society more than once here, as it is defined. It is
not my responsibility to draw you to an understanding, if you
are so blind as to not recognize what the 'self' of society is.
In the long and tedious stretches of your fumbling argument,
where you obviously KNOW you have been defeated but have
an ego-driven inability to recognize that fact, I see your
shadow.. the shadow of a tired man, obsessed with keeping
the ball going, yet negatively aimless and shallow. Frantically
searching for a way to regain a momentum to an argument
which is hopeless lost to you. Poor, Ineffective, Sick, Sullen,
Ego-driven, Degenerate old man (That's PISSED old man, if
you pay attention). If society does not have a 'self' how do
we differentiate between different societies? Would you say
that the society of the U.K. is without a self, aimlessly adrift
without an 'idea' or a 'thought' which drives it? Is it exactly
the SAME as the society of the U.S.? Is there an inability to
call a society a 'thing'? If it is NOT a 'thing,' then what is it?
If it is a 'thing,' then you should understand that 'things' have
a 'self.' In the end, you are faced by a thousand philosophers
and ten thousand historians, who ALL have demonstrated an
understanding that 'society' has a 'self.'
> Thanks.
>
You're welcome.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
PV. Please allow me to clip your argument, provide an
insult and claim I've won."
ROTFLMAO.
PV
> w00f
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:cf637u8nthmaq76j2...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:06:09 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> <banal nonsensical hysterical babbling snipped>
>> >
>> >SPANK... SPANK....SPANK....SPANK. God, it FEELS good.
>> >
>> >PV
>> >
>>
>> I have retained the only portion of this steaming pile of cow shit
>> which was worth reading, PV.
>>
>> I have a feeling that final little ditty might come back to haunt you.
>>
>TRANSLATION -- "I KNOW I've been spanked good and proper,
>PV. Please allow me to clip your argument, provide an
>insult and claim I've won."
>
>ROTFLMAO.
>
>PV
>
>> w00f
>>
>>
I must admit one thing, PV.
It is very hard when engaging you to know when to lay off and call it
a day, safe in the knowledge that I am talking sense, and you are
talking complete rot. You give the impression that you really do
believe you have administered some form of "spanking", even when your
arguments descend to such levels of mind numbing stupidity that it is
difficult even working out exactly what point you are clumisly trying
to make.
Of course, one blessed with a superiour intellect, such as myself must
have confidence in his convictions, and an eye for irrelevancies.
I therefore hereby declare myself to be the victor on this subject.
You _still_ haven't defined the "self" of "society", and I doubt you
will even try. All that is to be gained by remaining here is hours of
wasted heartache whilst you trot out every possible definition of
"self" you can find, and present several paragraphs of meaningless
waffle whereby you purport to be explaining how such definition could
be twisted to fit your povvy little argument.
You have been suitably spanked.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:v1u27u072si7mtfec...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:54:53 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>> >news:kno27uc7afqsmjo7e...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 04:50:57 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped issue avoidance through typo flames (that's right - _typo_
flames) - how devoid of ammunition PV has become>
>
>> However, when I, as I have done about seven times now, ask you to
>> define the "self" of "society", you get selective deafness.
>>
>Actually, I've provided it a number of times... you just happen
>to be selectively blind. I'll not respond to your boring requests
>over and over... do the research yourself.
No you fucking haven't you liar.
PV, define the "self" of "society" please.
Thanks.
<squirming and further refusal to answer the question snipped>
w00f
LMac
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
'Society' is a collective reference to 'members of society', each member
having a 'self'. So maybe it should be (tada): Selves Defense.
Mac
dirtdog
Somehow, I don't think that's going to help him.....
w00f
LMac
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
Okay, how about:
The planet guy can use the term 'self' when referring to 'society' under the
auspices of personification.
Mac
dirtdog
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:60187us314oesjvog...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:24:00 -0600, "LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>> >news:fms77us512vvr4qej...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:22:40 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> PV, define the "self" of "society" please.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >
>> >'Society' is a collective reference to 'members of society', each member
>> >having a 'self'. So maybe it should be (tada): Selves Defense.
>> >
>> >Mac
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Somehow, I don't think that's going to help him.....
>
>Okay, how about:
>
>The planet guy can use the term 'self' when referring to 'society' under the
>auspices of personification.
>
>Mac
>
>
Nope, sorry.
He could have done had he remained a layman, but he chose to attempt
to address technicalities. He has thus been duly spanked, and will
continue to be so.
I can't go too much into it at the moment for legal reasons.
w00f
John Rennie
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>>
> No you fucking haven't you liar.
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:22:40 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> >news:v1u27u072si7mtfec...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:54:53 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> >> >news:kno27uc7afqsmjo7e...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 04:50:57 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>
> <snipped issue avoidance through typo flames (that's right - _typo_
> flames) - how devoid of ammunition PV has become>
> >
> >> However, when I, as I have done about seven times now, ask you to
> >> define the "self" of "society", you get selective deafness.
> >>
> >Actually, I've provided it a number of times... you just happen
> >to be selectively blind. I'll not respond to your boring requests
> >over and over... do the research yourself.
>
>
Hummmm... getting a mite hysteric, are we???
> PV, define the "self" of "society" please.
>
This is again typical of dirt. Relying on insult. Other methods
found ineffective. Lost to attempts at logic. Lost to attempts
at reason. Dirt...frantically searching for a thought... again
reverts to form.
BTW --
----------------------------------------
You already know the answer to that. And are now simply
fumbling madly trying to draw me out. I have provided the
'self' of society more than once here, as it is defined. It is
not my responsibility to draw you to an understanding, if you
are so blind as to not recognize what the 'self' of society is.
In the long and tedious stretches of your fumbling argument,
where you obviously KNOW you have been defeated but have
an ego-driven inability to recognize that fact, I see your
shadow.. the shadow of a tired man, obsessed with keeping
the ball going, yet negatively aimless and shallow. Frantically
searching for a way to regain a momentum to an argument
which is hopeless lost to you. Poor, Ineffective, Sick, Sullen,
Ego-driven, Degenerate old man (That's PISSED old man, if
you pay attention). If society does not have a 'self' how do
we differentiate between different societies? Would you say
that the society of the U.K. is without a self, aimlessly adrift
without an 'idea' or a 'thought' which drives it? Is it exactly
the SAME as the society of the U.S.? Is there an inability to
call a society a 'thing'? If it is NOT a 'thing,' then what is it?
If it is a 'thing,' then you should understand that 'things' have
a 'self.' In the end, you are faced by a thousand philosophers
and ten thousand historians, who ALL have demonstrated an
understanding that 'society' has a 'self.'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you should answer MY questions.
PV
> Thanks.
> w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
sport. That can HARDLY be denied. You attempted to address
the wording in 'legal technicalities,' while admitting that the
CONCEPT is quite valid, in respect to the function of penalties
in any justice system. It is YOU who has continually harped
on 'what is 'self,' 'what is society,' 'what is defense,' without the
ability to connect them into what they truly mean aside from
those 'technicalities you are so fond of. Spank...spank...spank.
> I can't go too much into it at the moment for legal reasons.
>
Oh, come on, dirt... I just LOVE watch those two monkeys at
play. Don't give up on LMac now. It was just starting to look
like fun with the 'gang.'
PV
> w00f
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<wank snipped>
> If society does not have a 'self' how do
>we differentiate between different societies?
On the basis of our own perceptions as to what constitutes "Society"
> Would you say
>that the society of the U.K. is without a self,
Yes
> aimlessly adrift
>without an 'idea' or a 'thought' which drives it?
A poor and clumsy question, but in the interests of convenience, no.
> Is it exactly
>the SAME as the society of the U.S.?
Nope. But then again, my notion of "society" would no doubt differ
greatly from, say, John's - and ideologically we _are_ quite similar.
> Is there an inability to
>call a society a 'thing'?
This question does not make sense. If you wish to call it a "thing"
then by all means do so.
> If it is NOT a 'thing,' then what is it?
A subjective personal concept whereby an idividual discerns certain
factors which he considers to be the bedrock of social cohesion?
<rhetoric snipped>
>Perhaps you should answer MY questions.
Glad to. As a small hint, I would like to advise you that in your
quest to discover the meaning of the word "society", you would do well
to escape your clumsy assumption that a "society" is limited to a
nation state.
To say "the society of the UK" is, quite frankly, a nonsensical
statement.
Now, PV. Will you please define the "self" of "society".
And I dare you do it without mentioning "things" or envelopes.
Thanks.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
above, just to admit to being spank..spank...spanked... is
quite an admission.
For the very last time -- Society's self is a SYSTEM --
"A system or mode of life adopted by a body of individuals
for the purpose of harmonious co-existence or for mutual
benefit, defence, etc.:
That 'SYSTEM' is 'a THING' -- in the sense that
'thing' is by definition: "That with which one is concerned
(in action, speech, or thought); an affair, business,
concern, matter, subject."
This shows a clear connection to 'self' which is defined
as "to indicate emphatically that the reference is to the
person or thing mentioned." Notice 'self' can be a 'thing.'
Thus, the 'self' of 'society' is defined to be a 'system' which is
a 'thing' which is a 'self' and relates to the fact or condition
of taking part with others or another in some thing (a system)
or action. See above for 'system.'
Please save this to archive or take notes, because you're
boring me. Once again --- Society ==> system ==> thing ==>
self.
BTW -- I will not point out the MANY errors in spelling you
have made here. So please... NEVER mention a silly misplaced
apostrophe on my part again. Thank you.
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>Thus, the 'self' of 'society' is defined to be a 'system' which is
>a 'thing' which is a 'self' and relates to the fact or condition
>of taking part with others or another in some thing (a system)
>or action. See above for 'system.'
>
>Please save this to archive or take notes, because you're
>boring me. Once again --- Society ==> system ==> thing ==>
>self.
>
ROTFL!
Is that the best that you can do?
Could you please tell me, PV, preferably in English and preferably in
a format other than nonsensical gibberish, how you define the "self"
of "society"?
Which "society" constitutes this "thing", which is also the "self"?
Who decides?
In terms of self defence, would it be permissible for this thing,
sorry, "society" to kill in order to subvert a rival system, thing or
society which threatened it?
What the fuck has a "thing" which is really a "self" defending itself
got to do with the DP?
Concise answers please. You may dispense with the rant.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:02:48 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <wank snipped>
>
> > If society does not have a 'self' how do
> >we differentiate between different societies?
>
> On the basis of our own perceptions as to what constitutes "Society"
>
Yep... that ol' 'self' of society. All different, all perceived
differently... just like us ol' humans. Or are you denying
that humans have a 'self'?
> > Would you say
> >that the society of the U.K. is without a self,
>
> Yes
>
That's because you still have not understood the meaning
of 'self.' I can understand that, in light of the deficiencies
inherent in your 'classical education.'
> > aimlessly adrift
> >without an 'idea' or a 'thought' which drives it?
>
> A poor and clumsy question, but in the interests of convenience, no.
>
An equally poor and clumsy answer. I can only assume
that by saying 'no,' you mean that society is NOT
aimlessly adrift without an 'idea,' or a 'thought' which
drives it. But that means you say it DOES have an 'idea' or
'thought' which drives it. And now you've actually boxed
yourself in, because by the very definition of 'self' which
is a person or thing... a thing is defined as an 'idea' or
a thought.
THING --
That which is thought; an opinion; a notion; an idea.
> > Is it exactly
> >the SAME as the society of the U.S.?
>
> Nope. But then again, my notion of "society" would no doubt differ
> greatly from, say, John's - and ideologically we _are_ quite similar.
>
?????????????
> > Is there an inability to
> >call a society a 'thing'?
>
> This question does not make sense. If you wish to call it a "thing"
> then by all means do so.
>
But if it's a THING, it by definition has a 'self.' ITSELF.
> > If it is NOT a 'thing,' then what is it?
>
> A subjective personal concept whereby an idividual discerns certain
> factors which he considers to be the bedrock of social cohesion?
>
Having a 'self.'
> >Perhaps you should answer MY questions.
>
> Glad to. As a small hint, I would like to advise you that in your
> quest to discover the meaning of the word "society", you would do well
> to escape your clumsy assumption that a "society" is limited to a
> nation state.
>
I've NEVER stated that it is LIMITED to a nation state. And
I'm sure enough that you know that, to call you a liar for
claiming that I HAVE limited it in that respect. Clearly
I have said it can be a tribe, a clan, an organization, a city,
a county, and so on. One of the definitions is "The state or
condition of living in association, company, or intercourse
with others of the same species; the system or mode of
life adopted by a body of individuals for the purpose of
harmonious co-existence or for mutual benefit, defence,."
And that is not the sole definition, but it will suffice for how
I use it. And the point is, HOW I use it is only predicated on
the context I use it in. Usually, when I speak of it, I mean
the lowest socially constructed entity that can MAKE law
which provides for the DP, and those higher. Since the
subject of the DP is the subject of this group. Whether
you LIKE the way I use it, is entirely immaterial to the
fact that I use it properly to indicate what it is supposed
to indicate.
> To say "the society of the UK" is, quite frankly, a nonsensical
> statement.
>
I would agree with that wholeheartedly -- :-)
> Now, PV. Will you please define the "self" of "society".
>
Been there.. done that. See another thread from today.
Don't ask me again.
> And I dare you do it without mentioning "things" or envelopes.
>
No... simply because YOU CANNOT. 'Things' are quite clearly
defined as 'thoughts' and 'ideas.' And so is society. We speak of
society ITSELF. This in ITSELF is an assumption that it is a
'thing' - an 'it' which possesses a 'self.' I would suppose you would
also ask me to say 'cheese' with my lips kept tightly shut. Try
it.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:52:44 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >Thus, the 'self' of 'society' is defined to be a 'system' which is
> >a 'thing' which is a 'self' and relates to the fact or condition
> >of taking part with others or another in some thing (a system)
> >or action. See above for 'system.'
> >
> >Please save this to archive or take notes, because you're
> >boring me. Once again --- Society ==> system ==> thing ==>
> >self.
> >
>
> ROTFL!
>
> Is that the best that you can do?
>
again.
> Could you please tell me, PV, preferably in English and preferably in
> a format other than nonsensical gibberish, how you define the "self"
> of "society"?
>
> Which "society" constitutes this "thing", which is also the "self"?
>
The 'self' is in the system.
> Who decides?
>
What do you mean? There is no UNIQUE deciding process.
It is not something that comes off an assembly line. Who
decided that YOU became a 'self'? Probably your parents,
although they undoubtedly now have grave second thoughts.
Who decides that anyone becomes a 'self'? Obviously a
different set. No particular person or set of persons
decides. Society (the System) is a 'thought' and/or an
'idea' which are always decided in different ways. Those
'thoughts' and 'ideas' form a 'system' which is the 'self' of
what is formed, and what is formed is a 'self' of differing
societies. It may well be formed under a monarchy, or a
dictator, or whatever. It does not require a majority or
anything near that. It only requires an idea that takes
hold, and becomes a system, even if by force of arms.
And what is formed is a 'SYSTEM,' which is a 'THING,'
which has a 'SELF.'
> In terms of self defence, would it be permissible for this thing,
> sorry, "society" to kill in order to subvert a rival system, thing or
> society which threatened it?
Not quite. But close. The society (system) can form forces
in its self-defense. With the generalized purpose of deterring
aggression (although not solely in that purpose). Such as we
do in forming the Justice System, and providing the law
which permits penalties, including the DP, if felt appropriate
as a means of self-defense. But lacking an ACTUAL attack
(not an IMMEDIATE attack, but an attack which has
demonstrated that it can be REPEATED), then attacking
the rival system, or thing without having suffered that ACTUAL
attack makes THAT system the aggressor, and no longer
acting in self-defense.
Once attacked, permission to kill is formed WITHIN the
system, and is taken in self-defense. It is a process which
does not depend on outside inputs. There are NO
checks and balances external to the system, unless
accepted when forming a larger system. That's why
we call a nation (that particular society), a 'sovereign'
nation. The system is responsible ONLY to the system
itself, unless formed as part of a larger system, such as
the individual States in the U.S., (that are their own
sub-systems) which function in many respects under
a Federal government with the limits defined in the
Constitution. Consequently, the use of the DP by that
particular society (system) and its subordinate societies
(sub-systems), should be limited to those who have
ALREADY murdered, demonstrating a clear attack on
society. Society (the system) then has every right to
take ANY action it considers necessary to repel a repeat
aggression from that attacker. Whether it happened
yesterday, or last year. For obvious reasons, we hope
to live in a society (system) that expresses what we
feel subjectively is a moral viewpoint in how it responds in
self-defense, from the largest response in wartime, to the
smallest response in what we do with a murderer. Thus,
we wish to not execute ALL murderers, nor cause them
to endure what we consider a more painful suffering then
is necessary to achieve the hoped for objective of 'defending'
our society from their aggression through either temporary
or permanent incapacitation, as we expect to do in war
as well. That's why I support the DP, and oppose L wop.
>
> What the **** has a "thing" which is really a "self" defending itself
> got to do with the DP?
>
I think I've just explained that, before I even got to your
question. Do you really think the 'self' of society (system)
has not been attacked by a murderer? Get real. This
is expressly the reason that I hold to ACTUAL murder
being the ONLY watershed event which would permit society
to execute. Lacking the murder itself, we cannot respond
with a greater penalty than the crime could possibly
deserve.
<rant clipped>
PV
> w00f
>
>
JIGSAW1695
From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@noos.fr
Date: 2/20/2002 1:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <slrna7865r.cg.p...@tortue.voute.net>
Le Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:30:07 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
écrit :
>> No you fucking haven't you liar.
> Comma after haven't, please.
*snort*
===============================
Control your jealousy, Desmond. John has been appointe the official grammar
police, and therefore has the authority to make correction as he sees fit.
If you should desire to become a member of either the spelling or grammar
patrol, please submit a properly filled out application to the AADP Board of
Directors Attention: Selection committe.
Jigsaw
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
Y-A-W-N
I'll be honest, PV. I didn't read this past the bit where you claimed
that "no" was a poor answer to a closed question. I felt it was just
going to go downhill from there.
What I am willing to bet, however, is that you didn't define the
"self" of society in anywhere near a satisfactory manner.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
in the shitter here. I guess I'll just have to wing it, and
claim I was so disinterested I didn't read it all. Maybe even
say that even though I didn't read it... I KNOW it wouldn't
satisfy me."
> I'll be honest, PV. I didn't read this past the bit where you claimed
> that "no" was a poor answer to a closed question. I felt it was just
> going to go downhill from there.
>
> What I am willing to bet, however, is that you didn't define the
> "self" of society in anywhere near a satisfactory manner.
>
Well, I'll be damn... I just did a PERFECT translation. Give
me a 6.0 on that one.
My answer will NEVER satisfy you. Not because it is not
a satisfactory answer, but simply because you refuse to
accept satisfactory answers that come from me. Especially
when they prove that you haven't a clue.
PV
> w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>>
>Well, I'll be damn... I just did a PERFECT translation. Give
>me a 6.0 on that one.
>
Oh well, if that's what you want to believe...
I seem to remember you "definition" being society=self=thing=envelope,
or something like that.
This hardly defines the "self" of "society" in sucha way that it is
possible to achieve some form of consensus as to what is behaviour is
permissible in order to affect its defence.
It doesn't wash, I'm afraid.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:33:59 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >>
> >Well, I'll be damn... I just did a PERFECT translation. Give
> >me a 6.0 on that one.
> >
>
>
> Oh well, if that's what you want to believe...
>
> I seem to remember you "definition" being society=self=thing=envelope,
> or something like that.
>
> This hardly defines the "self" of "society" in sucha way that it is
> possible to achieve some form of consensus as to what is behaviour is
> permissible in order to affect its defence.
>
> It doesn't wash, I'm afraid.
Ummm... dirt... as usual, you're VERY confused.
self==thing==idea==system==society
self==thing==envelope
BTW --- Before I forget... spank...spank...spank... and a monkey
or two thrown in for good measure.
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<Of the definition of the "self" of "society">
>
>Ummm... dirt... as usual, you're VERY confused.
>
>self==thing==idea==system==society
<snipped>
What utter, unadulterated nonsense, PV.
BTW, can you please define for me the "self" of "society", because you
still haven't I am afraid.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:qjmd7ugkv7prr2jn7...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:33:59 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> >>
>> >Well, I'll be damn... I just did a PERFECT translation. Give
>> >me a 6.0 on that one.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Oh well, if that's what you want to believe...
>>
>The judges seem to think so.
Which judges are voting?
A few East Europeans and a Frog?
w00f
<snipped>
>>
>>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
You're afraid??? I'm the one dealing with a moron...
I should be afraid.
Okay, let's go through it v-e-r-y carefully. Follow
closely now --
self <pause and give dirt time to digest thought>
self==thing
thing <pause and give dirt time to digest thought>
thing==idea
idea <pause and give dirt time to digest thought>
idea==system
system <pause and give dirt time to digest thought>
system==society
society <pause and give dirt time to digest thought>
all together now, dirt -- concentrate.
self==thing==idea==system==society
PV
> w00f
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
No PV, you misunderstand me.
I didn't ask you how, using your circular logic, you arrive at the
conclusion that "society" is a "thing".
I actually asked you to define the "self" of "society".
In a different thread you have expressed confusion as to what "define"
means. Rather than emulate your good self and trot out nine or ten
ambiguous and mutually contradictory dictionary defintions, I shall,
for your convenience, tell you exactly what I mean by this.
In my usage of the word here, I mean "define" in the sense that I ask
you to identify exactly what constitutes the essence of society in
such a way that it would enable one to establish with sufficient
certainty just what actions, behaviour or ideology threaten this
"self" in a way which should be met with criminal sanction.
You will find this rather difficult to do.
It would be a lot easier, and a whole lot more accurate, if you were
to state that the DP could be said to have merits in terms of
protection of the physical safety of the populous. That's
"protection", BTW.
Notice "protection" is proactive in terms of the "defense" it offers,
just like the DP.
Notice that, subject to some exceptions which can quite easily be
distinguished (go on, try me), the concept of "self defence" is very
much reactive - the opposite of protection.
So could you, PV, please define the "self" of "society".
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
my responsibility?
> In a different thread you have expressed confusion as to what "define"
> means. Rather than emulate your good self and trot out nine or ten
> ambiguous and mutually contradictory dictionary defintions, I shall,
> for your convenience, tell you exactly what I mean by this.
>
You haven't the slightest idea what 'define' means.
> In my usage of the word here, I mean "define" in the sense that I ask
> you to identify exactly what constitutes the essence of society in
> such a way that it would enable one to establish with sufficient
> certainty just what actions, behaviour or ideology threaten this
> "self" in a way which should be met with criminal sanction.
>
That lies WITHIN the collective 'self' of society, just as
we make those subjective decisions in our individual selves.
> You will find this rather difficult to do.
>
Not at all. Although I've found it difficult to get through
to you. But that's obviously not MY limitation, but
yours.
> It would be a lot easier, and a whole lot more accurate, if you were
> to state that the DP could be said to have merits in terms of
> protection of the physical safety of the populous. That's
> "protection", BTW.
>
Physical safety of the populous defines an active state
of providing such safety through 'protection.' It does not
happen by itself, but is achieved by establishing structures
which provide such protection. Those structures are
the LAWS. The laws are defined as providing a level
of 'self-defense' to the general membership of society.
Thus -- 'society self-defense.'
> Notice "protection" is proactive in terms of the "defense" it offers,
> just like the DP.
>
Notice you don't have a clue what you're even saying.
> Notice that, subject to some exceptions which can quite easily be
> distinguished (go on, try me), the concept of "self defence" is very
> much reactive - the opposite of protection.
>
Huh???? Of course it's reactive. Self-defense forces
established by society are in reaction to a PERCEPTION
of a threat. But it's absurd to claim that a reactive
response to a perceived threat is not intent on
protection. It's idiotic to say one is the OPPOSITE
of the other. If not for protection, then what IS
self-defense? Non-Protection???? Individual self-defense
is a 'protection of your individual life under threat.' Cheee.....
> So could you, PV, please define the "self" of "society".
>
There's nothing 'circular' about a direct connection
of society and 'self' One is the SAME as the other.
society HAS a self through the definition and cannot
be defined OUTSIDE of that definition, although you
would certainly try.
You well know that 'society' and its 'self' is well defined by
literally thousands of philosophers, outside of any dictionary
definitions. I will not research all of them for you -- but let me
provide FOUR very different sources which demonstrate they
hold society as a 'self.'
ALEXANDER POPE -- AN ESSAY ON MAN
OF THE NATURE AND STATE OF MAN WITH RESPECT
TO SOCIETY
HERE then we rest; 'The universal cause
Acts to one end, but acts by various laws.'
In all the madness of superfluous health,
The trim of pride, the impudence of wealth,
Let this great truth be present night and day;
But most be present, if we preach or pray.
Look round our world; behold the chain of love
Combining all below and all above.
See plastic nature working to this end,
The single atoms each to other tend,
Attract, attracted to, the next in place
Form'd and impell'd its neighbour to embrace.
See matter next, with various life endu'd,
Press to one centre still, the gen'ral good.
See dying vegetables life sustain,
See life dissolving vegetate again:
All forms that perish other forms supply,
(By turns we catch the vital breath, and die)
Like bubbles on the sea of matter born,
They rise, they break, and to that sea return.
Nothing is foreign; parts relate to whole;
One all-extending, all-preserving soul
Connects each being, greatest with the least;
Made beast in aid of man, and man of beast;
All serv'd, all serving: nothing stands alone;
The chain holds on, and where it ends, unknown.
HENRY DAVID THOREAU
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
"Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry
Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a
member of any incorporated society which I
have not joined."
THOMAS PAINE
AMERICAN CRISIS
"I have ever been careful of charging offences
upon whole societies of men, but as the paper
referred to is put forth by an unknown set of
men, who claim to themselves the right of
representing the whole: and while the whole
Society of Quakers admit its validity by a silent
acknowledgment."
"but the present king of England, who seduced
and took into keeping a sister of their society"
"Ought we ever after to be considered as a part of
the human race? Or ought we not rather to be
blotted from the society of mankind."
PHILIP SCHAFF
AMERICAN IDEA OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
"The church punishes by rebuke, suspension, and
excommunication; the state by fines, imprisonment,
and death. Both meet on questions of public morals,
and both together constitute civilized human Society
and ensure its prosperity."
The 'self' of society is ANYTHING (A thing) that humans
wish to make it, from the whole of mankind to the
smallest association, in respect to how they wish to order
their lives to gain the synergy of such an association.
The 'self' of society are those humans who exist in
such a connection. Quite literally, and you well know
this... I could provide hundreds of thousands of references
which speak to the 'self' of society... but quite frankly
you're not worth it.
PV
> w00f
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
Drum roll. Here comes the definition of the "self" of society.....
<snipped>
.
>>
>That lies WITHIN the collective 'self' of society, just as
>we make those subjective decisions in our individual selves.
Oh no, what a let down. I thought you were going to have a go then.
Could you please define the "collective" "self" of "society" for me,
PV?
Preferably in a manner as far removed from your effort above as
possible - i.e. it should make sense.
<astounding bollocks in which PV alleges that "protection" and
"defence" are the same thing and seems to trawl back up his old
justification for his crackpot criminological meandering - namely that
"the Japanese call their army a Self Defence Force so I must be right"
snipped>
<clueless quotes snipped>
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
Another totally astonishing troll from dirt, where he sees nothing
of 'protection' inherent in 'self-defense.' How drool (that's right,
no mistake). Droll Drool from the Troll. Let me see... My Webster's
Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language,
1600 pages long, defines 'defense' as
DEFENSE -- "resistance against attack; protection."
It would seem that in spite of the droll drool from the troll,
that defense IS protection. WITHOUT A DOUBT.
Further I have provided more than sufficient proof of society
having a 'self.' But, I will again add two more. I have
literally hundreds of thousands of references from those
far better than dirt, which can substantiate the 'self' of
society --
R. H. Tawney -- Religion and the Rise of Capitalism:
A Historical Study --
"Societies, like individuals, have their crises and their
spiritual revolutions.
It would seem that Tawney draws a DIRECT comparison of
society and individuals... and we can hardly claim that
'individuals' do not possess a 'self.'
And another most telling -- Edmund Burke -Reflections on the
Revolution in France.
"Society is indeed a contract... It is a partnership in all
science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every
virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership
cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a
partnership not only between those who are living, but
between those who are living, those who are dead, and
those who are to be born."
Such a conclusion by one recognized as far more profound
than either you or I, demonstrates that society has a
'self' contained in its covenant. Not only with those alive
who presently participate in that covenant, but with the
victims of murder and the unborn who some would claim a
woman has a right to abort independent of that social
contract.
You are so utterly spanked, that it's a wonder you just
don't go run and hide.
PV
> w00f
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna7oge2.6pe.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:53:48 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Let me see... My Webster's
> > Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language,
>
>
Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with the English Language.
As does the OED, which defines DEFENSE as --
DEFENSE --
"II. The action of guarding or protecting from attack.
3. a. Guarding or protecting from attack; resistance
against attack; warding off of injury; protection (The
chief current sense.)
Can you possibly see that DEFENSE in its CHIEF CURRENT
SENSE is PROTECTION?
Chalk one up for PV against BOTH of the 'dynamic duo' of
morons. You should REALLY find someone other than dirt
to idolize, Desmond. He can only do you more damage
than you could possibly do to yourself.
PV
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> desmond @ noos.fr |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/
> Clé Publique : http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Wed, 27 Feb 2002 06:14:55 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> >> > Let me see... My Webster's
> >> > Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language,
>
> >> The question being, what does that have to do with the English language ?
>
> > Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with the English Language.
> > As does the OED, which defines DEFENSE as --
> >
> > DEFENSE --
>
>
> My _Concise Oxford English Dictionary_ gives the same definition, but
> curiously enough, spells it 'defence', which is of course the correct
> spelling. Further down the page, is 'defense', defined as 'US variant of
> "defence".' In other words, a bastardised, inferior 'variant' of the
> language spoken in the UK and Commonwealth.
>
> So you're talking shite, PV. Wouldn't _that_ be a first ...
>
We can see perfectly well where the shit is coming from.
A silly argument that 'defence' is not 'protection,' because
I used the alternate spelling of 'defense.' While both are
obviously defined at 'protection.' How silly.
The OED (not concise - but the ACTUAL OED), makes NO
reference to the difference in the spelling, and in fact when
it defines the word lists it as
defence, defense, n
I don't think I've seen a more senseless argument from you
Desmond. At least not since you claimed Switzerland was
not in Europe.
> Twat.
>
ROTFLMAO. Why not use the term ****wit, that dirt always
uses when he recognizes he's been thoroughly spanked????
Twat is just so much more feeble and impotent. At least
****wit has a unique obscene flair to it.
PV
> { snip }
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:Jpbf8.2024$1p6.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Agreed. But then agaiin it also defines
defence as
defence, defense, n
What a shame we can't have the same spirit of compromise on a.a.d.p.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3Vcf8.60776$Ah1.7...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Nonetheless, it's a totally futile argument on both of their parts,
since no matter HOW you spell it, it MEANS 'protection.' And
that was what dirt disagreed with. I don't see how they can
extract themselves from the rather severe spanking I've
administered to both of them.
But I can imagine dirt will respond with ****wit, or Desmond
will respond with 'go take a piss.' Which turn out to
actually mean -- "I surrender."
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:44:55 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > But I can imagine dirt will respond with ****wit, or Desmond
> > will respond with 'go take a piss.' Which turn out to
> > actually mean -- "I surrender."
>
>
> Hey, dirt ... you think he likes us ? Bwwwahahahahahahaaa !!!!
>
How stupid is Desmond... let me count the ways -- Desmond believes --
1) God should protect murderers in an escape to Mexico.
2) The Lockerbie terrorist attack was caused by a wind gust.
3) Switzerland is not in Europe.
4) The dead cannot be honored.
5) It is Better that Theodore Frank be free to murder 3-year old
girls again rather than he be executed.
6) There is such a person as a 'selective' abolitionist.
7) He cannot tear his eyes away from the firm, comely , just turned
16 year-old thighs of Sarah Hughes.
8) Although defense is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary
specifically as 'protection,' in its main definitional meaning,
he disagrees, finding himself far superior in defining words.
9) Europe does not violate its citizens' human
rights. Bosnia thus also not in Europe.
10) America and The United States are not synonyms,
although every dictionary defines them thusly.
11) PV is 'evil' because he is Catholic, obviously presuming
ALL Catholics are 'evil.'
12) bin Laden, didn't plan or carry out the attacks of 911,
but he knows who did.
13) The Bush Administration,and Mossad also know.
He places his money on either Israel, or Pakistan being
behind the attacks.
I intend to add to this list from time to time, hoping that
bandwidth will allow me to do before his stupidities overwhelm
the capacity of this group.
PV