OT: Bill O'Reilly, STFU already
Thrasher
being more qualified than the other dem candidates due to his service
in Vietnam. Fine. But then he goes on to put people who served in the
National Guard and Reserves in the same category as people who were
never in the military at all. Hey, Bill - do you realize half the guys
in Iraq right *now* are in the reserves? What do they have to do
before they get a Factor T-Shirt from you for military service, get
killed? Then he goes on to say people who have coverred wars as
journalists, like himself, are as well qualified to comment on
military matters as combat vets. Hey, Bill, I might *almost* buy that
in the case of the embedded journalists in Iraq. They don't have the
training or the experience somebody in the military has, but at least
they were out there watching with their own eyes as things played out.
But you weren't one of those, Bill.
And, hey, Bill - remember that time you said something to the effect
of "Everyone knows the guys you send in first are the ones who aren't
any good and THEN you send in your best troops" while an Army 2 star
general sat there looking stunned?
Who wrote that book of tactics, Bill? Saddam Hussein? The whole idea
of launching assaults with hardened shock troops is to ensure that the
assault will succeed. You send in the guys who don't know what they
are doing AFTER the assault troops, when there is an established
foothold in enemy territory. If you don't do things this way, your
casualties will be massive and your attack will fail, so you won't
have an opportunity to send in your "best" troops. This will also lead
to decimated troop morale and you, Bill, being relieved of your
command. The Chinese used your method in Korea, O'Reilly. They got
slaughtered. The American GIs tore up the human wave assaults until
their machineguns ran dry and then rolled out and set up on the next
hill. The only reason the Korean War ended with a stalemate is the US
couldn't get ammo to the troops as fast as China could get Chinese
peasants over the Yalu. That's a horrific way to fight battles,
Bill... The Chinese may have gone along with that, but we don't have
enough troops to spend 100 of ours for every enemy killed and the
families back home would be marching in the streets after the first
fight.
And I really am not the guy to be defending reservists, I used to hate
em when I was on active duty, but for the last 10 years we've been
using reservists to hold down every peace keeping mission we've had.
They weren't the first in and they aren't the majority of troops, but
they are THERE dammit - and they don't deserve to be kicked around by
Bill O'Reilly.
Ben Sisson
that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
(snip)
>And I really am not the guy to be defending reservists, I used to hate
>em when I was on active duty, but for the last 10 years we've been
>using reservists to hold down every peace keeping mission we've had.
>They weren't the first in and they aren't the majority of troops, but
>they are THERE dammit - and they don't deserve to be kicked around by
>Bill O'Reilly.
What are we, Thrasher, your fucking support group? Why are you
bringing this crap up here, in an rpg newsgroup?
Or is this another ego trip?
--
Ben Sisson
1 flask of holy water: $11
1 modified crossbow: $50
1 pointy wooden stake: $1
7 seasons worth of memories of the best show on TV: priceless
Courageous
>What are we, Thrasher, your fucking support group? Why are you
>bringing this crap up here, in an rpg newsgroup?
It's the bipolar disorder. First, he goes through this megalomaniacal
periods where he's convinced he's the world's biggest ass-kicker,
then he has these down times where he starts crying and needs the
group for support. Give the guy a break, man. :)
C//
Ben Sisson
<jkraska.re...@san.rr.com> (if that IS his real name)
conspiratorially whispered:
>
Well if we're the closest thing he has to friends...
Crap I just finished that thought. We are Thrasher's closest friends.
That is not something you put on your resume....
Thrasher
<ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>What are we, Thrasher, your fucking support group? Why are you
>bringing this crap up here, in an rpg newsgroup?
You do know what OT in a subject header means don't you?
>Or is this another ego trip?
It's an off topic post. If you don't *like* off topic posts, how's
about you don't read them, instead of wasting your own and everyone
else's time whining? I put OT so dickheads like you could skip over
it. If that's not good enough then kill-file me. <shrug>
I don't even have any games installed on my computer right now. If it
wasn't for off topic content this newsgroup would be empty.
Thrasher
<jkraska.re...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>It's the bipolar disorder. First, he goes through this megalomaniacal
>periods where he's convinced he's the world's biggest ass-kicker,
No, not the world's... the groups maybe. I bet I've kicked more asses
than everyone in this group put together... which would prolly be a
grand total of 0 :D
>then he has these down times where he starts crying and needs the
>group for support. Give the guy a break, man. :)
Actually, I've been in a much better mood the last two weeks not
playing any computer games. I'm almost glad there isn't anything
coming out for the Christmas season this year.
But, anyway, there wasn't anything bipolar about my post, it was a
perfectly ordinary posting for me. You just made that shit up to
insult me - but at least you did it in a socially acceptable way. BTW,
isn't the Bipolar Disorder just an excuse for rejects to be rejects,
without feeling bad about it? Everyone I've ever met who claims to be
Bipolar is a drug addict or an alchoholic. Which works *really well*
when combined with all the drugs they get from their shrinks for being
"bipolar."
Thrasher says "Hail, school_shootings!"
If I was bipolar, though, I wouldn't be manic-depressive. I'd be
pissed-off/normal.
Thrasher
<ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>Well if we're the closest thing he has to friends...
>
>Crap I just finished that thought. We are Thrasher's closest friends.
>That is not something you put on your resume....
Well, if you wanna know what's really, REALLY sad... it's that you
think you are my friend, but I don't even know who you are :\
Stephen Mackey
>If it
>wasn't for off topic content this newsgroup would be empty.
That's just not true. I can't remember a day gone by when I checked this
newsgroup and didn't see some new on topic posts. New crpgs are always coming
out, after all.
--
Stephen Mackey
Thrasher
Mackey) wrote:
>That's just not true. I can't remember a day gone by when I checked this
>newsgroup and didn't see some new on topic posts.
And I can't remember the last time I was participating in threads
involving multiple new games that all came out at roughly the same
time. Diablo II and Baldur's Gate II maybe.
But most of these new posts are on old games. ToEE is the only recent
CRPG. And, yes, it did generate a lot of traffic and it still is.
Before that was Lionheart. How many people are still talking about
that game?
>New crpgs are always coming out, after all.
I disagree. There's been only 1 RPG out this year for the PC that was
worth playing, ToEE. There was 1 other that wasn't really very good at
all, Lionheart.
Not exactly a stellar year for CRPGs. When we had years like this in
the mid 90s we called it an RPG drought. I really can't explain why so
many of you seem to be happy with this miserable fare. The game
shortage(not just RPGs) does explain why so many people who used to be
regulars in these game groups are now absent, though.
Lucian Wischik
>I disagree. There's been only 1 RPG out this year for the PC that was
>worth playing, ToEE. There was 1 other that wasn't really very good at
>all, Lionheart.
Geneforge2. It's way better than ToEE and Lionheart, and I haven't
even played them!
--
Lucian
Thrasher
wrote:
>Geneforge2. It's way better than ToEE and Lionheart, and I haven't
>even played them!
Well, I haven't even heard of Geneforge 2 so it obviously sucks,
whatever it is. How come nobody is on my off-topic anyway?
Lucian Wischik
>Well, I haven't even heard of Geneforge 2 so it obviously sucks,
>whatever it is. How come nobody is on my off-topic anyway?
Well, I don't even know who Bill O'Reilly is, so he's obviously not
interesting...
Geneforge2 is at www.spiderwebsoftware.com
If you enjoy RPGs with turn-based tactical combat and deep storylines,
it's worth playing.
--
Lucian
chainbreaker
> And I really am not the guy to be defending reservists, I used to hate
> em when I was on active duty, but for the last 10 years we've been
> using reservists to hold down every peace keeping mission we've had.
> They weren't the first in and they aren't the majority of troops, but
> they are THERE dammit - and they don't deserve to be kicked around by
> Bill O'Reilly.
Thrasher, I agree with you 100% on this, but what's the point of venting it
here, even marked OT?
--
chainbreaker
If you need to email, then chainbreaker (naturally) at comcast dot
net--that's "net" not "com"--should do it.
chainbreaker
> No, not the world's... the groups maybe. I bet I've kicked more asses
> than everyone in this group put together... which would prolly be a
> grand total of 0 :D
You mean you or the group? And what does asses kicked have to do with
anything here, anyway? BTW, just so you can get your juices flowing, don't
think that everybody'd here'd bow down before you if things ever really did
come to an asskicking contest. In the meantime you probably ought to make
sure you keep your prescriptions filled.
morgul12
> interesting...
...so the only interesting people are those whose shows are broadcast
in Europe?
Here, go to this website and check out the "Talking Points" section
under "FOX News Access"; you can see a short video clip of O'Reilly.
Love him or hate him, his show is entertaining for those interested in
politics.
morgul12
> interesting...
Forgot the link:
Lucian Wischik
>Lucian wrote:
>>Thrasher wrote:
>>>I haven't heard of Geneforge 2 so it obviously sucks, whatever it is.
>>I don't know who Bill O'Reilly is, so he's obviously not interesting...
>
>...so the only interesting people are those whose shows are broadcast
>in Europe?
umm... it was a joke, a parody of what Thrasher had just said in the
previous sentence. maybe not a funny parody, but still a parody...
--
Lucian
Mean_Chlorine
> Not exactly a stellar year for CRPGs. When we had years like this in
> the mid 90s we called it an RPG drought. I really can't explain why so
> many of you seem to be happy with this miserable fare. The game
> shortage(not just RPGs) does explain why so many people who used to be
> regulars in these game groups are now absent, though.
But, thrasher, tons of user made mods for NWN have been released this
year. Surely you like those!
Besides, some seem to like the present crop of games. I seem to
remember someone who told everyone to shut up about the bugs in ToEE
because it was such an outstanding game and everyone was just being
negative and jinxing the whole cRPG industry with their negativity.
Come to think of it - wasn't that you?
Mark Morrison
wrote:
No-one pays attention to you ?
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Ben Sisson
that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:01:53 GMT, Ben Sisson
Actually, it's that you treat us like we give two shits about your
political opinion, and that you can't see how pathetic that is, that's
really sad.
Ben Sisson
that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 02:20:43 GMT, Ben Sisson
><ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>What are we, Thrasher, your fucking support group? Why are you
>>bringing this crap up here, in an rpg newsgroup?
>
>You do know what OT in a subject header means don't you?
It means you think we care what you think about an offtopic post.
Score one for me.
>>Or is this another ego trip?
>
>It's an off topic post. If you don't *like* off topic posts, how's
>about you don't read them, instead of wasting your own and everyone
>else's time whining? I put OT so dickheads like you could skip over
>it. If that's not good enough then kill-file me. <shrug>
>
>I don't even have any games installed on my computer right now. If it
>wasn't for off topic content this newsgroup would be empty.
So we ARE your support group, and the closest things you have to
friends....
Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
BTW, Bill O'Reilly said on his radio show (and in his book) that any parent that puts a TV
or Computer in their kid's room is a bad and irresponsible parent. He forgot to talk
about that durned' DEVIL music on the radio too.
jh
Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Aaron
: Then he goes on to say people who have covered wars as
: journalists, like himself, are as well qualified to comment on
: military matters as combat vets.
I'm not sure why I'm responding to this, but oh well. I saw the program in
question here, and while I often disagree with O'Reilly, you're totally
mischaracterizing him here. What he said was that for Kerry to claim that he
is better qualified to speak on foreign relations and geopolitics because of
his military experience would be equivalent to reporters who covered wars
saying that they are more qualified than others to comment on these
things. He went on to say that he and other war reporters were _not_ more
qualified than anyone else to have valid opinions, and neither is Kerry. He
may have exaggerated when he implied that he has covered wars in the past, of
course.
-Aaron
Courageous
>No, not the world's... the groups maybe. I bet I've kicked more asses
>than everyone in this group put together... which would prolly be a
>grand total of 0 :D
Newsgroups have a remarkable mix of people in them, and gaming slices
across a broad spectrum of the population these days. I used to
Thai Box, for example. Thai Boxing is one of the world's most brutal
sports, a short step away from cage fighting, really. No fighter
with any experience readily dismisses the notion that the other guy
might kick his ass. It happens.
C//
Coby
Thai boxing! That brings back memories. My shins still ache whenever it's
going to rain.
--
Coby
'69 Z28 '99 XX '01 FLSTF '01 XX '72 710M '03 Tiger
Courageous
>Thai boxing! That brings back memories. My shins still ache whenever it's
>going to rain.
Yes. In our gym, we had a sort of boxing bag called a "sand bag" that we
had to repeatedly kick. I would also routinely strike my shins with axe
handles. I was one of the more intense ones; my training regimen had me
icing down my shins 3 times each night, 3 times a week.
C//
Thrasher
<ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>Actually, it's that you treat us like we give two shits about your
>political opinion, and that you can't see how pathetic that is, that's
>really sad.
Well. You obviously do, else you wouldn't have read a post that from
me that was clearly marked as to it's comment :D
Thrasher
wrote:
>You mean you or the group? And what does asses kicked have to do with
>anything here, anyway?
I don't know. I didn't bring it up. WHy don't you ask the guy who did?
> BTW, just so you can get your juices flowing, don't think that everybody'd
>here'd bow down before you if things ever really did come to an asskicking
>contest.
No, they'd just run away. Words have power, and they sometimes have
consequences. I can tell the difference between people who have
defended their words with action and those who haven't. People who are
willing to stand up for themselves and back up their words choose
their words more carefully than most the people in this group do.
>In the meantime you probably ought to make sure you keep your prescriptions filled.
You know, when people make comments like this it exposes things about
themselves not about the person they are adddressed to. Like that guy
who doesn't know anything about me but presumes he is more important
in my life than my wife, my family, my friends or my co-workers. He
was trying to insult me but all he did is tell us all he is lonely.
Then there's the guy who called me Bipolar for no apparrent reason.
Clearly a projection of his own mental problems onto a complete
stranger. And here you are, talking about prescription drugs. <shrug>
Ben Sisson
that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:49:14 GMT, Ben Sisson
Your inability to comprehend English is noted.
Ben Sisson
that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:50:26 -0500, "chainbreaker" <no...@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You mean you or the group? And what does asses kicked have to do with
>>anything here, anyway?
>
>I don't know. I didn't bring it up. WHy don't you ask the guy who did?
Every time someone points out another one of your idiocies you bring
it up, how much "tougher" you are than everyone else. *Every time*.
And given at least half of your posts are nothing but idiocy, that's a
lot of times....
>
>> BTW, just so you can get your juices flowing, don't think that everybody'd
>>here'd bow down before you if things ever really did come to an asskicking
>>contest.
>
>No, they'd just run away. Words have power, and they sometimes have
>consequences. I can tell the difference between people who have
>defended their words with action and those who haven't.
/giggle
>>In the meantime you probably ought to make sure you keep your prescriptions filled.
>
>You know, when people make comments like this it exposes things about
>themselves not about the person they are adddressed to. Like that guy
>who doesn't know anything about me but presumes he is more important
>in my life than my wife, my family, my friends or my co-workers. He
>was trying to insult me but all he did is tell us all he is lonely.
I'm trying to tell you that you are the laughingstock of the newsgroup
and the fact you still haven't comprehended this to the point that you
treat us as your social circle boggles the mind.
>Then there's the guy who called me Bipolar for no apparrent reason.
No reason? You ACT it.
>Clearly a projection of his own mental problems onto a complete
>stranger. And here you are, talking about prescription drugs. <shrug>
In that case, you project someone extremely weak and insecure, intent
on proving the opposite by constantly showing how badass you are....
Thrasher
<jkraska.re...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>Newsgroups have a remarkable mix of people in them, and gaming slices
>across a broad spectrum of the population these days. I used to
>Thai Box, for example. Thai Boxing is one of the world's most brutal
>sports, a short step away from cage fighting, really. No fighter
>with any experience readily dismisses the notion that the other guy
>might kick his ass. It happens.
Are you dellusional? You brought the topic up, but for what reason?
Just to make unverifiable claims as to your own ass-kicking ability?
Who cares? My fighting days are behind me unless I have to defend
myself. But believe me, I *can* defend myself. Most the people posting
in this newsgroup have never even TRIED to defend themselves. I know a
whiny little bastard who lets himself be pushed around and intimidated
when I see one.
Thrasher
wrote:
>No-one pays attention to you ?
If only that were true! This stupid little off-topic post has already
become a hot thread, and nobody is even commenting on it's content.
Thrasher
(Mean_Chlorine) wrote:
>But, thrasher, tons of user made mods for NWN have been released this
>year. Surely you like those!
Er... no, actually I don't... why would I be interested in playing
user mods for a game I didn't like? That's kind of silly, actually...
name a game you didn't like that you downloaded mods for :D
>Besides, some seem to like the present crop of games.
One != Crop
> seem to remember someone who told everyone to shut up about the bugs in ToEE
>because it was such an outstanding game and everyone was just being
>negative and jinxing the whole cRPG industry with their negativity.
>Come to think of it - wasn't that you?
Yes, it was me... and I was right, wasn't I? But I didn't say they
WERE dragging down the CRPG industry with their goofy opinions,
over-enthusiastic praise of mediocre games and nasty attacks on flawed
but otherwise excellent games. I said they already HAD.
Thrasher
>I'm not sure why I'm responding to this, but oh well. I saw the program in
>question here, and while I often disagree with O'Reilly, you're totally
>mischaracterizing him here. What he said was that for Kerry to claim that he
>is better qualified to speak on foreign relations and geopolitics because of
>his military experience would be equivalent to reporters who covered wars
>saying that they are more qualified than others to comment on these
>things. He went on to say that he and other war reporters were _not_ more
>qualified than anyone else to have valid opinions, and neither is Kerry. He
>may have exaggerated when he implied that he has covered wars in the past, of
>course.
Well, he had two guests, one on each side of the argument, but I
didn't read that position into his commentary. He put ware reporters
and combat vets on one side of the argument and reservists and people
who'd never been in the military on the other. And *then* he said that
combat experience didn't matter in regards to political leadership. My
objection is to the way he classified various groups of people. And
this is because it's highly misleading and not everyone agrees with
O'Reilly on this - which means that if they buy into his definition of
who has military credentials and who doesn't, they'll be lending
credence to people who don't know anything or ignoring people who do.
BTW, I don't think Kerry's credentials as a Vietnam Vet count for
much. Just about every decision made during the Vietnam War was a
mistake, and people can learn from mistakes - but what they learn is
what *not* to do in the future. Kerry doesn't seem to have learned
that, since he's trying very hard to turn Iraq into Vietnam II.
Another problem for Kerry, is he is one of the many who say something
like "I support the troops but not the war" - he should know better.
The troops and the war cannot be seperated. You cannot support the
troops without spporting what they are doing. And Kerry, of all
people, should understand this. But, really, I think everyone who says
such a thing understands that it's a hollow comment.
And now a side comment to Courageous, that's on his ass-kicking topic
but relates to this as well:
When I was a young Marine on my first WESPAC (that's the rotating
Marine Expeditionary Unit that goes to Asia) I happened to find myself
shitfaced drunk outside of the Sierra club in Olongapo, Phillipines. I
was minding my own business having a smoke when this scraggly looking
white guy with long hair and a dirty T-Shirt came up to me.
He says "Dude! Are you in the miltary? What are you doing here?"
I says "I'm supposed to be here, they don't like us to go anywhere
else. What are *you* doing here? Didn't they tell you to stay in
Manila?"
He says "I heard I can get some herb really cheap down here"
etc etc etc... and eventually he says somthing to the effect of the US
military shouldn't be in the military. I asked him why he didn't like
the military and:
He says: "oh no, you guys are cool, it's not your fault... it's
Reagan... he's a bastard war-monger... if it wasn't for him you guys
wouldn't be here and Marcos wouldn't be here either blah blah blah"
So, I was going to explain to him that I actually liked Reagan, and
that the US military had been in the Phillipines longer than Reagan
had been alive, and Marcos was in power for the same reason that
dictators are in power everywhere else and that it had nothing to do
with me or Reagan. But instead, I punched him in the jaw. Because, I'm
a Marine, and that's what Marines do. But instead of getting up and
punching me back, he crawled away and scampered across the street. I
watched him walk up to two gangsters in Police uniforms and explain to
them what happened. It was almost like he forgot all the things he
said about Marcos and actually expected these cops to help him! So,
these two guys are pretending they don't speak english and the dork
keeps yammering at them and pointing at me and all they do is look at
him, look at me, look at him laugh and shake their heads. And I
finished my smoke and he wandered off on his quest for cheap herb,
presumably staying away from Marines and Filipino cops.
So, what's the point of all this? Well, it's a warning to those of you
who like to say things like "I support the troops but not the mission"
or whatever. The troops aren't that stupid. If you think they are, hop
a plane to Iraq and see how far you get saying that before somebody
punches YOU in the jaw.
Wally
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:50:49 GMT, Courageous
> <jkraska.re...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Newsgroups have a remarkable mix of people in them, and gaming slices
> >across a broad spectrum of the population these days. I used to
> >Thai Box, for example. Thai Boxing is one of the world's most brutal
> >sports, a short step away from cage fighting, really. No fighter
> >with any experience readily dismisses the notion that the other guy
> >might kick his ass. It happens.
>
> Are you dellusional? You brought the topic up, but for what reason?
He mentioned that you bring it up a lot, in support of his theory that
you're mentally deranged in one way or another.
> Just to make unverifiable claims as to your own ass-kicking ability?
I don't believe he made any such claim, but you inferred one because of your
fragile ego and penchant for getting hillariously puffy. You're really
barely above an ape in your ability to deal with other humans - that's why
you have no friends, and why you've become addicted to making an ass of
yourself here.
> Who cares? My fighting days are behind me unless I have to defend
> myself.
Like, against viscious verbal assaults such as "you're a moron".
> But believe me, I *can* defend myself. Most the people posting
> in this newsgroup have never even TRIED to defend themselves. I know a
> whiny little bastard who lets himself be pushed around and intimidated
> when I see one.
Most people know a sociopath when they see one. Did you know one of the
symptoms of sociopathy is fearlessness, Thrasher? You're textbook,
seriously.
Courageous
>>Newsgroups have a remarkable mix of people in them, and gaming slices
>>across a broad spectrum of the population these days. I used to
>>Thai Box, for example. Thai Boxing is one of the world's most brutal
>>sports, a short step away from cage fighting, really. No fighter
>>with any experience readily dismisses the notion that the other guy
>>might kick his ass. It happens.
>
>Are you dellusional?
No. You? You're the one threatening ass-kicking to the anonymous and
unknown. There's a broad spectrum of humanity out here. Doesn't seem
wise.
C//
Courageous
>> Just to make unverifiable claims as to your own ass-kicking ability?
>I don't believe he made any such claim, but you inferred one because of your
>fragile ego and penchant for getting hillariously puffy.
In fact, what I mentioned was that people who've done this sort of
thing -- REALLY -- know quite well that they can be on the receiving
end of the ass-kicking. You see, when you fight, there is an opponent,
and opponents have a way of wanting to win as well. This makes the
odds quite uncertain, and losses happen.
Perhaps "Thrasher" should reflect on this for a good hard while.
C//
Wally
news:p46upvs22dm8of6op...@4ax.com...
Sociopaths are incapable of introspection. Their understanding of
themselves and other people is superficial at best, but they don't realize
it (and they wouldn't care in any case).
I don't think I've ever read anything about this, but I'm starting to
suspect that sociopathy and sense of humor are inversely correlated. I've
known a few sociopaths and other than the obvious symptoms like a lack of
empathy or fearlnessness, none of them seem to have much of a sense of
humor. Well, one sociopath I knew laughed uproriously at the misfortune of
others, but almost nothing else.
Simpilot
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 04:18:51 GMT, Courageous
><jkraska.re...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>It's the bipolar disorder. First, he goes through this megalomaniacal
>>periods where he's convinced he's the world's biggest ass-kicker,
>
>No, not the world's... the groups maybe. I bet I've kicked more asses
>than everyone in this group put together... which would prolly be a
>grand total of 0 :D
There you go, you heard it from himself. He's kicked 0 asses. No big
surprise here. You can almost see the pocket protector on this loser.
Simpilot
wrote:
Yup, every time you look in the mirror. Man, this guy just makes it
too easy...
Cold War Relic
news:amhrpv0crku3aal23...@4ax.com:
(snip)
>
> And I really am not the guy to be defending reservists, I used to hate
> em when I was on active duty, but for the last 10 years we've been
> using reservists to hold down every peace keeping mission we've had.
> They weren't the first in and they aren't the majority of troops, but
> they are THERE dammit - and they don't deserve to be kicked around by
> Bill O'Reilly.
>
Thrasher,
I don't know you, I am not your friend and don't presume to know much of
anything but dammit, I agree with you 100%.
Dean (who didn't care much for reservists when I was active duty either)
chainbreaker
>
> No, they'd just run away. Words have power, and they sometimes have
> consequences. I can tell the difference between people who have
> defended their words with action and those who haven't. People who are
> willing to stand up for themselves and back up their words choose
> their words more carefully than most the people in this group do.
Most people who are willing and able to stand up for themselves physically
don't go around crowing about it all the time, based on my experience. The
few roosters I've known have all had . . . "issues", let's say, including
one who was the baddest ass around until he saw blood--any blood--at which
point he would promptly throw up and pass out. I think most people who have
to spout off about how tough they are are trying to convince themselves of
it, more than anything else.
--
chainbreaker
If you need to email, then chainbreaker (naturally) at comcast dot
net--that's "net" not "com"--should do it.
chainbreaker
>> Are you dellusional?
>
> No. You? You're the one threatening ass-kicking to the anonymous and
> unknown. There's a broad spectrum of humanity out here. Doesn't seem
> wise.
>
> C//
If Thrasher follows his usual MO, he'll run away without really addressing
most of the BS he's stirred up. Whatever else he may be, he *is* a damned
good troll, you gotta admit.
Nick Vargish
Please do not feed the troll.
Haven't people seen the pattern yet? Thrasher posts some flame-worthy
or just plain numb opinion or "fact", and before you know it, all the
posts in the thread are about Thrasher -- not about the original
topic, but Thrasher himself.
He doesn't care about the original topic, he just likes to see all the
posts that talk about him. By responding to his posts, you're feeding
his ego and giving him just what he wants. Stop being manipulated by
ignoring him.
*yawn*
Nick
--
# sigmask || 0.2 || 20030107 || public domain || feed this to a python
print reduce(lambda x,y:x+chr(ord(y)-1),' Ojdl!Wbshjti!=obwAcboefstobudi/psh?')
Aaron
: He put ware reporters
: and combat vets on one side of the argument and reservists and people
: who'd never been in the military on the other.
Well, no one said Bill O'Reilly isn't arrogant.
I really think he was trying to classify Presidents into those who had "seen
combat" and those that hadn't, though. I think he'd count a President who
was in the reserves but actually fought in a real war in the first
group.
: Another problem for Kerry, is he is one of the many who say something
: like "I support the troops but not the war" - he should know better.
Well, no one said the Democrats aren't dumb.
It's too bad really, since I think Liberman could potentially be a decent
President. But since he won't fully jump on the Dean train of bashing Bush,
the war, and everything American, he probably can't win the primaries. None
of the other people can win a general election though, since super-negativity
and America bashing won't get you half the votes in a general election.
: So, I was going to explain to him that I actually liked Reagan, and
: that the US military had been in the Phillipines longer than Reagan
: had been alive, and Marcos was in power for the same reason that
: dictators are in power everywhere else and that it had nothing to do
: with me or Reagan. But instead, I punched him in the jaw.
Um, this just makes you look like an idiot. I guess you were young and thats
what Marines do, but I don't think you should be proud of it now.
: But instead of getting up and
: punching me back, he crawled away and scampered across the street.
He sounds like the only intelligent person in this whole message.
-Aaron
Thrasher
wrote:
>Most people who are willing and able to stand up for themselves physically
>don't go around crowing about it all the time, based on my experience.
I'm still waiting to hear why you are addressing these comments to me.
I've only threatened physical violence once in my life on usenet and
that was in response to somebody who was following me around insulting
me. I don't let people do that. If you do, then I humbly submit that
you don't know what the meaning of standing up for yourself is.
Courageous
>: So, I was going to explain to him that I actually liked Reagan, and
>: that the US military had been in the Phillipines longer than Reagan
>: had been alive, and Marcos was in power for the same reason that
>: dictators are in power everywhere else and that it had nothing to do
>: with me or Reagan. But instead, I punched him in the jaw.
Sounds like a great way to get a face full of mace.
C//
Thrasher
>He mentioned that you bring it up a lot
I brought it up once. A month ago.
>Like, against viscious verbal assaults such as "you're a moron".
Did you perform that gas station experiment yet? Obviously not, or
you'd know that you can't walk up to people and insult them in real
life without getting hurt. You've never used such langauge towards a
stranger when he was there to do something about it, have you?
You just prove my point about whiny little bastards. Your aggression
is directed totally towards people who are unable to actually do
anything about it.
>Most people know a sociopath when they see one.
There aren't any sociopaths in the USMC. They don't get through
bootcamp.
>Did you know one of the symptoms of sociopathy is fearlessness, Thrasher?
Oh, I'm not fearless... not even close. Neither am I a coward. A
symptom of a coward is when somebody only shows aggression against
people weaker than themselves or who are otherwise unable to respond.
That would be you.
Thrasher
<jkraska.re...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>In fact, what I mentioned was that people who've done this sort of
>thing -- REALLY -- know quite well that they can be on the receiving
>end of the ass-kicking.
Which is nothing more than a claim on your part that you are such a
person. As you well know. You brought it up, then followed up your own
comment with a claim as to your own ass-kicking credentials. Perhaps
you should reflct on your own hypocrisy.
Thrasher
<jkraska.re...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>No. You? You're the one threatening ass-kicking to the anonymous and
>unknown. There's a broad spectrum of humanity out here. Doesn't seem
>wise.
Oh, come on... you inserted this bullshit into the topic, then accused
*me* of being responsible for it. That's just nutty.
Thrasher
>Um, this just makes you look like an idiot. I guess you were young and thats
>what Marines do, but I don't think you should be proud of it now.
Well, I didn't much like being blamed personally for every problem in
the Phillipines by a tourist who was in the country to EXPLOIT every
problem in the Phillipines. Also, he was deliberately antagonizing me.
But in any case, I did him a favor... he didn't notice the reality
shift that happened when he got off the plane in Manilla, or the
further reality shift that happened when he left Manila - which I'm
sure he was told not to do. After his encounter with Filipino police
who had witnessed a "crime" he hopefully had some clue what he was
getting into. If I'd really wished him harm, I would have befriended
him and found a Jeepney driver to take him out in the provinces by
himself to find his cheap herb.
That being said, it was his own apparrent contempt for the US military
that caused him to run to the authorities least likely to help him.
The US Navy and Marnie Corps runs a Shore Patrol to keep a lid on
drunken brawls in liberty ports.
>He sounds like the only intelligent person in this whole message.
<shrug> He had it planned, that was obvious... he already knew where
the cops were and didn't even hesitate running over to them. I doubt
he's tried to set somebody up again.
Thrasher
wrote:
>Thrasher, I agree with you 100% on this, but what's the point of venting it
>here, even marked OT?
I don't get you, chainbreaker... half your posts claim that you agree
with me and the other half call me a troll. Maybe Courageous is
calling the wrong person Bipolar.
Thrasher
<jkraska.re...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>Sounds like a great way to get a face full of mace.
Well, I was hoping he'd get up and kick-box the hell out of me or show
me his kung fu.
And is there anyone on earth who doesn't know the likely result of
provoking a drunken Marine? I'll answer this question myself - no,
there isn't. I've been all over the US and all over asia and the
mid-east and EVERYONE knows you don't piss off a drunk Marine unless
you want a fight. So did the guy in my little story. He wanted me to
take a swing at him right there in front of the two Filipino Cops. And
I did :D
He's lucky it was me. I only hit him once and stood there to see what
he'd do next. A lot of guys I knew then wouldn't have let him get back
up.
Courageous
>Which is nothing more than a claim on your part that you are such a
>person. As you well know.
That I could be on the receiving end of an ass kicking? Absolutely.
Happened with some degree of frequency. You?
C//
Morgan Sales
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:22:15 -0600, "Wally" <wa...@myworld.com> wrote:
>
>> He mentioned that you bring it up a lot
>
> I brought it up once. A month ago.
>
>> Like, against viscious verbal assaults such as "you're a moron".
>
> Did you perform that gas station experiment yet? Obviously not, or
> you'd know that you can't walk up to people and insult them in real
> life without getting hurt. You've never used such langauge towards a
> stranger when he was there to do something about it, have you?
IIRC, you got about six replies to a single post in that thread. All of
which pointed out that you had not clue how people really reacted to verbal
insults(i.e. NOT with physical violence) but your brilliant ground-breaking
argument was to ignore them all.
Bottom line child: Mature, stable, adults do NOT solve problems with
physical violence. Anyone who has spent any time living in the real world
knows that. This is something we have to teach to *children* with
behavioural or anger management difficulties in school. It is not something
that we need to point out to your average adult.
I remember what my history teacher once told me in school. "physical
violence is the first resort of a truly stupid person"
--
Morgan.
----
* I stole this accordion from a blind monkey.
e-mail: Morgan...@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
Thrasher
wrote:
>If Thrasher follows his usual MO, he'll run away without really addressing
Excuse me? I've been known to particpate in usenet threads for over a
month - and I rarely leave a thread without spending at least a few
days in it.
My rule of thumb is that I stay active in a thread as long as there is
something important or interesting to respond to. I feel no need to
stay around when every new post in a thread is just abuse.
>most of the BS he's stirred up.
Only one comment in this thread has been directed towards the original
post I made, the rest were personal attacks. Which I have addressed,
though I certainly have no obligation to. I'm not the one stirring
things up here.
>Whatever else he may be, he *is* a damned good troll, you gotta admit.
Yeah. Whatever. I try to make people think. Trolls try to make people
angry. I seem to make people angry because they are unable to think.
If that makes me a troll, fine. It also makes my victims stupid.
Courageous
>I remember what my history teacher once told me in school. "physical
>violence is the first resort of a truly stupid person"
"Appeal to force is a strong sign that the intellectual battle has
been lost."
C/
Thrasher
<msalesDI...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>IIRC, you got about six replies to a single post in that thread. All of
>which pointed out that you had not clue how people really reacted to verbal
>insults(i.e. NOT with physical violence) but your brilliant ground-breaking
>argument was to ignore them all.
No, I responded to them all by pointing out that adults DO NOT insult
each other for the very reason that physical violence is a likely
response to a verbal assault. Which it is. As you'd know, if you'd
ever insulted a grown man to his face.
Oh, but you have, you say? And what did he do?
>Bottom line child: Mature, stable, adults do NOT solve problems with
>physical violence.
Really? Are wars not a solution to problems? Or is your claim that
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George Washington,
Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and every other leader who has
taken his country to war not a "Mature, stable, adult?"
>Anyone who has spent any time living in the real world knows that.
In my world, I don't get insulted.
>This is something we have to teach to *children* with behavioural or
>anger management difficulties in school.
If you teach your children that they have to accept bullying and
verbal abuse without doing anything about it, your children are going
to grow up with severe mental problems. It's not HEALTHY for children
to live in a state of fear and intimidation.
You describe the psych profile of a school shooter. Somebody who
eventually snaps and decides to get even for all the past wrongs done
to them that went unchallenged.
>It is not something that we need to point out to your average adult.
The average adult knows that if they provoke a fight with another
adult, they'll be in a fight.
For instance, would you call a Marine a "child" and lecture him with a
condescending tone, telling him what a dysfunctional human being he
was, if he was right there, in front of you?
No. I didn't think so. Yet, you speak to me on usenet in exactly that
manner.
>I remember what my history teacher once told me in school. "physical
>violence is the first resort of a truly stupid person"
Did your history teacher ever stop the other boys from taking your
lunch money? Because, my recollection of the kids who let themselves
be bullied is that they got beat up a lot and seldom arrived at the
cafeteria with anything in their pockets.
Thrasher
<jkraska.re...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>That I could be on the receiving end of an ass kicking?
No, your claim was that you were a person who was a REAL ass-kicker.
Hence the talk of Kick-Boxing studdier.
>Absolutely. Happened with some degree of frequency. You?
Not frequently. I lost a fight the first time when I was 9. Lost the
second time when I was 14 and made the mistake of trying to use my Tae
Kwon Do against a street fighter, who took my kick and put me in a
headlock. A mistake I never repeated. I lost several fights while I
was in the Marine Corps.
But that's not the point. The point is that people who are willing to
stand up for themselves fight when fighting is called for. Those who
aren't, cower and loath themselves for doing so. And then they get on
the internet and aggress on people who can't do anything about it.
Same bunch of people are the ones who become full time player killers
in online games. They can't or won't defend tehmselves in real life so
they make everyone else miserable online. And I could pretty good
argument that such people are more likely to be sociopaths than
somebody who is willing to demand being treated with dignity and
respect.
Thrasher
<jkraska.re...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>"Appeal to force is a strong sign that the intellectual battle has
>been lost."
As is resorting to insult and personal attack.
Courageous
>No, your claim was that you were a person who was a REAL ass-kicker.
>Hence the talk of Kick-Boxing studdier.
Since you seem to be memory-impaired, here is a recap of my use of
the word "REALLY" to which you are referring:
"In fact, what I mentioned was that people who've done this sort of
thing -- REALLY -- know quite well that they can be on the receiving
end of the ass-kicking."
Yes, it is true that my suggestion here is that I've done this sort
of thing, REALLY. Hence, it would follow from my very clear statement
above that I am well aware of my potential for receiving an ass
kicking in a toe-to-toe fight.
How about YOU, Mr. "Thrasher"? If you're as up to this as you say,
you're well aware of it, right? Or is the suggestion that this is
all bravado more on the mark?
C//
Wally
"Thrasher" <spect...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:akd0qvofpd6u69nfm...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:22:15 -0600, "Wally" <wa...@myworld.com> wrote:
> >Like, against viscious verbal assaults such as "you're a moron".
>
> Did you perform that gas station experiment yet? Obviously not, or
> you'd know that you can't walk up to people and insult them in real
> life without getting hurt.
Of course I can. That people can't insult *you* without getting hurt, is
simply a testament to your diseased mind.
> You've never used such langauge towards a
> stranger when he was there to do something about it, have you?
The fact that you think most people would react as you would, is yet more
evidence of your disease. You have no concept of the personality,
motivations, and emotions of others. The only frame of reference you have
is yourself, and even that is hazy.
> >Most people know a sociopath when they see one.
>
> There aren't any sociopaths in the USMC. They don't get through
> bootcamp.
Sociopaths do just fine in the armed forces.
> >Did you know one of the symptoms of sociopathy is fearlessness, Thrasher?
>
> Oh, I'm not fearless... not even close.
When's the last time you had an adrenaline rush? (I noticed your story of
punching the guy out and then calmly finishing your cigarrette.)
> Neither am I a coward. A symptom of a coward is when somebody only shows
aggression against
> people weaker than themselves or who are otherwise unable to respond.
> That would be you.
Well I would certainly not provoke you in real life, if that makes you feel
better. How I act towards normal people is a different story.
Thrasher
>Of course I can. That people can't insult *you* without getting hurt, is
>simply a testament to your diseased mind.
Look, I'll try to explain basic human behavior to you one more time.
An insult is an act of aggression. No, it's not an argument, it's not
a debate tactic, it's not persuasion, it's not discussion. It's
AGGRESSION. Like all acts of aggression, the victim is left with a
choice of becoming aggressive themselves or becoming submissive. AKA
Fight or Flight Syndrome. There is no other option. Here's an example
- and yes, it's a "real world" example that plays itself out every day
in every corner of the world:
Guy accidentally bumps into your shopping cart at the grocery store.
This becomes a major problem due to your leet usenet social skills.
You: Watch where you are going, you fucking jerk!
Victom: (decides upon the flight option because you are obviously
unbalanced) Sorry, I didn't see you there.
You: (sensing victory in his wimpy response) Well, open your fucking
eyes, Moron!!
Victom: (recognizing you aren't going to let go of it and he's going
to have to defend himself, he steps up to you and points his finger at
your chest) Watch your damn mouth!
Now, he has aggressed on you. It's your turn to decide whether to
fight or flee.
FLEE OPTION(the one you didn't choose): Sorry, man, I was just mad I
didn't mean anything by it.
YOUR OPTION(because, dammit, you know the law): Why should I? What are
you gonna do, hit me? Then you'll go to jail, you pyschopathic
lunatic!
HIS OPTION: (Punches you in the head repeatedly and dumps your
groceries all over the floor)
And guess what? You started that fight, champ, and you won't get any
sympathy from the witnesses, the cops, or the guy you victimized.
Because even though it was YOU who got your ass kicked, you were the
perp in this skit.
And if you still think insulting complete strangers is the way to go,
then have fun with it. I'm not the one who has mental problems in this
discussion. People DIE over insults. In the REAL WORLD(as opposed to
the one you live in) they die every day in every city in the US over
insults and you are a goddamned fool if you think an insult isn't an
act of aggression.
Courageous
>And guess what? You started that fight, champ, and you won't get any
>sympathy from the witnesses, the cops, or the guy you victimized.
>Because even though it was YOU who got your ass kicked, you were the
>perp in this skit.
Reflecting on this, I have to admit that by and large I agree with
you to the extent that I and many others would certainly believe that
"party A" more than had it coming. OTOH, the internet is not real
life, so your attempts at drawing a parallel thereto are rather off
base. I suspect that one way or the other, however, you'll appreciate
the following quote:
"Politeness is the invention of an armed society."
C//
Wally
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:18:43 -0600, "Wally" <wa...@myworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Of course I can. That people can't insult *you* without getting hurt, is
> >simply a testament to your diseased mind.
>
> Look, I'll try to explain basic human behavior to you one more time.
> An insult is an act of aggression. No, it's not an argument, it's not
> a debate tactic, it's not persuasion, it's not discussion. It's
> AGGRESSION. Like all acts of aggression, the victim is left with a
> choice of becoming aggressive themselves or becoming submissive. AKA
> Fight or Flight Syndrome. There is no other option. Here's an example
> - and yes, it's a "real world" example that plays itself out every day
> in every corner of the world:
Cute scenario, but a far cry from your chest thumping of a few weeks ago.
You called someone ignorant, he called you a moron, and you started publicly
fantasizing about stalking him and attacking him, while regailing us with
stories of numerous violent episodes in your past. Now you're ashamed that
you've blatantly advertised your diseased personality, and are attempting to
backpedal and rationalize. You're even pretending to have an understanding
of human nature, with your sophomoric "fight or flight" scenario. Well, you
shouldn't worry about it so much. I don't think you're a psychopath, just a
sociopath - it's not that uncommon (2-3% of the male population).
Ben Sisson
IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>
>"Thrasher" <spect...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hl71qvk1v8r4etdf4...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:18:43 -0600, "Wally" <wa...@myworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Of course I can. That people can't insult *you* without getting hurt, is
>> >simply a testament to your diseased mind.
>>
>> Look, I'll try to explain basic human behavior to you one more time.
>> An insult is an act of aggression. No, it's not an argument, it's not
>> a debate tactic, it's not persuasion, it's not discussion. It's
>> AGGRESSION. Like all acts of aggression, the victim is left with a
>> choice of becoming aggressive themselves or becoming submissive. AKA
>> Fight or Flight Syndrome. There is no other option. Here's an example
>> - and yes, it's a "real world" example that plays itself out every day
>> in every corner of the world:
>
>Cute scenario, but a far cry from your chest thumping of a few weeks ago.
>You called someone ignorant, he called you a moron, and you started publicly
>fantasizing about stalking him and attacking him, while regailing us with
>stories of numerous violent episodes in your past.
Yeah. Funniest thing we've seen on the sissypigs since Cleve left us.
Sort of. :-)
The sissypigs seem blessed with a neverending series of total kooks.
> Now you're ashamed that
>you've blatantly advertised your diseased personality, and are attempting to
>backpedal and rationalize. You're even pretending to have an understanding
>of human nature, with your sophomoric "fight or flight" scenario. Well, you
>shouldn't worry about it so much. I don't think you're a psychopath, just a
>sociopath - it's not that uncommon (2-3% of the male population).
I don't think he's either - he's just an idiot. Even more common.
--
Ben Sisson
1 flask of holy water: $11
1 modified crossbow: $50
1 pointy wooden stake: $1
7 seasons worth of memories of the best show on TV: priceless
Morgan Sales
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:11:32 -0000, "Morgan Sales"
> <msalesDI...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> IIRC, you got about six replies to a single post in that thread.
>> All of which pointed out that you had not clue how people really
>> reacted to verbal insults(i.e. NOT with physical violence) but your
>> brilliant ground-breaking argument was to ignore them all.
>
> No, I responded to them all by pointing out that adults DO NOT insult
> each other for the very reason that physical violence is a likely
> response to a verbal assault. Which it is. As you'd know, if you'd
> ever insulted a grown man to his face.
>
> Oh, but you have, you say? And what did he do?
Have you? Do you find that people come up to you out of the blue and shout
an insult at you for no reason. Because if you are saying yes, then
frankly, I don't believe you.
>> Bottom line child: Mature, stable, adults do NOT solve problems with
>> physical violence.
>
> Really? Are wars not a solution to problems?
To move an argument from an individual basis to a national basis is absurd.
Completely different situations with completely different steaks. But since
you brought it up, war often doesn't solve problems, and it certainly causes
a few.
> Or is your claim that
> Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George Washington,
> Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and every other leader who has
> taken his country to war not a "Mature, stable, adult?"
Governments are not one man.
>> Anyone who has spent any time living in the real world knows that.
>
> In my world, I don't get insulted.
Yes you do, I've seen at least three people call you a moron in this very
group. And as I've already said, in the real world people don't shout out
random insults at people anyway, so that's no different to anyone else here.
If anything you're getting insulted more than most people.
>> This is something we have to teach to *children* with behavioural or
>> anger management difficulties in school.
>
> If you teach your children that they have to accept bullying and
> verbal abuse without doing anything about it, your children are going
> to grow up with severe mental problems. It's not HEALTHY for children
> to live in a state of fear and intimidation.
Bullying will never be eradicated thanks to kids who think like you, (i.e.
physical violence is Ok). However we don't teach children to respond to
verbal insults or physical violence with violence because it is not
acceptable behaviour in adult society, when they grow up they will need to
solve their problems with words, not fists.
> You describe the psych profile of a school shooter.
No I haven't, I've not described the psyche of anyone. I'm not sure where
you're getting that from.
>Somebody who
> eventually snaps and decides to get even for all the past wrongs done
> to them that went unchallenged.
>
>> It is not something that we need to point out to your average adult.
>
> The average adult knows that if they provoke a fight with another
> adult, they'll be in a fight.
Provoke a fight possibly, however verbal abuse is not provocation for
violence. If a normal (sober) person gets abuse hurled at them from a
stranger the first thing they'd be thinking is "is this bloke crazy? is he
drunk? is he going to turn violent next?" i.e. trying to rationalise the
situation, and predict what going to happen next. Not think "hey he
insulted me, I better kick the crap out of him."
> For instance, would you call a Marine a "child" and lecture him with a
> condescending tone, telling him what a dysfunctional human being he
> was, if he was right there, in front of you?
Probably not, but I feel fine doing it do a person on Usenet who hides
behind an alias(something I don't do), and continually bangs on about that
"fact" that he was a marine. Bottom line thrasher. I don't believe for a
second that you are/were a marine, or that you're a tenth as tough as you
say you are. Also if I was in a discussion with a marine in the real world
then I'd feel fine having a friendly debate about the pros and cons of
violence. Of course the marine wouldn't be spouting off like you are
because he to would be in the real world, and like I've said, normal adults
do not solve their problems with violence, or insults for that matter.
>> I remember what my history teacher once told me in school. "physical
>> violence is the first resort of a truly stupid person"
>
> Did your history teacher ever stop the other boys from taking your
> lunch money?
No she didn't need to, I didn't have that problem. However had I needed her
to do that she would have done, every kid in the school live in mortal fear
of here. Including the though ones.
--
Morgan.
----
* You see in this world there's 10 kinds of people my friend, those who
understand binary, and those who don't.
chainbreaker
> I'm still waiting to hear why you are addressing these comments to me.
LOL! Because you're the only person in this group who appends their
supposed ability to impart "ass whoopins" to the world at large somewhere in
just about every thread in which you participate. Excepting maybe Cleve,
who's not been around lately. Uh, you're not Cleve are you?
chainbreaker
Thrasher, part of you you makes perfect sense--another part is . . .
somewhere out beyond Mars and Jupiter. The part that is indignant about the
way some view the situation and the troops in Iraq--the subject of your
original post this response was to, I *do* agree with.
The part of you that acts like an old high-school buddy of mine--who acted
like and thought he could whip the world after he got two or three beers in
him--I can do without.
Wherewith the trolling comment--since you *do* frequently make some good
points on issues, I tend to suspect that your . . . less well conceived
statements may very well be trolls. <shrug>
Courageous
> However we don't teach children to respond to
>verbal insults or physical violence with violence because it is not
>acceptable behaviour in adult society,
I disagree with this. If your child is being aggressed upon by a
bully, the very best thing you can do for him is give him some
boxing gloves and teach him a little focused violence. The bullying
will immediately stop when it's faced down physically. Even in a
peaceful society force is sometimes necessary.
C//
Coby
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent."
Asimov, or was he quoting someone else?
--
Coby
'69 Z28 '99 XX '01 FLSTF '01 XX '72 710M '03 Tiger
Morgan Sales
Unfortunately as a teacher I do not have the luxury of this option. I
agree, yes assuming that the bullied kid is able to kick the crap out of the
bully then yes it will stop. If I were a parent then it would probably be
my view for my own child. However it doesn't work in a school environment.
The main problem is that physical bullying is normally carried out by
physically stronger kids, so all that would happen is that the victim would
end up a smear on the floor. Also you have to remember that the most common
form of bullying is simple name calling. This is the exact situation where
you don't want kids resorting to violence. The last thing you want is a
thirteen year old who feels justified when punching another kid in the head.
--
Morgan.
----
* That racoon stole my lamb chop.
Courageous
>Unfortunately as a teacher I do not have the luxury of this option. I
>agree, yes assuming that the bullied kid is able to kick the crap out of the
>bully then yes it will stop.
No. Bullies don't like those who fight back. One does not have to kick
the crap out of the bully. Teaching him that he will *get* a fight out
of you is sufficient to end the behavior.
I wasn't referring to name-calling, but rather physical intimidation.
C//
Morgan Sales
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:38:35 -0000, "Morgan Sales"
> <msalesDI...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately as a teacher I do not have the luxury of this option.
>> I
>> agree, yes assuming that the bullied kid is able to kick the crap
>> out of the
>> bully then yes it will stop.
>
> No. Bullies don't like those who fight back. One does not have to kick
> the crap out of the bully. Teaching him that he will *get* a fight out
Sometimes(probably even normally) I'll grant you, but not always, I've seen
kids who've had the crap kicked out of them for fighting back, and I saw if
first hand a couple of times when I was at school. Either way(as you
probably realise), it's not the type thing we can responsibly promote in a
school.
> I wasn't referring to name-calling, but rather physical intimidation.
I thought you probaly were, that's why I made a point of seperating the two.
--
Morgan.
----
* We have been the dreamers, we have been the sufferers, now we are the
builders. We enter this campaign at this general election, not merely to get
rid of the Tory majority. We want the complete political extinction of the
Tory Party. :- Aneurin Bevan
Ben Sisson
<jkraska.re...@san.rr.com> (if that IS his real name)
conspiratorially whispered:
>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:38:35 -0000, "Morgan Sales" <msalesDI...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Unfortunately as a teacher I do not have the luxury of this option. I
>>agree, yes assuming that the bullied kid is able to kick the crap out of the
>>bully then yes it will stop.
>
>No. Bullies don't like those who fight back. One does not have to kick
>the crap out of the bully. Teaching him that he will *get* a fight out
>of you is sufficient to end the behavior.
This is one of those arguments I see come from people who I don't
think understand what real problem bullying is. In those situations,
the ones where the bullying is dangerous, this solution doesn't help
the problem at all, it makes it ten times worse, because these kind of
bullies will never accept being faced down like that. This is when the
bullies are in a pack Stephen King style, and don't respond well to
people standing up to them.
As adults its too easy to look at a situation like that and see
solutions that work but in grade school its a different world....
Martin Feller
"Zath, the Spider God of Zamora" <jaynospam...@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:irwnb.387$Ru1....@news.uswest.net...
> Al Franken goes off pretty effectively about bad O'Reilly.
>
> BTW, Bill O'Reilly said on his radio show (and in his book) that any
parent that puts a TV
> or Computer in their kid's room is a bad and irresponsible parent. He
forgot to talk
> about that durned' DEVIL music on the radio too.
You're never going to convince your parents to give your TV back by acting
like this.
Courageous
>>No. Bullies don't like those who fight back. One does not have to kick
>>the crap out of the bully. Teaching him that he will *get* a fight out
>>of you is sufficient to end the behavior.
>This is one of those arguments I see come from people who I don't
>think understand what real problem bullying is.
I'm doubting that your description of "pack bullying" represents
even a significant portion of the average type of bullying, which
I assert is perpetrated by the sociopathic loner.
> This is when the
>bullies are in a pack Stephen King style, and don't respond well to
>people standing up to them.
If a pack of children gangs up and fights against a lone student
in school, they should be expelled wholesale, for having commmitted
an act that would very well be interpreted as a felony if any set
of adults did so. There should be zero tolerance for this sort of
extreme behavior in any school.
C//
Ben Sisson
<jkraska.re...@san.rr.com> (if that IS his real name)
conspiratorially whispered:
>
>>>No. Bullies don't like those who fight back. One does not have to kick
>>>the crap out of the bully. Teaching him that he will *get* a fight out
>>>of you is sufficient to end the behavior.
>
>>This is one of those arguments I see come from people who I don't
>>think understand what real problem bullying is.
>
>I'm doubting that your description of "pack bullying" represents
>even a significant portion of the average type of bullying, which
>I assert is perpetrated by the sociopathic loner.
I think they are a major representative of *problem* bullying though.
The cases where the target kills himself or goes on a shooting rampage
(or both).
>
>> This is when the
>>bullies are in a pack Stephen King style, and don't respond well to
>>people standing up to them.
>
>If a pack of children gangs up and fights against a lone student
>in school, they should be expelled wholesale, for having commmitted
>an act that would very well be interpreted as a felony if any set
>of adults did so. There should be zero tolerance for this sort of
>extreme behavior in any school.
Unless of course it goes unreported and/or happens off school
grounds....
Courageous
>>I'm doubting that your description of "pack bullying" represents
>>even a significant portion of the average type of bullying, which
>>I assert is perpetrated by the sociopathic loner.
>
>I think they are a major representative of *problem* bullying though.
>The cases where the target kills himself or goes on a shooting rampage
>(or both).
Hrm. I think I see what you are saying; if so, we are saying two
different things, with overlapping language. I wouldn't call the
groups of individuals who collectively make fun or denegrate people
in school "bullies," but something else. Not to say that whatever
this is isn't bad in some way. I suppose that one reason that this
is such a hard subject is that it's pretty hard to tell a group of
people that they can't collectively *reject* some third party.
When I refer to a "bully," I am referring to someone that uses force,
intimidation, or coercion to achieve some outcome.
C//
Bill Silvey
news:os73qv49s7d36jkf0...@4ax.com
> When I refer to a "bully," I am referring to someone that uses force,
> intimidation, or coercion to achieve some outcome.
>
> C//
Well, wait. I hate to seem like I'm trying to play word games with you -
and I'm not - but by that very definition anyone standing up to a bully
*themselves* becomes a bully by doing so. E.g., if a bully threatens me
with a pounding for my lunch money, and I instead pound him to prevent him
from doing so does that not then make *me* the bully, by your definition?
I have used force (a pounding) to achieve some outcome (the retention of my
lunch money by me).
Or if I suggest that the bully *will* get a pounding, perhaps with a few
demonstrative karate moves, if he tries to take my lunch money? -
intimidation
Or if I suggest that it'd be in the bully's best interest to *not* give me a
pounding as the Principal just might hear about it...? - coercion
--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.
Courageous
>> When I refer to a "bully," I am referring to someone that uses force,
>> intimidation, or coercion to achieve some outcome.
>Well, wait. I hate to seem like I'm trying to play word games with you -
>and I'm not - but by that very definition anyone standing up to a bully
>*themselves* becomes a bully by doing so.
Sure, I understand. It's like trying to tell a kidnapper that hauling
someone away against their will and keeping them confined is wrong,
somehow. Guess that means his arrest and jail sentence should be overturned.
Yeah, that's the ticket. :)
C//
Cleve Blakemore The Real One
> em when I was on active duty, but for the last 10 years we've been
> using reservists to hold down every peace keeping mission we've had.
> They weren't the first in and they aren't the majority of troops, but
> they are THERE dammit - and they don't deserve to be kicked around by
> Bill O'Reilly.
Bill O'Reilly is the most pathetic of all the false opposition
neoconservative ZOG butt puppets on the air. Notice how the only brand
of conservatism that gets any airtime even on "fair and balanced"
stations are all pro-war, pro-israel, pro-empire viewpoints.
Conservatism, the original fortress mentality that has advocated
non-intervention in the national destiny of others as it's most
fundamental tenet, is now derided by the media as "paleoconservative"
and seemingly the viewpoint of around 100 million people is considered
"out of touch with the mainstream" according to Murdoch's false front
operation called FOX "news."
The truth is that the leftist viewpoint had become so marginalized it
was necessary to fabricate a new television network to capture the
armchair patriots under its spell. A whole new lineup of plastic
haired animatrons was found to play the role of "conservative" talking
heads and a "conservative" television station was created by Murdoch
to make sure that genuine conservative and nationalist ideology did
not interfere with the Israeli gravy train/blood transfusion from the
U.S. in their genocidal campaign against towelheads with sticks and
stones.
O'Reilly and Hannity and all the other shabbas goyim stooges are well
paid to pretend false indignation and righteous fury against anybody
who questions the current ZOG crusade for hegemony in the Middle East.
They are no more conservatives than I am a liberal.
Same old game with a different name. Dual citizen Israelis now find it
is better to play their interests from the court on the right since
the left has been so thoroughly discredited. Their skin shifts,
crawls, undulates, changes shape, does a Horowitzim transformation and
they melt into "far-right patriots." See how that works?
Cleve Blakemore The Real One
>
> >New crpgs are always coming out, after all.
>
> I disagree. There's been only 1 RPG out this year for the PC that was
> worth playing, ToEE. There was 1 other that wasn't really very good at
> all, Lionheart.
>
> Not exactly a stellar year for CRPGs. When we had years like this in
> the mid 90s we called it an RPG drought. I really can't explain why so
> many of you seem to be happy with this miserable fare. The game
> shortage(not just RPGs) does explain why so many people who used to be
> regulars in these game groups are now absent, though.
It's part of the overall decline in standards that is the hallmark of
life in the United States in the last decade. The unwashed and unclean
now celebrate junk that would not have gotten 50 out of 100 ten years
ago in the computer mags, claiming it is the greatest thing since
sliced bread - chances are it doesn't even run well with a patch. The
newcomers and dregs of civilization just now learning to use a
computer with their thick primate paws are flabbergasted by anything
with bright colors, stereo sound and some form of animation. As far as
they are concerned, this stuff is Picasso if it involves pushing a
button in response to some verbal cues on screen.
Average American IQ 1955 : 102
Average American IQ 1995 : 97
Says it all, doesn't it? The Bell Curve took a hard turn towards the
professional wrestling fans end of the graph a while back and now
seems to be entering a range that offends even the sensibilities of
the trailer park crowd.
Preferred form of music in 1955 : Minimum 12 tone music, harmonic
singing, usually as many as 8 natural instruments involved
Preferred form of music in 1995 : Angry congoids yelling in broken
english and grabbing crotch, two tone beat, no harmonics, no
instruments other than percussion device
Wake up and smell the fallout ash, gang.
(Sound of two ton vault door closing on hydraulics)
Bill Silvey
news:181db1cb.0310...@posting.google.com
> Wake up and smell the fallout ash, gang.
>
> (Sound of two ton vault door closing on hydraulics)
Don't you have a Klan rally to get to, you vile piece of cowardly trash?
Coby
> Average American IQ 1955 : 102
>
> Average American IQ 1995 : 97
>
> Says it all, doesn't it?
It sure does! The IQ test's bias toward those raised in priveleged, white
households is clear. Given the increase in global immigration to the U.S., it
should come as no surprise that the average score dips during the same period
that non-European immigration surpasses that of European immigration.
--
Coby
"Every year civilization is invaded by millions of tiny barbarians-they are
called children."
Hannah Arendt
Coby
> Preferred form of music in 1955 : Minimum 12 tone music, harmonic
> singing, usually as many as 8 natural instruments involved.
Just scanning a Top 40 list from 1955 I get a mix of doo-wop, folk, and
novelty.
> Preferred form of music in 1995 : Angry congoids yelling in broken
> english and grabbing crotch, two tone beat, no harmonics, no
> instruments other than percussion device
Looking at the Top 40 from last issue's Rolling Stone I don't even recognize
half the artists and of those I do I can identify at least a half dozen
distinct, musical styles. BTW, you're definition of "music" seems fairly
narrow. Lyrically, the music of 1995 is a thousand times more layered and
complex than the lyrics of the '50s.
This is all very interesting but of course I realize that you weren't really
writing about music (or IQ scores). You are simply afraid for a future in
which white males are no longer culturally, intellectually, or economically
dominant. Change is always frightening. I, for one, am terrified to learn
that many more Americans are religious now than thirty years ago. However, we
need not be afraid; humans have survived it all.
Bill Silvey
news:FUtob.53570$275.136513@attbi_s53
> Cleve Blakemore The Real One wrote:
>> Average American IQ 1955 : 102
>>
>> Average American IQ 1995 : 97
>>
>> Says it all, doesn't it?
>
> It sure does! The IQ test's bias toward those raised in priveleged,
> white households is clear. Given the increase in global immigration
> to the U.S., it should come as no surprise that the average score
> dips during the same period that non-European immigration surpasses
> that of European immigration.
Cleve also completely ignores the fact that IQ tests aren't valid
measurements of intelligence at any rate...
chainbreaker
> Cleve also completely ignores the fact that IQ tests aren't valid
> measurements of intelligence at any rate...
Hmm, mentioned Cleve in a post yesterday--I suppose since it was almost
Halloween that was enough to invoke him.
Courageous
>Cleve also completely ignores the fact that IQ tests aren't valid
>measurements of intelligence at any rate...
It's easy enough to ignore something that is not a fact.
C//
Pope Jubal
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:18:43 -0600, "Wally" <wa...@myworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Of course I can. That people can't insult *you* without getting hurt, is
> >simply a testament to your diseased mind.
>
> Look, I'll try to explain basic human behavior to you one more time.
> An insult is an act of aggression. No, it's not an argument, it's not
> a debate tactic, it's not persuasion, it's not discussion. It's
> AGGRESSION. Like all acts of aggression, the victim is left with a
> choice of becoming aggressive themselves or becoming submissive. AKA
> Fight or Flight Syndrome. There is no other option. Here's an example
> - and yes, it's a "real world" example that plays itself out every day
> in every corner of the world:
>
> This becomes a major problem due to your leet usenet social skills.
>
> You: Watch where you are going, you fucking jerk!
>
> Victom: (decides upon the flight option because you are obviously
> unbalanced) Sorry, I didn't see you there.
Or he could choose the option to just ignore you.
> You: (sensing victory in his wimpy response) Well, open your fucking
> eyes, Moron!!
>
> Victom: (recognizing you aren't going to let go of it and he's going
> to have to defend himself, he steps up to you and points his finger at
> your chest) Watch your damn mouth!
Or he could choose the option to just ignore you.
> Now, he has aggressed on you. It's your turn to decide whether to
> fight or flee.
>
> FLEE OPTION(the one you didn't choose): Sorry, man, I was just mad I
> didn't mean anything by it.
Or he could choose to just ignore you.
> YOUR OPTION(because, dammit, you know the law): Why should I? What are
> you gonna do, hit me? Then you'll go to jail, you pyschopathic
> lunatic!
>
> HIS OPTION: (Punches you in the head repeatedly and dumps your
> groceries all over the floor)
Or he could choose to just ignore you.
It's not as if fight and flight are the only two options available in
interpersonal relations. When someone cuts you off in traffic, do you
shout at them? Maybe flip them off? How often do you see people who
yell at each other in traffic (something that I see quite often) end
in a fist fight at the side of the road?
Pope Jubal
Jubal no Oni
Dark Oracle of Jell-O
---
Pope Jubal
> and you are a goddamned fool if you think an insult isn't an
> act of aggression.
So does that mean that Bill O'Reilly gets to beat the crap out of you
since you insulted him?
Bill Silvey
news:aa5062a5.03103...@posting.google.com
> Thrasher <spect...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<hl71qvk1v8r4etdf4...@4ax.com>... <snip>
>> and you are a goddamned fool if you think an insult isn't an
>> act of aggression.
>
> So does that mean that Bill O'Reilly gets to beat the crap out of you
> since you insulted him?
Thrashy has so many developmental problems it's a wonder he can even turn on
the computer.
Perhaps the moron's nurse does it for him. Hey, Thrashy, does your nurse
turn on the computer for you?
"Pill lady...pill lady...computer, pill lady."
Jim Vieira
news:GwBob.63703$RP2....@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Pope Jubal" <mike_...@ghrsystems.com> wrote in message
> news:aa5062a5.03103...@posting.google.com
> > Thrasher <spect...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<hl71qvk1v8r4etdf4...@4ax.com>... <snip>
> >> and you are a goddamned fool if you think an insult isn't an
> >> act of aggression.
> >
> > So does that mean that Bill O'Reilly gets to beat the crap out of you
> > since you insulted him?
>
> Thrashy has so many developmental problems it's a wonder he can even turn
on
> the computer.
>
> Perhaps the moron's nurse does it for him. Hey, Thrashy, does your nurse
> turn on the computer for you?
>
> "Pill lady...pill lady...computer, pill lady."
I think he just suffers from a severe case of Testosterone poisoning.
He spends all this time writing up these long winded explanations
of why people react neagativley to others, etc. Yet it's clear from
reading it that he's just a typical Male asshole who *has* to fight.
Can't ever just ignore something. Doesn't have enough self-esteem
to just let insults slide off his back. I mean, who cares if someone
else calls you a name? Only an idiot thinks that violence is the
answer. He can't control his anger. It's idiots like him that have
made this world such a messed up place, throughout history. And
like most of them, he's completely oblivious to the fact. Just a typical
barbarian/ruffian who can't think his way out of a situation. Instead
it's just always a "ARE YOU TALKING TO ME SHITHEAD?" type
mentality, all the time.
What's really sad is that he is so oblivious to the fact that he makes
himself look like a total shit for brains moron with every post on the
subject. I'm certain his response to my message will be to tell me
that if I said it to his face he'd beat me to death. Yawn. Grow up
idiot. I don't care if you are nearly 40. You act like a angsty
teenager. If personal insults get you so riled up, you obviously
have serious ego/self-esteem issues.
John Secker
<spect...@hotmail.com> writes
>>I remember what my history teacher once told me in school. "physical
>>violence is the first resort of a truly stupid person"
>
>lunch money? Because, my recollection of the kids who let themselves
>be bullied is that they got beat up a lot and seldom arrived at the
>cafeteria with anything in their pockets.
>
You still seem unable to distinguish between verbal and physical
assault, which is the whole point of this discussion. Taking someone's
lunch money is a physical assault, so it is irrelevant to your argument.
It is NOT legal, anywhere, to "defend" yourself with violent force when
someone insults you with words alone. Churchill, FDR and all the others
whose names you invoked did not fight because someone called them a
moron, they fought because they (or their country's armed forces) were
physically attacked. A child hits out when they are insulted, a man will
laugh and walk away - unless his self-esteem is so low that he has to
"revenge" the insult in order to convince himself he is a man.
Unfortunately there are too many people around in the world who are like
this, which is the cause of a lot of the violence around.
--
John Secker
John Secker
<spect...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:18:43 -0600, "Wally" <wa...@myworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Of course I can. That people can't insult *you* without getting hurt, is
>>simply a testament to your diseased mind.
>
>Look, I'll try to explain basic human behavior to you one more time.
>An insult is an act of aggression. No, it's not an argument, it's not
>a debate tactic, it's not persuasion, it's not discussion. It's
>AGGRESSION. Like all acts of aggression, the victim is left with a
>choice of becoming aggressive themselves or becoming submissive. AKA
>Fight or Flight Syndrome. There is no other option.
is almost certainly trying to pull a false dichotomy fallacy - and so it
is here. There are plenty of alternatives to your chosen two -
aggression and submission - and the obvious one here is to behave
assertively. In your rather silly scenario, "Victim" can easily choose
not to escalate the situation to violence, and without becoming
submissive. Indeed either person can do this - the situation only
escalates because both sides are behaving in the way you wish to
advocate. Note that if Victim had continued to respond reasonably but
assertively ("Hey, guy, I don't know what your problem is but I suggest
that you chill out") then the other party has the choice of initiating
violence or continuing to shouts insults - either way he will eventually
get arrested. If, on the other hand, Victim starts beating the crap out
of the other guy, he is the one who will end up in the cells. The
onlookers may well testify that he was provoked, which might be allowed
as a mitigating factor to reduce his sentence, but there is no
justification in law of "self-defence" against verbal assault.
--
John Secker
Cleve Blakemore The Real One
>
> This is all very interesting but of course I realize that you weren't really
> writing about music (or IQ scores). You are simply afraid for a future in
> which white males are no longer culturally, intellectually, or economically
> dominant. Change is always frightening. I, for one, am terrified to learn
> that many more Americans are religious now than thirty years ago. However, we
> need not be afraid; humans have survived it all.
Thanks for the psychoanalysis and the postmodernist determination of
what I was REALLY writing about ... actually, I was writing about IQ
scores and music complexity.
If you knew anything about IQ testing outside of the tripe in the mass
media written by the same people who keep telling us our actions are
"Warming up" the planet, you'd know that triple blind control groups
over the past century have eliminated any possibility of "bias" (what
a wonderful catch-all word to avoid reasoning!) of any kind in either
the Stanford-Binet or the Wechsler-Brenner. Black children raised in
white homes from infancy score around 85 at maturity irregardless, as
Asian children average slightly higher around 102 irregardless.
... and of course, you're right. SOME humans will survive it all.
Unfortunately you won't be one of those humans. That's how the breed
improves.
(Sound of two ton vault door closing on hydraulics)
P.S. If the IQ test were biased towards whites, how do you explain
Koko the Sign Language Gorilla outscoring the average black American
by a full 6 points on this test when administered under clinical
conditions? Koko is practically a rocket scientist with a
Stanford-Binet between 88 and 91. Where is affirmative action for
large female silverback gorillas in America?
Cleve Blakemore The Real One
But you're wrong, Courageous! If we just keep repeating something over
and over again and stick our fingers in our ears and go NA-NA-NA-NA-NA
really loudly it doesn't matter what over two centuries of scientific
evidence has indicated beyond a fraction of doubt! We can make up our
own zany science and put it in newspapers and periodicals! Reality can
be voted out of existence if we just squint hard and wish like crazy!!
Your problem, Courageous, is that you are trying to "reason" with
people who have never "reasoned" in their lives, being little more
than large featherless biped chimps only recently down out of the
trees. It's a waste of time, as Arthur Jensen, William Shockley and
most of the other geniuses of the western pantheon could tell you.
Civilization is in rapid decline and has gone utterly insane. Trying
to reason with "Amerikwans" about anything is a case of mistaken
identity. These aren't your mother's Americans. These are new
lite-brand, content-free streamlined consumer units with rubber stamps
on their forehead reading "human." They aren't, they don't think about
anything and they are exactly like those cheap white brand products
you see in the supermarket like "Crispy Flakes" and "Sugar Rings."
They are high-noise, low bandwidth mostly static human imitators
occupying seats at the apocalypse.
I believe the majority of Amerikwans today are simply God's own crash
dummies for Armageddon, nothing more and nothing less. Nature knows
there will be a population crash soon so rather than risk real humans,
she has populated the earth with these K-Tel Humans-Lite to minimize
the suffering. On cue, they sip cappuccino, wander through shopping
malls, then jump up and run around with their hands in the air
screaming pathetically. That's about their entire range of behaviour
because they are only intended as non-speaking extras anyway. Hence
their uniform belief system, with the whole multicult and bogus
"anthropology" from the Gould and Boaz school. They're machined to
identical tolerances like mass-produced plastic toys from Tiawan -
this is to guarantee they fit into giant burial pits more easily with
less excess to be trimmed.
Food supply up, population density up, nature starts auguring average
genetic quality down. When culture peaks, she only turns out
bio-refuse because she wants to keep the good genes on standby and not
have them lost in the natural chaos that ensues, designed purely to
trim the excess population back dramatically.
Ned
> ... and of course, you're right. SOME humans will survive it all.
> Unfortunately you won't be one of those humans. That's how the breed
> improves.
Your predictions of the apocalypse are similar to your predictions of
release dates for Grimoire - based on nothing but wishful thinking.
In a few years you'll have a shiny new "epiphany", similar to your
born-again Christianity or your belief that doomsday is imminent, and you'll
decide to devote yourself to some other insanity. Your high-octane brain
just can't reconcile itself to the fact that you can't figure out how to be
happy, and so it latches onto these absurdities that make you feel better.
What makes you feel best is the thought that the vast majority of the human
race will soon be exterminated. I think that's sad.
Arcana Dragon
news:181db1cb.03110...@posting.google.com:
> Food supply up, population density up, nature starts auguring average
> genetic quality down. When culture peaks, she only turns out
> bio-refuse because she wants to keep the good genes on standby and not
> have them lost in the natural chaos that ensues, designed purely to
> trim the excess population back dramatically.
How is Grimoire coming along?
--
Arcana Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
d++e++N++T+++Om-KAWML!34567'!S'!8!9!u+uC+uF+++uG-u
LB®----uAnC+nH++nP+nI----nPT-nS+++nT----o---oE---xz
http://www.phyton.dk/games.htm