America's Worst Presidents; KKK Woodrow Wilson
CB
http://factoidz.com/americas-worst-presidents-woodrow-wilson/
Historians place Wilson if not in the top ten, then top twenty, giving
him credit for events beyond his control and withholding blame. If
Herbert Hoover had been elected in 1912 he would be hailed as a great
President simply because events did not require more than a competent
clerk.
Still have a question?
Ask it in the History forumWoodrow Wilson was the first Southern to
hold office since Andrew Johnson.
He was born in Virginia to slave holding parents. His earliest memory
is standing beside Robert E. Lee hearing that Lincoln had been elected
President.
He was a slow learner, unable to read until he was ten years old. With
perseverance he was able to gain acceptance to Princeton University in
New Jersey. In 1882 Wilson was a practicing attorney in Atlanta. In
1883 he applied to John Hopkins to study history and political science
as he had always intended to enter politics.
He became president of Princeton in 1902. He actively discouraged
Afro-Americans from applying for matriculation. No Black person
attended that New Jersey Institution until 1940 due to the policies
and practices Wilson implemented.
In 1910 he ran for Governor of New Jersey and was elected. In 1912.he
decided to run for President.
His selection as candidate was not immediate. Wilson won on the
forty sixth ballot. He was not the people’s choice for candidate. Nor
was he the people’s choice as President. The Republican Party had
split. President Howard Taft ran against former President Theodore
Roosevelt. When Taft won the nomination, Roosevelt walked out and
created his own Party.
Wilson won only 41.8% of the popular vote; meaning the majority voted
against him, either for Taft or Roosevelt.
As Wilson entered the White House policies of segregation were
implemented. Washington D.C., the seat of American Government became
a segregated city where blacks and whites could not eat at the same
lunch counter. Segregation became the official policy in Federal
offices, in some places, for the first time since 1863.
Black Republicans were fired, a few replaced by token Black Democrats
to make it a political not racial action. Interestingly, one of
Wilson’s campaign promises was to focus on Black issues. This had
provoked a large defection from the Republican to the Democratic
Party. When Wilson was approached by an Afro-American contingent
questioning his turnabout, he told them:
“Segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be
so regarded by you gentlemen.”
When questioned about his stances on race relations In 1914, he told
the New York Times,
“If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to
correct it.”
Wilson’s views should of come as no surprise. In 1902 he wrote a five
volume series; History of the American People, in which; he lauded the
Ku Klux Klan as the natural outgrowth of Reconstruction. The Klan, he
noted;
“began to attempt by intimidation what they were not allowed to
attempt by the ballot or by any ordered course of public action.”
Considered a leading intellectual, with the degrees and background to
prove it, Wilson’s work was central to the intellectual/historical
justification for the racist policies he instituted in 1912. Wilson
gave new life to violent racist organisations. So powerful were his
words that they were used in "The Birth of a Nation" one of the
earliest and most acclaimed motion pictures.
Wilson was also anti-immigrant, and had written much on the subject.
In 1910, however, considering his political career, he integrated
particular immigrants into the Democratic party and the army.
His first term was spent blocking Women’s rights and trying to keep
America out of the First World War. Neither action particularly
strenuous. The major crisis of his time was the sinking of the
Titanic. This was responded to by demanding extra lifeboats on all
ships.
Wilson ran for re-election in 1916 on the platform; "He kept us Out of
War."
The election between Wilson and Charles Evans Hughes was extremely
close, and for several days, uncertain. The idea that Wilson was
popular or that the nation was behind him is a myth.
Wilson asked for a declaration of War on April 2, 1917, five months
after beginning his second term. To gain soldiers, Woodrow Wilson
implemented the Draft. Considering people voted for him on his
anti-war platform there was opposition. Wilson pushed the Espionage
Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 through Congress to suppress
anti-British, pro-German, and anti-war opinions. Provisions in the
Espionage Act had U.S. Post Office refused to carry written
materials that could be deemed critical of the U. S. war effort. A
number of newspapers were denied second-class mailing rights.
Wilson set up the a propaganda office, the United States Committee on
Public Information. This was the first overt use of propaganda by the
American Government.
When America entered WWI, it was almost over. America took credit
for Victory though it had not participated in most of the battles.
An interesting aside, as to American foreign policy 1914 - 1918; was
the intervention by the United States in South America and the
Caribbean, going so far as to install Presidents in Haiti, Nicaragua
and the Dominican Republic.
Wilson’s view of himself as an almost Messianic figure arose after the
War. He spent his last years believing that what he stood for would
come about. "You can’t fight God!", he would say.
Remarkably, Wilson received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919.
Wilson spoke for National women’s suffrage, late in his Second term.
It came after years of pressure, protest, and publicity. Far from
being a supporter of Women’s rights, he had been a barrier.
Wilson suffered a debilitating stroke in 1919 and his wife virtually
became President. She decided who saw him, what matters were brought
to his attention. .
What Wilson’s incumbency can be credited with is enforcing
segregation, inspiring the Ku Klux Klan to a resurgence, delaying
women’s suffrage, and the participation in the Treaty of Versailles
which almost guaranteed World War II.
History has been kind to Woodrow Wilson
CB
Cass Sunstein says American's are all as stupid and dumb as Homer
Simpson
Barry
> America's Worst Presidents; Woodrow Wilsonhttp://factoidz.com/americas-worst-presidents-woodrow-wilson/
Well, if you choose a shit website, like this......
(Try the link's homepage, folks, it's a laugh a minute!)
>
> Historians place Wilson if not in the top ten, then top twenty,
Indeed...genuine historians do....
>giving
> him credit for events beyond his control and withholding blame.
Just like the Ronald Reagan sites authored by his hagiographers.....
>If
> Herbert Hoover had been elected in 1912 he would be hailed as a great
> President simply because events did not require more than a competent
> clerk.
The First World War broke out in 1914! Events like that?
> Still have a question?
> Ask it in the History forum
I don't think I'll bother....
>Woodrow Wilson was the first Southern
Southern what?
>to
> hold office since Andrew Johnson.
>
> He was born in Virginia to slave holding parents.
Not, one presumes, after 1865.
>His earliest memory
> is standing beside Robert E. Lee hearing that Lincoln had been elected
> President.
Lee disagreed with secession....
>
> He was a slow learner, unable to read until he was ten years old.
Yes. Nowadays we would say he was dyslexic. he taught himself
shorthand as a teenager to compensate for this problem.
>With
> perseverance he was able to gain acceptance to Princeton University in
> New Jersey.
He greatly suffered from ill health...
>In 1882 Wilson was a practicing attorney in Atlanta. In
> 1883 he applied to John Hopkins to study history and political science
> as he had always intended to enter politics.
That was for a Doctorate. He had already graduated from Princeton.
>
> He became president of Princeton in 1902. He actively discouraged
> Afro-Americans from applying for matriculation. No Black person
> attended that New Jersey Institution until 1940 due to the policies
> and practices Wilson implemented.
True, because he thought the white students would not accept it. But
he was a faculty member of Evelyn College for Women. He was a
reforming Presideent of Princeton, by the way, cutting back the
privileges and vested interests of the fraternities.
> In 1910 he ran for Governor of New Jersey and was elected.
He was a reforming Governor.
>In 1912.he
> decided to run for President.
After much persuasion.
>
> His selection as candidate was not immediate. Wilson won on the
> forty sixth ballot. He was not the people’s choice for candidate.
The people's choice? In a Convention of that time?
>Nor
> was he the people’s choice as President. The Republican Party had
> split. President Howard Taft ran against former President Theodore
> Roosevelt. When Taft won the nomination, Roosevelt walked out and
> created his own Party.
>
> Wilson won only 41.8% of the popular vote; meaning the majority voted
> against him, either for Taft or Roosevelt.
This is getting very silly....
> As Wilson entered the White House policies of segregation were
> implemented. Washington D.C., the seat of American Government became
> a segregated city where blacks and whites could not eat at the same
> lunch counter. Segregation became the official policy in Federal
> offices, in some places, for the first time since 1863.
Yet Wilson was also criticized by such hard-line segregationists as
Georgia's Thomas E. Watson, who believed Wilson did not go far enough
in restricting black employment in the federal government.
> Black Republicans were fired, a few replaced by token Black Democrats
> to make it a political not racial action. Interestingly, one of
> Wilson’s campaign promises was to focus on Black issues. This had
> provoked a large defection from the Republican to the Democratic
> Party. When Wilson was approached by an Afro-American contingent
> questioning his turnabout, he told them:
>
> “Segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be
> so regarded by you gentlemen.”
>
> When questioned about his stances on race relations In 1914, he told
> the New York Times,
>
> “If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to
> correct it.”
All true. He was a child of his time. As was Lincoln. As was
Washington...all have been criticised for their racial attitudes. Now
how does this make him a bad President?
>
> Wilson’s views should of come as no surprise. In 1902 he wrote a five
> volume series; History of the American People, in which; he lauded the
> Ku Klux Klan as the natural outgrowth of Reconstruction. The Klan, he
> noted;
>
> “began to attempt by intimidation what they were not allowed to
> attempt by the ballot or by any ordered course of public action.”
But he was describing the Klan of that era. Not the Klan of his....
>
> Considered a leading intellectual, with the degrees and background to
> prove it, Wilson’s work was central to the intellectual/historical
> justification for the racist policies he instituted in 1912. Wilson
> gave new life to violent racist organisations. So powerful were his
> words that they were used in "The Birth of a Nation" one of the
> earliest and most acclaimed motion pictures.
He actually disliked the effect that Griffith's film was having.....
>
> Wilson was also anti-immigrant, and had written much on the subject.
> In 1910, however, considering his political career, he integrated
> particular immigrants into the Democratic party and the army.
He had criticised the actions of some immigrants in his history books.
He wasn't happy at the attitude of some Irish-Americans in the First
World War. But Wilson nominated the first Jew to the Supreme Court,
Louis Brandeis, starting a long line of Jewish justices who would
serve on the nation's highest court
> His first term was spent blocking Women’s rights and trying to keep
> America out of the First World War. Neither action particularly
> strenuous.
????????????????????????????????
>The major crisis of his time was the sinking of the
> Titanic. This was responded to by demanding extra lifeboats on all
> ships.
The Titanic?
> Wilson ran for re-election in 1916 on the platform; "He kept us Out of
> War."
Which was true at the time.
>
> The election between Wilson and Charles Evans Hughes was extremely
> close, and for several days, uncertain. The idea that Wilson was
> popular or that the nation was behind him is a myth.
>
> Wilson asked for a declaration of War on April 2, 1917, five months
> after beginning his second term.
Yes. After the Zimmerman Telegram and the onset of unlimited U-Boat
warfare. What else could he do?
>To gain soldiers, Woodrow Wilson
> implemented the Draft. Considering people voted for him on his
> anti-war platform there was opposition. Wilson pushed the Espionage
> Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 through Congress to suppress
> anti-British, pro-German, and anti-war opinions. Provisions in the
> Espionage Act had U.S. Post Office refused to carry written
> materials that could be deemed critical of the U. S. war effort. A
> number of newspapers were denied second-class mailing rights.
>
> Wilson set up the a propaganda office, the United States Committee on
> Public Information. This was the first overt use of propaganda by the
> American Government.
And your point is?
> When America entered WWI, it was almost over.
No it wasn't!
Sorry, I can't wade through this shit any more.... Historians and
political scientists consider Wilson a great President. You don't, but
can only ite crap like this. You are an idiot....but most of us knew
that already....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>
>Sorry, I can't wade through this shit any more.... Historians and
>political scientists consider Wilson a great President. You don't, but
>can only ite crap like this. You are an idiot....but most of us knew
>that already....
<ROTFLMAO> Nobody with any sense thinks Wilson was a great President,
you pathetic moron...
The highlights of his administration include the Sedition Act of 1918
(actually named the Espionage Act) which criminalized radical
criticism of the government, the Palmer Raids in which he ordered the
arrest and attempted illegal deportation of over 10,000 people because
of their political beliefs, and numerous specific instances in which
he ordered dissenters to be silenced. America under Woodrow Wilson was
a nation under lockdown.
Wilson was a filthy racist. He'd been a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
He urged blacks to return to the cotton fields. He re-segregated the
civil service.
The following excerpt from Wilson's book "A History of the American
People" was included in the racist movie, "The Birth of a Nation,"
which presents the Ku Klux Klan as a necessary post-Reconstruction
force.
The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self preservation…
until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a
veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.” Not
only did Wilson proudly stand by those words, but he also had a
private showing of the movie at the White House.
--Woodrow Wilson
Wilson criticized the diffuseness of government power in the US in
most famous book Congressional Government. In this work he confessed,
“I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”
In a disturbing 1890 essay entitled Leaders of Men, Wilson said that a
“true leader” uses the masses of people like “tools.” He writes, “The
competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of
other people’s characters: he cares much–everything–for the external
uses to which they may be put….
Here's another stupid claim from Zepp about the
Constitution.
"Incidently, the fact that the Constitution
specifies that people have right to vote in a
presidential election pretty much takes the choice of
having [a presidential election] out of the hands of
the states."
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson Sun, Sep 3 2006
.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/efb4fcac7b1561cb?hl=en&
...
and here's proof of Zepp's ignorance.
"Today, Electors are chosen by popular election, but
the Constitution does not mandate a popular election.
The 14th Amendment does mention the choosing of
Electors, but is relevant only when Electors are
elected by popular vote. There is similar mention
in the 24th Amendment. In other words, Electors
could be appointed by a state's legislature, or the
legislature could empower the governor to choose
electors. In some cases, state law allows for such
appointments if the popular vote cannot be used to
determine a winner, such as if election results are
contested up to federally-mandated deadlines.
.
"
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html
Barry
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 13:16:21 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>
> >Sorry, I can't wade through this shit any more.... Historians and
> >political scientists consider Wilson a great President. You don't, but
> >can only ite crap like this. You are an idiot....but most of us knew
> >that already....
>
> <ROTFLMAO> Nobody with any sense thinks Wilson was a great President,
> you pathetic moron...
People of any sense do. It's only a minority of right-wing American
shit and morons like you who want to denigrate his reputation. Why,
God alone knows...
>
> The highlights of his administration include the Sedition Act of 1918
> (actually named the Espionage Act) which criminalized radical
> criticism of the government, the Palmer Raids in which he ordered the
> arrest and attempted illegal deportation of over 10,000 people because
> of their political beliefs, and numerous specific instances in which
> he ordered dissenters to be silenced. America under Woodrow Wilson was
> a nation under lockdown.
Not the highlight of his administration, and largely to do with the
fact that your country was at war. These measures were pushed by
extremists in Congress at the time.
>
> Wilson was a filthy racist. He'd been a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
> He urged blacks to return to the cotton fields. He re-segregated the
> civil service.
He wasn't a racist in the modern sense of the word. In the historical
context of the time, his views were moderate, and not extreme. He
insisted, for example, that both coloured and white troops received
the same rates of pay.
>
> The following excerpt from Wilson's book "A History of the American
> People" was included in the racist movie, "The Birth of a Nation,"
> which presents the Ku Klux Klan as a necessary post-Reconstruction
> force.
>
> The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self preservation
> until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a
> veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country. Not
> only did Wilson proudly stand by those words, but he also had a
> private showing of the movie at the White House.
> --Woodrow Wilson
Two points. Wilson is talking about the Klan in the Reconstruction
era, which was a completely different organisation from the Klan of
his time. Secondly, this quote was used as a film caption by both
Dixon and Griffiths without his knowledge. He felt betrayed. He was
genuinely horrified at the impact of the film. But as you know sod all
about this period, you will believe any amount of shit from crap
websites....
>
> Wilson criticized the diffuseness of government power in the US in
> most famous book Congressional Government. In this work he confessed,
> I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.
>
> In a disturbing 1890 essay entitled Leaders of Men, Wilson said that a
> true leader uses the masses of people like tools. He writes, The
> competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of
> other people s characters: he cares much everything for the external
> uses to which they may be put .
What would you know about his views? As you are pig ignorant, you are
probably unaware that his political views evolved, and sometimes
changed.
>
> Here's another stupid claim from Zepp about the
> Constitution.
I'm not sure what this is doing here....
>
> "Incidently, the fact that the Constitution
> specifies that people have right to vote in a
> presidential election pretty much takes the choice of
> having [a presidential election] out of the hands of
> the states."
> --David B.(Zepp) Jamieson Sun, Sep 3 2006
> .http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/efb4fcac7b1...
> and here's proof of Zepp's ignorance.
>
> "Today, Electors are chosen by popular election, but
> the Constitution does not mandate a popular election.
> The 14th Amendment does mention the choosing of
> Electors, but is relevant only when Electors are
> elected by popular vote. There is similar mention
> in the 24th Amendment. In other words, Electors
> could be appointed by a state's legislature, or the
> legislature could empower the governor to choose
> electors. In some cases, state law allows for such
> appointments if the popular vote cannot be used to
> determine a winner, such as if election results are
> contested up to federally-mandated deadlines.
> .
> "http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html
I'm sure that Zepp can answer for himself, but he is only reiterating
the modern interpretation, taking into account the way it has been
amended.
You can now get back in your cupboard.....
Dr. Barry Worthington
P.S. Keep your parrot in order!
CB
That's pretty White of Wilson considering he was an 'old fashioned'
kinda bigot like you said.
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 5, 10:30 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 13:16:21 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>>
>> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Sorry, I can't wade through this shit any more.... Historians and
>> >political scientists consider Wilson a great President. You don't, but
>> >can only ite crap like this. You are an idiot....but most of us knew
>> >that already....
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO> Nobody with any sense thinks Wilson was a great President,
>> you pathetic moron...
>
>People of any sense do. It's only a minority of right-wing American
>shit and morons like you who want to denigrate his reputation. Why,
>God alone knows...
Probably because informed and intelligent people don't like racism and
fascism, like Wilson proposed.
>> The highlights of his administration include the Sedition Act of 1918
>> (actually named the Espionage Act) which criminalized radical
>> criticism of the government, the Palmer Raids in which he ordered the
>> arrest and attempted illegal deportation of over 10,000 people because
>> of their political beliefs, and numerous specific instances in which
>> he ordered dissenters to be silenced. America under Woodrow Wilson was
>> a nation under lockdown.
>
>Not the highlight of his administration, and largely to do with the
>fact that your country was at war. These measures were pushed by
>extremists in Congress at the time.
...and Wilson promoted and endorsed those measures, fascist that he
was.... Wilson made Joe McCarthy look like a nice guy.
>> Wilson was a filthy racist. He'd been a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
>> He urged blacks to return to the cotton fields. He re-segregated the
>> civil service.
>
>He wasn't a racist in the modern sense of the word. In the historical
>context of the time, his views were moderate, and not extreme.
Believing that the KKK was a "mere instinct of self preservation" is
pretty extreme..
> He
>insisted, for example, that both coloured and white troops received
>the same rates of pay.
<LOL> He was a racist. He reversed many of the advances made toward
integration. He also hated Orientals. As chairman, he overturned the
Racial Equality Proposal proposed by the Japanese at the Paris Peace
Conference even though it had passed by a majority.
>> The following excerpt from Wilson's book "A History of the American
>> People" was included in the racist movie, "The Birth of a Nation,"
>> which presents the Ku Klux Klan as a necessary post-Reconstruction
>> force.
>>
>> The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self preservation
>> until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a
>> veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country. Not
>> only did Wilson proudly stand by those words, but he also had a
>> private showing of the movie at the White House.
>> --Woodrow Wilson
>
>Two points. Wilson is talking about the Klan in the Reconstruction
>era, which was a completely different organisation from the Klan of
>his time.
<LOL> Bullshit! The Klan he was trying to justify had been killing,
burning, and raping innocent people and the filthy racist Wilson said
it was "to protect the Southern country"
>Secondly, this quote was used as a film caption by both
>Dixon and Griffiths without his knowledge.
Like I said, he stood by those words...
> He felt betrayed. He was
>genuinely horrified at the impact of the film.
<Chuckle> As if you'd know such things, Worthless, you still think
the word "government" only refers to the President.
> But as you know sod all
>about this period, you will believe any amount of shit from crap
>websites....
<LOL> When backed into a corner where he has no reply, Worthlesston
resorts to his usual ignorant bluster and fume.
>> Wilson criticized the diffuseness of government power in the US in
>> most famous book Congressional Government. In this work he confessed,
>> I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.
More of Wilson's fascist beliefs..
>> In a disturbing 1890 essay entitled Leaders of Men, Wilson said that a
>> true leader uses the masses of people like tools. He writes, The
>> competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of
>> other people s characters: he cares much everything for the external
>> uses to which they may be put .
<LOL> Wilson proposed using "the masses of people like tools." That
makes it pretty easy to denigrate the asshole.
>What would you know about his views? As you are pig ignorant, you are
>probably unaware that his political views evolved, and sometimes
>changed.
<ROTFLMAO> More bluster from the notoriously ignorant Worthlesston
who clearly cannot refute that Wilson was a fascist and a racist.
No charge for this latest lesson, Worthless, although being a
socialist loser, you couldn't afford it anyway.
>> Here's another stupid claim from Zepp about the
>> Constitution.
>
>I'm not sure what this is doing here....
Sometimes I just have to let people know that Jamieson is an ignorant
fool
>> "Incidently, the fact that the Constitution
>> specifies that people have right to vote in a
>> presidential election pretty much takes the choice of
>> having [a presidential election] out of the hands of
>> the states."
>> --David B.(Zepp) Jamieson Sun, Sep 3 2006
>> .http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/efb4fcac7b1...
>
>> and here's proof of Zepp's ignorance.
>>
>> "Today, Electors are chosen by popular election, but
>> the Constitution does not mandate a popular election.
>> The 14th Amendment does mention the choosing of
>> Electors, but is relevant only when Electors are
>> elected by popular vote. There is similar mention
>> in the 24th Amendment. In other words, Electors
>> could be appointed by a state's legislature, or the
>> legislature could empower the governor to choose
>> electors. In some cases, state law allows for such
>> appointments if the popular vote cannot be used to
>> determine a winner, such as if election results are
>> contested up to federally-mandated deadlines.
>> .
>> "http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html
>
>I'm sure that Zepp can answer for himself,
Naw, he runs away and hides...
but he is only reiterating
>the modern interpretation, taking into account the way it has been
>amended.
He says it's in the Constitution, but there is nothing in the
Constitution that guarantees the right to vote for a President.
>You can now get back in your cupboard.....
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
>
>P.S. Keep your parrot in order!
>
>
Here's another stupid claim from Zepp about the
Constitution.
"Incidently, the fact that the Constitution
specifies that people have right to vote in a
presidential election pretty much takes the choice of
having [a presidential election] out of the hands of
the states."
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson Sun, Sep 3 2006
.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/efb4fcac7b1561cb?hl=en&
Barry
As he doesn't live in our times, that statement is rather foolish. A
bit like yourself, really....
Dr. Barry Worthington
> >P.S. Keep your parrot in order!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Barry
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 15:17:42 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>
>
>
>
> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 5, 10:30 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 13:16:21 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
> >> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Sorry, I can't wade through this shit any more.... Historians and
> >> >political scientists consider Wilson a great President. You don't, but
> >> >can only ite crap like this. You are an idiot....but most of us knew
> >> >that already....
>
> >> <ROTFLMAO> Nobody with any sense thinks Wilson was a great President,
> >> you pathetic moron...
>
> >People of any sense do. It's only a minority of right-wing American
> >shit and morons like you who want to denigrate his reputation. Why,
> >God alone knows...
>
> Probably because informed and intelligent people don't like racism and
> fascism, like Wilson proposed.
Informed and intelligent people have a sense of history....and common
sense..... Neither of which you appear to have...
But you couldn't care less about history, or even Wilson...you are
just an agenda driven obsessive. It isn't your agenda, but it makes
use of fools and inadequates....
>
> >> The highlights of his administration include the Sedition Act of 1918
> >> (actually named the Espionage Act) which criminalized radical
> >> criticism of the government, the Palmer Raids in which he ordered the
> >> arrest and attempted illegal deportation of over 10,000 people because
> >> of their political beliefs, and numerous specific instances in which
> >> he ordered dissenters to be silenced. America under Woodrow Wilson was
> >> a nation under lockdown.
>
> >Not the highlight of his administration, and largely to do with the
> >fact that your country was at war. These measures were pushed by
> >extremists in Congress at the time.
>
> ...and Wilson promoted and endorsed those measures, fascist that he
> was.... Wilson made Joe McCarthy look like a nice guy.
McCarthy was a right-wing piece of shit using an obsession to obtain
personal power. Wilson was trying to fight a war....
> >> Wilson was a filthy racist. He'd been a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
> >> He urged blacks to return to the cotton fields. He re-segregated the
> >> civil service.
>
> >He wasn't a racist in the modern sense of the word. In the historical
> >context of the time, his views were moderate, and not extreme.
>
> Believing that the KKK was a "mere instinct of self preservation" is
> pretty extreme.
He's talking about the 1860's, you fool!
>
> > He
> >insisted, for example, that both coloured and white troops received
> >the same rates of pay.
>
> <LOL> He was a racist. He reversed many of the advances made toward
> integration. He also hated Orientals. As chairman, he overturned the
> Racial Equality Proposal proposed by the Japanese at the Paris Peace
> Conference even though it had passed by a majority.
How would he have got that through Congress?
>
> >> The following excerpt from Wilson's book "A History of the American
> >> People" was included in the racist movie, "The Birth of a Nation,"
> >> which presents the Ku Klux Klan as a necessary post-Reconstruction
> >> force.
>
> >> The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self preservation
> >> until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a
> >> veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country. Not
> >> only did Wilson proudly stand by those words, but he also had a
> >> private showing of the movie at the White House.
> >> --Woodrow Wilson
>
> >Two points. Wilson is talking about the Klan in the Reconstruction
> >era, which was a completely different organisation from the Klan of
> >his time.
>
> <LOL> Bullshit! The Klan he was trying to justify had been killing,
> burning, and raping innocent people and the filthy racist Wilson said
> it was "to protect the Southern country"
In the 1860s! Your kind of history is found in Sellars and
Yeatman........make a nice birthday present for you!
> >Secondly, this quote was used as a film caption by both
> >Dixon and Griffiths without his knowledge.
>
> Like I said, he stood by those words...
In a history book!
>
> > He felt betrayed. He was
> >genuinely horrified at the impact of the film.
>
> <Chuckle> As if you'd know such things, Worthless, you still think
> the word "government" only refers to the President.
Early cinema is an interest of mine, Steve (especially the work of
Robert Paul). As you know nothing about Griffiths, or his work,
opening your parrot's cage won't hide your ignorance....
>
> > But as you know sod all
> >about this period, you will believe any amount of shit from crap
> >websites....
>
> <LOL> When backed into a corner where he has no reply, Worthlesston
> resorts to his usual ignorant bluster and fume.
This comes after an answer pointing out the depths of your ignorance.
The corner is for you...complete with a Dunce's Cap.... (Did you know
that the term comes from Duns Scotus? Something else for you to look
up....)
>
> >> Wilson criticized the diffuseness of government power in the US in
> >> most famous book Congressional Government. In this work he confessed,
> >> I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.
>
> More of Wilson's fascist beliefs..
(Squawk!!!!!!!!!)
> >> In a disturbing 1890 essay entitled Leaders of Men, Wilson said that a
> >> true leader uses the masses of people like tools. He writes, The
> >> competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of
> >> other people s characters: he cares much everything for the external
> >> uses to which they may be put .
>
> <LOL> Wilson proposed using "the masses of people like tools." That
> makes it pretty easy to denigrate the asshole.
(Squawk!!!!!!!!!)
>
> >What would you know about his views? As you are pig ignorant, you are
> >probably unaware that his political views evolved, and sometimes
> >changed.
>
> <ROTFLMAO> More bluster from the notoriously ignorant Worthlesston
> who clearly cannot refute that Wilson was a fascist and a racist.
(Squawk!!!!!!!!!!! Who's a pretty boy then? I am.....Squawk!!!!!!!!)
> No charge for this latest lesson, Worthless, although being a
> socialist loser, you couldn't afford it anyway.
(Squawk!!!!!!!!! Squawk!!!!! Polly wans a cracker!)
>
> >> Here's another stupid claim from Zepp about the
> >> Constitution.
>
> >I'm not sure what this is doing here....
>
> Sometimes I just have to let people know that Jamieson is an ignorant
> fool
And the fact that you are an obsessive nutter....
> >I'm sure that Zepp can answer for himself,
>
> Naw, he runs away and hides...
(Squawk!!!!!!!!!)
>
> but he is only reiterating
>
> >the modern interpretation, taking into account the way it has been
> >amended.
>
> He says it's in the Constitution, but there is nothing in the
> Constitution that guarantees the right to vote for a President.
>
> >You can now get back in your cupboard.....
>
> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >P.S. Keep your parrot in order!
>
(Shit deleted....)
I told you to do something about your parrot!
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 6, 12:03 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 15:17:42 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 5, 10:30 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 13:16:21 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>>
>> >> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Sorry, I can't wade through this shit any more.... Historians and
>> >> >political scientists consider Wilson a great President. You don't, but
>> >> >can only ite crap like this. You are an idiot....but most of us knew
>> >> >that already....
>>
>> >> <ROTFLMAO> Nobody with any sense thinks Wilson was a great President,
>> >> you pathetic moron...
>>
>> >People of any sense do. It's only a minority of right-wing American
>> >shit and morons like you who want to denigrate his reputation. Why,
>> >God alone knows...
>>
>> Probably because informed and intelligent people don't like racism and
>> fascism, like Wilson proposed.
>
>Informed and intelligent people have a sense of history....and common
>sense..... Neither of which you appear to have...
<LOL> In lieu of a rebuttal, all poor ignorant Worthless can do is
issue childish insults....
>But you couldn't care less about history, or even Wilson...you are
>just an agenda driven obsessive. It isn't your agenda, but it makes
>use of fools and inadequates....
That's from Barry Worthlesston who says he's a socialist but had to be
schooled on what the Communist Manifesto said..
>> >> The highlights of his administration include the Sedition Act of 1918
>> >> (actually named the Espionage Act) which criminalized radical
>> >> criticism of the government, the Palmer Raids in which he ordered the
>> >> arrest and attempted illegal deportation of over 10,000 people because
>> >> of their political beliefs, and numerous specific instances in which
>> >> he ordered dissenters to be silenced. America under Woodrow Wilson was
>> >> a nation under lockdown.
>>
>> >Not the highlight of his administration, and largely to do with the
>> >fact that your country was at war. These measures were pushed by
>> >extremists in Congress at the time.
>>
>> ...and Wilson promoted and endorsed those measures, fascist that he
>> was.... Wilson made Joe McCarthy look like a nice guy.
>
>McCarthy was a right-wing piece of shit using an obsession to obtain
>personal power. Wilson was trying to fight a war....
Wilson deported people because of their political beliefs.. Communists
and Leftists were the prime targets...
>> >> Wilson was a filthy racist. He'd been a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
>> >> He urged blacks to return to the cotton fields. He re-segregated the
>> >> civil service.
>>
>> >He wasn't a racist in the modern sense of the word. In the historical
>> >context of the time, his views were moderate, and not extreme.
>>
>> Believing that the KKK was a "mere instinct of self preservation" is
>> pretty extreme.
>
>He's talking about the 1860's, you fool!
That's when the KKK was at it's most violent and Wilson said the KKK
was only "a mere instinct of self preservation."
>> > He
>> >insisted, for example, that both coloured and white troops received
>> >the same rates of pay.
>>
>> <LOL> He was a racist. He reversed many of the advances made toward
>> integration. He also hated Orientals. As chairman, he overturned the
>> Racial Equality Proposal proposed by the Japanese at the Paris Peace
>> Conference even though it had passed by a majority.
>
>How would he have got that through Congress?
He didn't even try... He told the Japanese to take a hike.
>> >> The following excerpt from Wilson's book "A History of the American
>> >> People" was included in the racist movie, "The Birth of a Nation,"
>> >> which presents the Ku Klux Klan as a necessary post-Reconstruction
>> >> force.
>>
>> >> The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self preservation
>> >> until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a
>> >> veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country. Not
>> >> only did Wilson proudly stand by those words, but he also had a
>> >> private showing of the movie at the White House.
>> >> --Woodrow Wilson
>>
>> >Two points. Wilson is talking about the Klan in the Reconstruction
>> >era, which was a completely different organisation from the Klan of
>> >his time.
>>
>> <LOL> Bullshit! The Klan he was trying to justify had been killing,
>> burning, and raping innocent people and the filthy racist Wilson said
>> it was "to protect the Southern country"
>
>In the 1860s! Your kind of history is found in Sellars and
>Yeatman........make a nice birthday present for you!
The KKK in the 1860 was simply a terrorist group.
>> >Secondly, this quote was used as a film caption by both
>> >Dixon and Griffiths without his knowledge.
>>
>> Like I said, he stood by those words...
>
>In a history book!
That non sequitur is the best Worthless can do...
>> > He felt betrayed. He was
>> >genuinely horrified at the impact of the film.
>>
>> <Chuckle> As if you'd know such things, Worthless, you still think
>> the word "government" only refers to the President.
>
>Early cinema is an interest of mine, Steve (especially the work of
>Robert Paul). As you know nothing about Griffiths, or his work,
>opening your parrot's cage won't hide your ignorance....
I know that Griffiths directed a movie where the KKK was depicted as
heroes and the KKK's victims as villains... and Woodrow Wilson
loved the movie... had it shown in the White House...
>> > But as you know sod all
>> >about this period, you will believe any amount of shit from crap
>> >websites....
>>
>> <LOL> When backed into a corner where he has no reply, Worthlesston
>> resorts to his usual ignorant bluster and fume.
>
>This comes after an answer pointing out the depths of your ignorance.
>The corner is for you...complete with a Dunce's Cap.... (Did you know
>that the term comes from Duns Scotus? Something else for you to look
>up....)
As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
fume.
>> >> Wilson criticized the diffuseness of government power in the US in
>> >> most famous book Congressional Government. In this work he confessed,
>> >> I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.
>>
>> More of Wilson's fascist beliefs..
>
>(Squawk!!!!!!!!!)
As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
fume.
>> >> In a disturbing 1890 essay entitled Leaders of Men, Wilson said that a
>> >> true leader uses the masses of people like tools. He writes, The
>> >> competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of
>> >> other people s characters: he cares much everything for the external
>> >> uses to which they may be put .
>>
>> <LOL> Wilson proposed using "the masses of people like tools." That
>> makes it pretty easy to denigrate the asshole.
>
>(Squawk!!!!!!!!!)
As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
fume.
>> >What would you know about his views? As you are pig ignorant, you are
>> >probably unaware that his political views evolved, and sometimes
>> >changed.
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO> More bluster from the notoriously ignorant Worthlesston
>> who clearly cannot refute that Wilson was a fascist and a racist.
>
>(Squawk!!!!!!!!!!! Who's a pretty boy then? I am.....Squawk!!!!!!!!)
As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
fume.
>> No charge for this latest lesson, Worthless, although being a
>> socialist loser, you couldn't afford it anyway.
>
>(Squawk!!!!!!!!! Squawk!!!!! Polly wans a cracker!)
As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
fume.
>> >> Here's another stupid claim from Zepp about the
>> >> Constitution.
>>
>> >I'm not sure what this is doing here....
>>
>> Sometimes I just have to let people know that Jamieson is an ignorant
>> fool
>
>And the fact that you are an obsessive nutter....
>> >I'm sure that Zepp can answer for himself,
>>
>> Naw, he runs away and hides...
>
>(Squawk!!!!!!!!!)
As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
fume.
>> but he is only reiterating
>>
>> >the modern interpretation, taking into account the way it has been
>> >amended.
>>
>> He says it's in the Constitution, but there is nothing in the
>> Constitution that guarantees the right to vote for a President.
>>
>> >You can now get back in your cupboard.....
As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
fume.
>> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> >P.S. Keep your parrot in order!
>>
>
>(Shit deleted....)
As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
fume.
>I told you to do something about your parrot!
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
>
"My interest is the swinging sub-culture"
-- Barry Worthington
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cea0c8e1abca656b?dmode=source&hl=en
Barry
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 01:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 6, 12:03 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 15:17:42 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
> >> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 5, 10:30 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 13:16:21 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
> >> >> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Sorry, I can't wade through this shit any more.... Historians and
> >> >> >political scientists consider Wilson a great President. You don't, but
> >> >> >can only ite crap like this. You are an idiot....but most of us knew
> >> >> >that already....
>
> >> >> <ROTFLMAO> Nobody with any sense thinks Wilson was a great President,
> >> >> you pathetic moron...
>
> >> >People of any sense do. It's only a minority of right-wing American
> >> >shit and morons like you who want to denigrate his reputation. Why,
> >> >God alone knows...
>
> >> Probably because informed and intelligent people don't like racism and
> >> fascism, like Wilson proposed.
>
> >Informed and intelligent people have a sense of history....and common
> >sense..... Neither of which you appear to have...
>
> <LOL> In lieu of a rebuttal, all poor ignorant Worthless can do is
> issue childish insults....
Ignoring any factual points that I make....but that's Steve, folks....
>
> >But you couldn't care less about history, or even Wilson...you are
> >just an agenda driven obsessive. It isn't your agenda, but it makes
> >use of fools and inadequates....
>
> That's from Barry Worthlesston who says he's a socialist but had to be
> schooled on what the Communist Manifesto said..
(Squawk!!!!!!!!)
> >> >> The highlights of his administration include the Sedition Act of 1918
> >> >> (actually named the Espionage Act) which criminalized radical
> >> >> criticism of the government, the Palmer Raids in which he ordered the
> >> >> arrest and attempted illegal deportation of over 10,000 people because
> >> >> of their political beliefs, and numerous specific instances in which
> >> >> he ordered dissenters to be silenced. America under Woodrow Wilson was
> >> >> a nation under lockdown.
>
> >> >Not the highlight of his administration, and largely to do with the
> >> >fact that your country was at war. These measures were pushed by
> >> >extremists in Congress at the time.
>
> >> ...and Wilson promoted and endorsed those measures, fascist that he
> >> was.... Wilson made Joe McCarthy look like a nice guy.
>
> >McCarthy was a right-wing piece of shit using an obsession to obtain
> >personal power. Wilson was trying to fight a war....
>
> Wilson deported people because of their political beliefs.. Communists
> and Leftists were the prime targets...
Largely as a result of shite in Congress.......
>
> >> >> Wilson was a filthy racist. He'd been a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
> >> >> He urged blacks to return to the cotton fields. He re-segregated the
> >> >> civil service.
>
> >> >He wasn't a racist in the modern sense of the word. In the historical
> >> >context of the time, his views were moderate, and not extreme.
>
> >> Believing that the KKK was a "mere instinct of self preservation" is
> >> pretty extreme.
>
> >He's talking about the 1860's, you fool!
>
> That's when the KKK was at it's most violent and Wilson said the KKK
> was only "a mere instinct of self preservation."
That is debatable.....it later got out of control, and respectable
people deserted it. That's why it died out (except amongst pockets of
Southern hick trash).
>
> >> > He
> >> >insisted, for example, that both coloured and white troops received
> >> >the same rates of pay.
>
> >> <LOL> He was a racist. He reversed many of the advances made toward
> >> integration. He also hated Orientals. As chairman, he overturned the
> >> Racial Equality Proposal proposed by the Japanese at the Paris Peace
> >> Conference even though it had passed by a majority.
>
> >How would he have got that through Congress?
>
> He didn't even try... He told the Japanese to take a hike.
And your point is? (I suspect that spheres of influence in the Pacific
were at the root of these actions. But you wouldn't know about
Yap....)
> >> >> The following excerpt from Wilson's book "A History of the American
> >> >> People" was included in the racist movie, "The Birth of a Nation,"
> >> >> which presents the Ku Klux Klan as a necessary post-Reconstruction
> >> >> force.
>
> >> >> The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self preservation
> >> >> until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a
> >> >> veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country. Not
> >> >> only did Wilson proudly stand by those words, but he also had a
> >> >> private showing of the movie at the White House.
> >> >> --Woodrow Wilson
>
> >> >Two points. Wilson is talking about the Klan in the Reconstruction
> >> >era, which was a completely different organisation from the Klan of
> >> >his time.
>
> >> <LOL> Bullshit! The Klan he was trying to justify had been killing,
> >> burning, and raping innocent people and the filthy racist Wilson said
> >> it was "to protect the Southern country"
>
> >In the 1860s! Your kind of history is found in Sellars and
> >Yeatman........make a nice birthday present for you!
>
> The KKK in the 1860 was simply a terrorist group.
Really? Nothing to do with the politics of Reconstruction?
>
> >> >Secondly, this quote was used as a film caption by both
> >> >Dixon and Griffiths without his knowledge.
>
> >> Like I said, he stood by those words...
>
> >In a history book!
>
> That non sequitur is the best Worthless can do...
In a history book. If you are too stupid to realise the import of that
statement, that's not my problem.....
> >> > He felt betrayed. He was
> >> >genuinely horrified at the impact of the film.
>
> >> <Chuckle> As if you'd know such things, Worthless, you still think
> >> the word "government" only refers to the President.
>
> >Early cinema is an interest of mine, Steve (especially the work of
> >Robert Paul). As you know nothing about Griffiths, or his work,
> >opening your parrot's cage won't hide your ignorance....
>
> I know that Griffiths directed a movie where the KKK was depicted as
> heroes and the KKK's victims as villains... and Woodrow Wilson
> loved the movie... had it shown in the White House...
"It is like writing history with Lightning. And my only regret is that
it is all so terribly true." -- President Woodrow Wilson, allegedly
after seeing it at a White House screening. The words are quoted
onscreen at the beginning of most prints of the film. "...the
President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was
presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."--Letter
from J. M. Tumulty, secretary to President Wilson, to the Boston
branch of the NAACP, which protested against the film's blackface
villains and heroic Ku Klux Klanners.
Nobody seems to know the source of the Wilson quote, which is cited in
every discussion of the film. Not dear Lillian Gish, whose "The
Movies, Mr. Griffith, and Me" is a touchingly affectionate and yet
clear-eyed memoir a man she always called "Mister" and clearly loved.
And not Richard Schickel, whose "D. W. Griffith: An American Life" is
a great biography. Certainly the quote is suspiciously similar to
Coleridge's famous comment about the acting of Edmund Kean ("like
reading Shakespeare by flashes of lightning”).
(This is from Ebert.)
>
> >> > But as you know sod all
> >> >about this period, you will believe any amount of shit from crap
> >> >websites....
>
> >> <LOL> When backed into a corner where he has no reply, Worthlesston
> >> resorts to his usual ignorant bluster and fume.
>
> >This comes after an answer pointing out the depths of your ignorance.
> >The corner is for you...complete with a Dunce's Cap.... (Did you know
> >that the term comes from Duns Scotus? Something else for you to look
> >up....)
>
> As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
> fume.
(Squawk!!!!!!!!!!)
>
> >> >> Wilson criticized the diffuseness of government power in the US in
> >> >> most famous book Congressional Government. In this work he confessed,
> >> >> I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.
>
> >> More of Wilson's fascist beliefs..
>
> >(Squawk!!!!!!!!!)
>
> As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
> fume.
(Squawk!!!!!!! Splat! Oh dear...your parrot has just shat on
you......)
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
Barry Worthlesston doesn't make any points, he only expresses his
unsupported opinions. I suppose that might have worked in the
classroom where students' grades will suffer if they question what
they've been told..
>> >But you couldn't care less about history, or even Wilson...you are
>> >just an agenda driven obsessive. It isn't your agenda, but it makes
>> >use of fools and inadequates....
>>
>> That's from Barry Worthlesston who says he's a socialist but had to be
>> schooled on what the Communist Manifesto said..
>
>(Squawk!!!!!!!!)
As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
fume.
>> >> >> The highlights of his administration include the Sedition Act of 1918
>> >> >> (actually named the Espionage Act) which criminalized radical
>> >> >> criticism of the government, the Palmer Raids in which he ordered the
>> >> >> arrest and attempted illegal deportation of over 10,000 people because
>> >> >> of their political beliefs, and numerous specific instances in which
>> >> >> he ordered dissenters to be silenced. America under Woodrow Wilson was
>> >> >> a nation under lockdown.
>>
>> >> >Not the highlight of his administration, and largely to do with the
>> >> >fact that your country was at war. These measures were pushed by
>> >> >extremists in Congress at the time.
>>
>> >> ...and Wilson promoted and endorsed those measures, fascist that he
>> >> was.... Wilson made Joe McCarthy look like a nice guy.
>>
>> >McCarthy was a right-wing piece of shit using an obsession to obtain
>> >personal power. Wilson was trying to fight a war....
>>
>> Wilson deported people because of their political beliefs.. Communists
>> and Leftists were the prime targets...
>
>Largely as a result of shite in Congress.......
Wilson actively promoted that agenda.
>> >> >> Wilson was a filthy racist. He'd been a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
>> >> >> He urged blacks to return to the cotton fields. He re-segregated the
>> >> >> civil service.
>>
>> >> >He wasn't a racist in the modern sense of the word. In the historical
>> >> >context of the time, his views were moderate, and not extreme.
>>
>> >> Believing that the KKK was a "mere instinct of self preservation" is
>> >> pretty extreme.
>>
>> >He's talking about the 1860's, you fool!
>>
>> That's when the KKK was at it's most violent and Wilson said the KKK
>> was only "a mere instinct of self preservation."
>
>That is debatable....
Bullshit! The original KKK was nothing less than a terrorist group,
they had no lofty purpose.
.it later got out of control, and respectable
>people deserted it. That's why it died out (except amongst pockets of
>Southern hick trash).
<LOL> So here's Worthlesston, a dumb socialist, defending the KKK
much as Woodrow Wilson did...
<ROTFLMAO> The people the KKK was terrorizing had no political power,
you dimwitted fool.
>> >> >Secondly, this quote was used as a film caption by both
>> >> >Dixon and Griffiths without his knowledge.
>>
>> >> Like I said, he stood by those words...
>>
>> >In a history book!
>>
>> That non sequitur is the best Worthless can do...
>
>In a history book. If you are too stupid to realise the import of that
>statement, that's not my problem.....
<LOL> It matters not a whit where Wilson spouted his racial hatred,
indeed, propagandizing children with it probably makes it even worse.
>> >> > He felt betrayed. He was
>> >> >genuinely horrified at the impact of the film.
>>
>> >> <Chuckle> As if you'd know such things, Worthless, you still think
>> >> the word "government" only refers to the President.
>>
>> >Early cinema is an interest of mine, Steve (especially the work of
>> >Robert Paul). As you know nothing about Griffiths, or his work,
>> >opening your parrot's cage won't hide your ignorance....
>>
>> I know that Griffiths directed a movie where the KKK was depicted as
>> heroes and the KKK's victims as villains... and Woodrow Wilson
>> loved the movie... had it shown in the White House...
>
>"It is like writing history with Lightning. And my only regret is that
>it is all so terribly true." -- President Woodrow Wilson, allegedly
>after seeing it at a White House screening. The words are quoted
>onscreen at the beginning of most prints of the film. "...the
>President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was
>presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."--Letter
>from J. M. Tumulty, secretary to President Wilson, to the Boston
>branch of the NAACP, which protested against the film's blackface
>villains and heroic Ku Klux Klanners.
Bullshit. Here are some facts:
Wilson knew the movie was based upon the "The Clansman" by Thomas F.
Dixon and Dixon was a personal friend of Wilson. Dixon was and has
always been a racist, so Wilson was well aware of the racist nature of
the movie.
>Nobody seems to know the source of the Wilson quote, which is cited in
>every discussion of the film. Not dear Lillian Gish, whose "The
>Movies, Mr. Griffith, and Me" is a touchingly affectionate and yet
>clear-eyed memoir a man she always called "Mister" and clearly loved.
>And not Richard Schickel, whose "D. W. Griffith: An American Life" is
>a great biography. Certainly the quote is suspiciously similar to
>Coleridge's famous comment about the acting of Edmund Kean ("like
>reading Shakespeare by flashes of lightning”).
>
>(This is from Ebert.)
The quote (I assume you are speaking of the 'instinct of
self-preservation quote') came from Wilson's book, A History of the
American People, you ignorant baboon.
>>
>> >> > But as you know sod all
>> >> >about this period, you will believe any amount of shit from crap
>> >> >websites....
>>
>> >> <LOL> When backed into a corner where he has no reply, Worthlesston
>> >> resorts to his usual ignorant bluster and fume.
>>
>> >This comes after an answer pointing out the depths of your ignorance.
>> >The corner is for you...complete with a Dunce's Cap.... (Did you know
>> >that the term comes from Duns Scotus? Something else for you to look
>> >up....)
>>
>> As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
>> fume.
>
>(Squawk!!!!!!!!!!)
As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
fume.
>> >> >> Wilson criticized the diffuseness of government power in the US in
>> >> >> most famous book Congressional Government. In this work he confessed,
>> >> >> I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.
>>
>> >> More of Wilson's fascist beliefs..
>>
>> >(Squawk!!!!!!!!!)
>>
>> As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
>> fume.
>
>
>(Squawk!!!!!!! Splat! Oh dear...your parrot has just shat on
>you......)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
Here's another stupid claim from Zepp about the
Constitution.
"Incidently, the fact that the Constitution
Steve
I'd intended to respond to this in ther earlier response and didn't
get to it, so I'll do it now..
It's pretty clear to me that the Racial Equality Proposal proposed by
the Japanese would also pertain to the American black population and
Wilson, being a filthy racist, was not going to allow that.
Here's another stupid claim from Zepp about the
Constitution.
"Incidently, the fact that the Constitution
Barry
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 03:04:00 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
> >> >sense..... Neither of which you appear to have...
>
> >> <LOL> In lieu of a rebuttal, all poor ignorant Worthless can do is
> >> issue childish insults....
>
> >Ignoring any factual points that I make....but that's Steve, folks....
>
> Barry Worthlesston doesn't make any points, he only expresses his
> unsupported opinions.
You are too damned idle to look up the cites I provide....
> I suppose that might have worked in the
> classroom where students' grades will suffer if they question what
> they've been told.
You? In a classroom? And don't try and judge people by your own
debased standards! Teachers are only to happy if student's question
their assertions. But they do expect a sound argument behind the
question. If it was there, I marked students up for their initiative.
> >Largely as a result of shite in Congress.......
>
> Wilson actively promoted that agenda.
Genuine segregationists didn't think so. I've already given an example
of that in this thread.
> >> That's when the KKK was at it's most violent and Wilson said the KKK
> >> was only "a mere instinct of self preservation."
>
> >That is debatable....
>
> Bullshit! The original KKK was nothing less than a terrorist group,
> they had no lofty purpose.
Well, many Southerners (in the context of Reconstruction) thought
that they had. But that was in the immediate post civil War
period...the period Wilson was writing about.
>
> .it later got out of control, and respectable
>
> >people deserted it. That's why it died out (except amongst pockets of
> >Southern hick trash).
>
> <LOL> So here's Worthlesston, a dumb socialist, defending the KKK
> much as Woodrow Wilson did...
I'm not defending the KKK. I'm placing them (and Wilson) in a
historical context. That's what historians and educated people tend to
do. You don't realise that because you are rather stupid.....
> >> >How would he have got that through Congress?
>
> >> He didn't even try... He told the Japanese to take a hike.
>
> >And your point is? (I suspect that spheres of influence in the Pacific
> >were at the root of these actions. But you wouldn't know about
> >Yap....)
Obviously not...
> >> The KKK in the 1860 was simply a terrorist group.
>
> >Really? Nothing to do with the politics of Reconstruction?
>
> <ROTFLMAO> The people the KKK was terrorizing had no political power,
> you dimwitted fool.
On the contrary. They were tring to dislodge what they saw as a
Northern imposed political elite...the majority of whom happened to be
coloured. You don't know much about this period of history, do you?
> >> >In a history book!
>
> >> That non sequitur is the best Worthless can do...
>
> >In a history book. If you are too stupid to realise the import of that
> >statement, that's not my problem.....
>
> <LOL> It matters not a whit where Wilson spouted his racial hatred,
> indeed, propagandizing children with it probably makes it even worse.
Steve, when I worked in secondary school, I taught a class of
immigrant children English for a year. I'm not a racialist. I'm a
historian. You are very stupid.
> >> >Early cinema is an interest of mine, Steve (especially the work of
> >> >Robert Paul). As you know nothing about Griffiths, or his work,
> >> >opening your parrot's cage won't hide your ignorance....
>
> >> I know that Griffiths directed a movie where the KKK was depicted as
> >> heroes and the KKK's victims as villains... and Woodrow Wilson
> >> loved the movie... had it shown in the White House...
>
> >"It is like writing history with Lightning. And my only regret is that
> >it is all so terribly true." -- President Woodrow Wilson, allegedly
> >after seeing it at a White House screening. The words are quoted
> >onscreen at the beginning of most prints of the film. "...the
> >President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was
> >presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."--Letter
> >from J. M. Tumulty, secretary to President Wilson, to the Boston
> >branch of the NAACP, which protested against the film's blackface
> >villains and heroic Ku Klux Klanners.
>
> Bullshit. Here are some facts:
>
> Wilson knew the movie was based upon the "The Clansman" by Thomas F.
> Dixon and Dixon was a personal friend of Wilson.
Well, he wasn't after the film came out!
>Dixon was and has
> always been a racist, so Wilson was well aware of the racist nature of
> the movie.
Very doubtful.
> >Nobody seems to know the source of the Wilson quote, which is cited in
> >every discussion of the film. Not dear Lillian Gish, whose "The
> >Movies, Mr. Griffith, and Me" is a touchingly affectionate and yet
> >clear-eyed memoir a man she always called "Mister" and clearly loved.
> >And not Richard Schickel, whose "D. W. Griffith: An American Life" is
> >a great biography. Certainly the quote is suspiciously similar to
> >Coleridge's famous comment about the acting of Edmund Kean ("like
> >reading Shakespeare by flashes of lightning”).
>
> >(This is from Ebert.)
>
> The quote (I assume you are speaking of the 'instinct of
> self-preservation quote') came from Wilson's book, A History of the
> American People, you ignorant baboon.
No it's not! It's quite clear to most people that the quote referred
to was Wilson's (alleged ) reaction to the film, and still features in
modern presentations of it.
> >> >> > But as you know sod all
> >> >> >about this period, you will believe any amount of shit from crap
> >> >> >websites....
>
> >> >> <LOL> When backed into a corner where he has no reply, Worthlesston
> >> >> resorts to his usual ignorant bluster and fume.
>
> >> >This comes after an answer pointing out the depths of your ignorance.
> >> >The corner is for you...complete with a Dunce's Cap.... (Did you know
> >> >that the term comes from Duns Scotus? Something else for you to look
> >> >up....)
>
> >> As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
> >> fume.
>
> >(Squawk!!!!!!!!!!)
>
> >(Squawk!!!!!!! Splat! Oh dear...your parrot has just shat on
> >you......)
>
> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Here's another stupid claim from Zepp about the
> Constitution.
Not interested. Sod off!
Dr. Barry Worthington
Barry
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 03:04:00 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
It was also pretty clear to him that it was part of a Japanese foreign
policy strategy.
The depths of your ignorance are amazing....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
Ahhh yes, racial equality must be avoided wherever it rears it's ugly
head and at all costs, eh, Worthlesston? You sure you want to take
that stance?
>The depths of your ignorance are amazing....
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
>
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 6, 11:44 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 03:04:00 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>>
>> >> >Informed and intelligent people have a sense of history....and common
>> >> >sense..... Neither of which you appear to have...
>>
>> >> <LOL> In lieu of a rebuttal, all poor ignorant Worthless can do is
>> >> issue childish insults....
>>
>> >Ignoring any factual points that I make....but that's Steve, folks....
>>
>> Barry Worthlesston doesn't make any points, he only expresses his
>> unsupported opinions.
>
>You are too damned idle to look up the cites I provide....
That's from Barry Worthlesston who still argues that the word
"government" only applies to the executive branch of the government.
> > I suppose that might have worked in the
>> classroom where students' grades will suffer if they question what
>> they've been told.
>
>You? In a classroom? And don't try and judge people by your own
>debased standards! Teachers are only to happy if student's question
>their assertions. But they do expect a sound argument behind the
>question. If it was there, I marked students up for their initiative.
<ROTFL> That's from Barry Worthlesston who says he's a socialist but
had to be told that the Communist Manifesto promoted giving the
government dictatorial power.
>> >Largely as a result of shite in Congress.......
>>
>> Wilson actively promoted that agenda.
>
>Genuine segregationists didn't think so. I've already given an example
>of that in this thread.
More unsupported opinion from Barry Worthlesston...
>> >> That's when the KKK was at it's most violent and Wilson said the KKK
>> >> was only "a mere instinct of self preservation."
>>
>> >That is debatable....
>>
>> Bullshit! The original KKK was nothing less than a terrorist group,
>> they had no lofty purpose.
>
>Well, many Southerners (in the context of Reconstruction) thought
>that they had. But that was in the immediate post civil War
>period...the period Wilson was writing about.
...and that's when the KKK was at it's most violent.
>> .it later got out of control, and respectable
>>
>> >people deserted it. That's why it died out (except amongst pockets of
>> >Southern hick trash).
>>
>> <LOL> So here's Worthlesston, a dumb socialist, defending the KKK
>> much as Woodrow Wilson did...
>
>I'm not defending the KKK. I'm placing them (and Wilson) in a
>historical context. That's what historians and educated people tend to
>do. You don't realise that because you are rather stupid.....
The KKK was evil incarnate no matter what ridiculous excuses you make
for them. They deliberate killing, raping and burning of innocent
people is not excusable under any circumstances
>> >> >How would he have got that through Congress?
>>
>> >> He didn't even try... He told the Japanese to take a hike.
>>
>> >And your point is? (I suspect that spheres of influence in the Pacific
>> >were at the root of these actions. But you wouldn't know about
>> >Yap....)
>
>Obviously not...
>
>> >> The KKK in the 1860 was simply a terrorist group.
>>
>> >Really? Nothing to do with the politics of Reconstruction?
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO> The people the KKK was terrorizing had no political power,
>> you dimwitted fool.
>
>On the contrary. They were tring to dislodge what they saw as a
>Northern imposed political elite...the majority of whom happened to be
>coloured. You don't know much about this period of history, do you?
Actually, I seem to know far more than you do.. For instance there
was hardly enough political elite "coloured" anywhere in the country
in the 1860s to be a political force, you pathetic fool. The
"coloured" were not even given the right to vote until 1870, and even
then, they were denied the vote in most southern states with poll
taxes and other trickery.
>> >> >In a history book!
>>
>> >> That non sequitur is the best Worthless can do...
>>
>> >In a history book. If you are too stupid to realise the import of that
>> >statement, that's not my problem.....
>>
>> <LOL> It matters not a whit where Wilson spouted his racial hatred,
>> indeed, propagandizing children with it probably makes it even worse.
>
>Steve, when I worked in secondary school, I taught a class of
>immigrant children English for a year. I'm not a racialist. I'm a
>historian. You are very stupid.
...and yet here you are defending the KKK during their most violent
years after the Civil War...
>> >> >Early cinema is an interest of mine, Steve (especially the work of
>> >> >Robert Paul). As you know nothing about Griffiths, or his work,
>> >> >opening your parrot's cage won't hide your ignorance....
>>
>> >> I know that Griffiths directed a movie where the KKK was depicted as
>> >> heroes and the KKK's victims as villains... and Woodrow Wilson
>> >> loved the movie... had it shown in the White House...
>>
>> >"It is like writing history with Lightning. And my only regret is that
>> >it is all so terribly true." -- President Woodrow Wilson, allegedly
>> >after seeing it at a White House screening. The words are quoted
>> >onscreen at the beginning of most prints of the film. "...the
>> >President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was
>> >presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."--Letter
>> >from J. M. Tumulty, secretary to President Wilson, to the Boston
>> >branch of the NAACP, which protested against the film's blackface
>> >villains and heroic Ku Klux Klanners.
>>
>> Bullshit. Here are some facts:
>>
>> Wilson knew the movie was based upon the "The Clansman" by Thomas F.
>> Dixon and Dixon was a personal friend of Wilson.
>
>Well, he wasn't after the film came out!
Bullshit. He had to know exactly what the film was about since it was
based on his friend's book, "The Clansman" which Dixon published ten
years prior to the movie made from it. Wilson, after seeing the
movie himself, invited others to come and see it.. at the White
House," which was an obvious act of promoting the movie.
> >Dixon was and has
>> always been a racist, so Wilson was well aware of the racist nature of
>> the movie.
>
>Very doubtful.
Dumbass Barry Worthlesston desperately needs to believe that Wilson
was not aware of his friend's racist book, nor that the movie was
based upon that filthy book, but Dixon was a personal friend of
Wilson, and avidly promoted Wilson's candidacy. Wilson and Dixon were
friends and there is no evidence anywhere that they ever were anything
but friends.
>> >Nobody seems to know the source of the Wilson quote, which is cited in
>> >every discussion of the film. Not dear Lillian Gish, whose "The
>> >Movies, Mr. Griffith, and Me" is a touchingly affectionate and yet
>> >clear-eyed memoir a man she always called "Mister" and clearly loved.
>> >And not Richard Schickel, whose "D. W. Griffith: An American Life" is
>> >a great biography. Certainly the quote is suspiciously similar to
>> >Coleridge's famous comment about the acting of Edmund Kean ("like
>> >reading Shakespeare by flashes of lightning”).
>>
>> >(This is from Ebert.)
>>
>> The quote (I assume you are speaking of the 'instinct of
>> self-preservation quote') came from Wilson's book, A History of the
>> American People, you ignorant baboon.
>
>No it's not! It's quite clear to most people that the quote referred
>to was Wilson's (alleged ) reaction to the film, and still features in
>modern presentations of it.
OK, so you were referring the "writing history with Lightning" quote
which I never referenced because of it's somewhat questionable origin.
You're the one who brought it up.
However the disgusting and incorrect quote about Wilson saying that
the KKK was "a mere instinct of self preservation" was from Wilson's
book. The fact is that the ONLY reason for the KKK was to kill, and/or
terrorize the Blacks, the Jews, and anyone who wanted to promote their
integration into society.
>> >> >> > But as you know sod all
>> >> >> >about this period, you will believe any amount of shit from crap
>> >> >> >websites....
>>
>> >> >> <LOL> When backed into a corner where he has no reply, Worthlesston
>> >> >> resorts to his usual ignorant bluster and fume.
>>
>> >> >This comes after an answer pointing out the depths of your ignorance.
>> >> >The corner is for you...complete with a Dunce's Cap.... (Did you know
>> >> >that the term comes from Duns Scotus? Something else for you to look
>> >> >up....)
>>
>> >> As usual, Worthless has no argument.. all he can do is bluster and
>> >> fume.
>>
>> >(Squawk!!!!!!!!!!)
>>
>> >(Squawk!!!!!!! Splat! Oh dear...your parrot has just shat on
>> >you......)
>>
>> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> Here's another stupid claim from Zepp about the
>> Constitution.
>
>Not interested. Sod off!
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
Here's another stupid claim from Zepp about the
Constitution.
"Incidently, the fact that the Constitution
Barry
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 05:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> >> >were at the root of these actions. But you wouldn't know about
> >> >Yap....)
>
> >> I'd intended to respond to this in ther earlier response and didn't
> >> get to it, so I'll do it now..
>
> >> It's pretty clear to me that the Racial Equality Proposal proposed by
> >> the Japanese would also pertain to the American black population and
> >> Wilson, being a filthy racist, was not going to allow that.
>
> >It was also pretty clear to him that it was part of a Japanese foreign
> >policy strategy.
>
> Ahhh yes, racial equality must be avoided wherever it rears it's ugly
> head and at all costs, eh, Worthlesston? You sure you want to take
> that stance?
It wasn't my stance, you idiot! It was Wilson's, within the context of
a 1920s naval strategy.....
Is this deliberate? Or are you that stupid?
Dr. Barry Worthington.
(Usual shit deleted.)
Steve
<LOL> You've been defending Wilson's stance, you pathetic clown/
>Is this deliberate? Or are you that stupid?
>
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington.
>
>(Usual shit deleted.)
Barry
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:39:22 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>
>
>
>
> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 6, 3:35 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 05:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> >> >> >And your point is? (I suspect that spheres of influence in the Pacific
> >> >> >were at the root of these actions. But you wouldn't know about
> >> >> >Yap....)
>
> >> >> I'd intended to respond to this in ther earlier response and didn't
> >> >> get to it, so I'll do it now..
>
> >> >> It's pretty clear to me that the Racial Equality Proposal proposed by
> >> >> the Japanese would also pertain to the American black population and
> >> >> Wilson, being a filthy racist, was not going to allow that.
>
> >> >It was also pretty clear to him that it was part of a Japanese foreign
> >> >policy strategy.
>
> >> Ahhh yes, racial equality must be avoided wherever it rears it's ugly
> >> head and at all costs, eh, Worthlesston? You sure you want to take
> >> that stance?
>
> >It wasn't my stance, you idiot! It was Wilson's, within the context of
> >a 1920s naval strategy.....
>
> <LOL> You've been defending Wilson's stance, you pathetic clown/
I've been explaining it within a historical context. Why should I
defend a man long dead before I was born? Why would people want to
distort history to denigrate him? What's the point?
(Irrelevant shit deleted.)
Goodbye,
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
Why are you doing it?
>? Why would people want to
>distort history to denigrate him? What's the point?
<LOL> I'm just stating the facts about Wilson. Fact you apparently
did not know.... No charge for this lesson, either, Worthless.
>(Irrelevant shit deleted.)
Poor dumb Worthlesston apparently didn't even know that Wilson was a
good friend of Thomas Dixon who wrote the very racist book that "The
Birth of a Nation" was based upon. There is no doubt that Wilson knew
exactly what the movie was about when he asked to have it played in
the WH. Then, if that wasn't enough, he invited lots of others to
come and see it at the WH, thus actively endorsing it.
>Goodbye,
Worthless, once again is bested...
> Dr. Barry Worthington
Barry
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:03:02 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>
>
>
>
Well, to an idiot like you, it might appear that way. To most people
who read this thread (anyone still out there?) it will clearly be a
case of someone who is interpreting Wilson's actions in a historical
way, someone who hates historical facts being used to promote some
kind of agenda.... That might be a bit complicated for you....do you
understandit?
>
> >? Why would people want to
> >distort history to denigrate him? What's the point?
>
> <LOL> I'm just stating the facts about Wilson.
You are doing a usual cut and past job supporting CB (who, like you,
has a screw loose somewhere), who has posted shit from a Mickey Mouse
website......
> Fact you apparently
> did not know....
And what makes you think that?
>No charge for this lesson, either, Worthless.
In Ancient Athens, people paid to hear the opinions of annoying gits
called Sophists. But you are certainly not Thrasymachus.....
> >(Irrelevant shit deleted.)
>
> Poor dumb Worthlesston apparently didn't even know that Wilson was a
> good friend of Thomas Dixon who wrote the very racist book that "The
> Birth of a Nation" was based upon.
Most people who know anything about the film know that.....without
looking it up, like you did!
>There is no doubt that Wilson knew
> exactly what the movie was about when he asked to have it played in
> the WH. Then, if that wasn't enough, he invited lots of others to
> come and see it at the WH, thus actively endorsing it.
You do talk crap! I gave you a cite on this matter. Where's yours to
prove this assertion?
> >Goodbye,
(Usual irrelevant shit posted from a sad obsessive deleted....)
Is this what you are reduced to?
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
I think most people will understand that Worthlesston is defending
Wilson's racism and fascism simply because he also had some far
leftist ideas.
>> >? Why would people want to
>> >distort history to denigrate him? What's the point?
>>
>> <LOL> I'm just stating the facts about Wilson.
>
>You are doing a usual cut and past job supporting CB (who, like you,
>has a screw loose somewhere), who has posted shit from a Mickey Mouse
>website......
<chuckle> Worthlesston's attempt to deny Wilson's racism has been
pretty entertaining...
>> Fact you apparently
>> did not know....
>
>And what makes you think that?
Worthlesston proclaimed that Wilson did not know the nature of the
movie before he saw it, which was quite impossible since he was a
friend if Dixon who wrote the book the movie was based on.
>>No charge for this lesson, either, Worthless.
>
>In Ancient Athens, people paid to hear the opinions of annoying gits
>called Sophists. But you are certainly not Thrasymachus.....
>
>> >(Irrelevant shit deleted.)
>>
>> Poor dumb Worthlesston apparently didn't even know that Wilson was a
>> good friend of Thomas Dixon who wrote the very racist book that "The
>> Birth of a Nation" was based upon.
>
>Most people who know anything about the film know that.....without
>looking it up, like you did!
<LOL> Worthlesston is a sad little homosexual socialist who imagines
that he can speak for "most people."
> >There is no doubt that Wilson knew
>> exactly what the movie was about when he asked to have it played in
>> the WH. Then, if that wasn't enough, he invited lots of others to
>> come and see it at the WH, thus actively endorsing it.
>
>
>You do talk crap! I gave you a cite on this matter. Where's yours to
>prove this assertion?
...from page 248 of "Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift: Montesquieu,
Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect" By Paul A. Rahe.
This silent film was based on a best selling novel published in 1905
by Thomas Dixon, who had been a classmate of Wilson's at Johns
Hopkins. Entitled "The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux
Klan," it restated in crude, simplistic, melodramatic, and highly
exaggerated terms the argument of Wilson's "History of the American
people" concerning Reconstruction and the role played by African
Americans in American life, and on ornate title cards used in the
movie to introduce it's depiction of Reconstruction and the foundation
of the Ku Klux Klan. Griffith quoted selectively from Wilson's
account. When, at Dixon's suggestion, Wilson invited his staff and
his cabinet to preview the film with him in the East Room of the White
House on 18 February 1915 and, by his example, tacitly encouraged
justices of the U. S. Supreme Court and members of Congress to attend
the separate showing held at the National Press Club the following
night, he cannot have been ignorant of the controversy stirred by
Dixon's novel, which had sold more than a million copies, and by the
popular play from it derived.
Look it up, Worthless, and check out the author too.
>> >Goodbye,
Run and hide, Worthless. you've been nested once again..
>(Usual irrelevant shit posted from a sad obsessive deleted....)
>
>Is this what you are reduced to?
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
Lisa Lisa
> America's Worst Presidents; Woodrow Wilsonhttp://factoidz.com/americas-worst-presidents-woodrow-wilson/
<snip>
> As Wilson entered the White House policies of segregation were
> Wilson’s views should of come as no surprise. In 1902 he wrote a five
> volume series; History of the American People, in which; he lauded the
> Ku Klux Klan as the natural outgrowth of Reconstruction.
Then you must like him.
Lisa
Barry
> >> >I've been explaining it within a historical context. Why should I
> >> >defend a man long dead before I was born?
>
> >> Why are you doing it?
>
> >Well, to an idiot like you, it might appear that way. To most people
> >who read this thread (anyone still out there?) it will clearly be a
> >case of someone who is interpreting Wilson's actions in a historical
> >way, someone who hates historical facts being used to promote some
> >kind of agenda.... That might be a bit complicated for you....do you
> >understandit?
>
> I think most people will understand that Worthlesston is defending
> Wilson's racism and fascism simply because he also had some far
> leftist ideas.
I think most people will understand that you are a stupid
arsehole......
> >> >? Why would people want to
> >> >distort history to denigrate him? What's the point?
>
> >> <LOL> I'm just stating the facts about Wilson.
>
> >You are doing a usual cut and past job supporting CB (who, like you,
> >has a screw loose somewhere), who has posted shit from a Mickey Mouse
> >website......
>
> <chuckle> Worthlesston's attempt to deny Wilson's racism has been
> pretty entertaining...
By modern standards he was a racist. So what! He doesn't belong in the
modern era, the same as George Washington. But he was still a great
President. Most historians agree on that.....
>
> >> Fact you apparently
> >> did not know....
>
> >And what makes you think that?
>
> Worthlesston proclaimed that Wilson did not know the nature of the
> movie before he saw it, which was quite impossible since he was a
> friend if Dixon who wrote the book the movie was based on.
Tumulty said that.....
That was my cite. I asked for yours. Where is it?
>
> >>No charge for this lesson, either, Worthless.
>
> >In Ancient Athens, people paid to hear the opinions of annoying gits
> >called Sophists. But you are certainly not Thrasymachus.....
>
> >> >(Irrelevant shit deleted.)
>
> >> Poor dumb Worthlesston apparently didn't even know that Wilson was a
> >> good friend of Thomas Dixon who wrote the very racist book that "The
> >> Birth of a Nation" was based upon.
>
> >Most people who know anything about the film know that.....without
> >looking it up, like you did!
>
> <LOL> Worthlesston is a sad little homosexual socialist who imagines
> that he can speak for "most people."
Steve is a nutter....as he here demonstrates....
>
> > >There is no doubt that Wilson knew
> >> exactly what the movie was about when he asked to have it played in
> >> the WH. Then, if that wasn't enough, he invited lots of others to
> >> come and see it at the WH, thus actively endorsing it.
>
> >You do talk crap! I gave you a cite on this matter. Where's yours to
> >prove this assertion?
>
> ...from page 248 of "Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift: Montesquieu,
> Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect" By Paul A. Rahe.
Not a work of film history, is it?
"Dr. Rahe recently joined Hoover Institution Fellow and host of
National Review Online's 'Uncommon Knowledge"video series Peter
Robinson to defends his position that President Obama’s health-care
proposals “presuppose the administrative state’s assuming a power over
our lives that is nothing less than tyrannical." (This illiteracy is
transcribed verbatim from his website.)
Well, your kind of academic, Steve...... Which crap website led you to
him?
>
> This silent film was based on a best selling novel published in 1905
> by Thomas Dixon, who had been a classmate of Wilson's at Johns
> Hopkins. Entitled "The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux
> Klan," it restated in crude, simplistic, melodramatic, and highly
> exaggerated terms the argument of Wilson's "History of the American
> people" concerning Reconstruction and the role played by African
> Americans in American life, and on ornate title cards used in the
> movie to introduce it's depiction of Reconstruction and the foundation
> of the Ku Klux Klan.
Yes, we know all that!
>Griffith quoted selectively from Wilson's
> account.
Indeed. Do you ever read this stuff, Steve?
>When, at Dixon's suggestion, Wilson invited his staff and
> his cabinet to preview the film with him in the East Room of the White
> House on 18 February 1915 and, by his example, tacitly encouraged
> justices of the U. S. Supreme Court and members of Congress to attend
> the separate showing held at the National Press Club the following
> night, he cannot have been ignorant of the controversy stirred by
> Dixon's novel, which had sold more than a million copies, and by the
> popular play from it derived.
And what is this assertion based upon? "He cannot have been ignorant"
is not history!
>
> Look it up, Worthless, and check out the author too.
Why? It's worthless......a bit like you!
(Obsessive shite deleted.)
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
<chuckle> It's actually a work of history, by a learned history
professor.
>"Dr. Rahe recently joined Hoover Institution Fellow and host of
>National Review Online's 'Uncommon Knowledge"video series Peter
>Robinson to defends his position that President Obama’s health-care
>proposals “presuppose the administrative state’s assuming a power over
>our lives that is nothing less than tyrannical." (This illiteracy is
>transcribed verbatim from his website.)
Which is all quite true...
>Well, your kind of academic, Steve...... Which crap website led you to
>him?
>
>>
>> This silent film was based on a best selling novel published in 1905
>> by Thomas Dixon, who had been a classmate of Wilson's at Johns
>> Hopkins. Entitled "The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux
>> Klan," it restated in crude, simplistic, melodramatic, and highly
>> exaggerated terms the argument of Wilson's "History of the American
>> people" concerning Reconstruction and the role played by African
>> Americans in American life, and on ornate title cards used in the
>> movie to introduce it's depiction of Reconstruction and the foundation
>> of the Ku Klux Klan.
>
>Yes, we know all that!
>
>
> >Griffith quoted selectively from Wilson's
>> account.
>
>Indeed. Do you ever read this stuff, Steve?
>
Indeed, Griffith's movie did exactly that.. from Wilson's book,
"History of the American people," itself an inaccurate racist account
of the Reconstruction.
>
>>When, at Dixon's suggestion, Wilson invited his staff and
>> his cabinet to preview the film with him in the East Room of the White
>> House on 18 February 1915 and, by his example, tacitly encouraged
>> justices of the U. S. Supreme Court and members of Congress to attend
>> the separate showing held at the National Press Club the following
>> night, he cannot have been ignorant of the controversy stirred by
>> Dixon's novel, which had sold more than a million copies, and by the
>> popular play from it derived.
>
>
>And what is this assertion based upon? "He cannot have been ignorant"
>is not history!
<ROTFLMAO> here's a bio for Dr. RAHE
PAUL A. RAHE
Departments of History & Political Science
Hillsdale College
33 East College Street
Hillsdale, Michigan
49242-1205
Fax: (517) 607-2998
Education
College of Arts and Sciences, Cornell University, 1967-1969
Yale College, Yale University, 1969-1971
Wadham College, University of Oxford, 1971-1974
Yale Graduate School, Yale University, 1974-1977
Degrees
B.A. Summa cum Laude with Honors with Exceptional Distinction in
History, the Arts and Letters, Yale University, June, 1971
B.A. Oxon. with First Class Honours in Litterae Humaniores,
University of Oxford, October, 1974
Ph.D., Yale University, December, 1977
Honors, Prizes, Scholarships, and Fellowships
Rhodes Scholarship, 1971
Woodrow Wilson Fellowship, 1971
Andrew D. White Prize in European History, Yale University, 1971
Phi Beta Kappa, Yale University, 1971
Field Scholarship, American School of Classical Studies at Athens,
1973
Benjamin Bickley Rogers Prize, Wadham College, University of
Oxford, 1973
College Scholarship, Wadham College, University of Oxford, 1973
Weaver Fellowship, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1974-1975
Junior Fellowship, The Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington,
D.C., 1980-1981
Fellowship, The National Humanities Center, Spring, 1984
Fellowship in the Eastern Mediterranean, Institute of Current
World Affairs, Crane-Rogers Foundation, 1984-1986
John M. Olin Faculty Fellowship, John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.,
1988-1989
Fellowship, Center for the History of Freedom, Washington
University, Spring, 1990
Fellowship, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1993-1994
Fellowship, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
Washington, D. C., 1993-1994
Templeton Honor Rolls for Education in a Free Society, The John M.
Templeton Foundation, 1997-1998
Visiting Research Fellow, Clare Hall, University of Cambridge,
Spring, 1999
E. L. Wiegand Visiting Lecturer, St. John’s College, Santa Fe, New
Mexico, and Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, California, 1999-2000
Visiting Fellow, All Souls College, University of Oxford,
Michaelmas and Hilary Terms, 2005-6.
DaimlerChrysler Fellow, Hans Arnhold Center, The American Academy
in Berlin, April-May, 2006.
Koren Prize for the Best Article Published in French History in
2005, Society for French Historical Studies, 21-22 April 2006.
Employment
Acting Instructor, Department of History, Yale University,
1976-1977
Assistant Professor, Department of History, Cornell University,
1977-1980
Steinman Assistant Professor of Classics and History, Department
of Classics, Franklin and Marshall College, 1981-1983
Assistant Professor, Department of History, The University of
Tulsa, 1983-1991
Associate Professor, Department of History, The University of
Tulsa, 1991-1994
Professor, Department of History, The University of Tulsa,
1994-2007
Jay P. Walker Professor of American History, The University of
Tulsa, 1994-2007
Visiting Professor, Department of History, Yale University,
1996-1997
Professor, Department of History and Political Science, Hillsdale
College, 2007-
The Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in the Western
Heritage, Hillsdale College, 2008-
Administrative Experience
Director, First Seminar Program, University of Tulsa, 1990-1992
Chair, Department of History, University of Tulsa, 1994-1998
Fields of Concentration
Major: Ancient Greek and Roman History
Minor: European Intellectual History
Germany, 1890-1945
Additional Teaching Experience
Greek and Latin Language and Prose Literature
Ancient Persian Civilization
Greek and Roman Civilization
Ancient and Modern Historiography
Ancient and Modern Political Philosophy
Early America
Dissertation
“Lysander and the Spartan Settlement, 407-403 B.C.,” August, 1977
Books
Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the
American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
1992), An Alternate Selection of the History Book Club, May, 1993.
Republics Ancient and Modern I: The Ancien Régime in Classical
Greece (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994).
Republics Ancient and Modern II: New Modes and Orders in Early
Modern Political Thought (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1994).
Republics Ancient and Modern III: Inventions of Prudence:
Constituting the American Regime (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1994).
Against Throne and Altar: Machiavelli and Political Theory under
the English Republic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, and
Tocqueville on the Modern Prospect (New Haven: Yale University Press,
2009).
Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty: War, Religion, Commerce,
Climate, Terrain, Technology, Uneasiness of Mind, the Spirit of
Political Vigilance, and the Foundations of the Modern Republic (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).
Books Edited
Montesquieu’s Science of Politics: Essays on the Spirit of Laws,
ed. David W. Carrithers, Michael A. Mosher, and Paul A. Rahe (Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001).
Machiavelli’s Liberal Republican Legacy, ed. Paul A. Rahe
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Work in Progress
The Spartan Way of War, under contract with Yale University Press
Chapters in Books
“Slavery, Section, and Progress in the Arts,” in The Revival of
Constitutionalism, ed. James W. Muller (Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1988) 123-50.
“The American Revolution,” in The American Experiment: Essays on
the Theory and Practice of Liberty, ed. Peter Augustine Lawler and
Robert Martin Schaefer (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1994)
27-55.
“Antiquity Surpassed: The Repudiation of Classical Republicanism,”
in Republicanism, Liberty, and Commercial Society: 1649-1776, ed.
David Wootton (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994) 233-69.
“Don Vito Corleone, Friendship, and the American Regime,” in
Reinventing the American People: Unity and Diversity Today, ed. Robert
Royal (Washington, D. C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1995)
115-35.
“Thucydides’ Critique of Realpolitik,” in Roots of Realism:
Philosophical and Historical Dimensions, ed. Benjamin Frankel (London:
Frank Cass, 1996) 105-41.
“Thucydides and Ancient Constitutionalism,” in Polis and Polemos:
Essays on Politics, War, and History in Ancient Greece in Honor of
Donald Kagan, ed. Charles D. Hamilton and Peter Krentz (Claremont, CA:
Regina Books, 1997) 141-70.
“Thomas Jefferson’s Machiavellian Moment,” in Reason and
Republicanism: Thomas Jefferson’s Legacy of Liberty, ed. Gary L.
McDowell and Sharon L. Noble (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield,
1997) 53-84.
“The River War: Nature’s Provision, Man’s Desire to Prevail, and
the Prospects for Peace,” in Churchill as Peacemaker, ed. James W.
Muller (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 82-119.
“Soft Despotism: Democracy’s Drift,” in Foundations of American
Civilization, ed. T. William Boxx and Gary M. Quinlivan (Latrobe, PA:
Center for Economic and Policy Education, 1999) 15-54.
“Fame, Founders, and the Idea of Founding in the Eighteenth
Century,” in The Noblest Minds: Essays on Fame, Honor, and the
American Founding, ed. Peter McNamara (Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield, 1999) 3-36.
“Aristotle and the Study of History: A Manifesto,” in
Reconstructing History: The Emergence of the Historical Society, ed.
Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn (New York: Routledge,
1999) 202-13.
“The Beginning of the Cold War,” in Churchill’s “Iron Curtain”
Speech Fifty Years Later, ed. James W. Muller (Columbia, MO:
University of Missouri Press, 1999) 49-67.
“Situating Machiavelli,” in Renaissance Civic Humanism:
Reappraisals and Reflections, ed. James Hankins (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000) 270-308.
“Forms of Government: Structure, Principle, Object, and Aim,” in
Montesquieu’s Science of Politics: Essays on the Spirit of Laws
(1748), ed. David W. Carrithers, Michael A. Mosher, and Paul A. Rahe
(Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001) 69-108.
“The Electoral College and the Moderation of the Political Impulse
in America,” in Securing Democracy—Why We Have an Electoral College,
ed. Gary L. Gregg II (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2001) 55-78.
“Justice, Necessity, and the Conduct of the Spartans and the
Athenians in The Peloponnesian War,” in Civilians in the Path of War,
ed. Mark Grimsley and Clifford J. Rogers (Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 2002) 1-32.
“The Idea of the Public Intellectual in the Age of the
Enlightenment,” in The Public Intellectual: Between Philosophy and
Politics, ed. Arthur Melzer, Jerry Weinberger, and M. Richard Zinman
(Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003) 27-52.
“Don Corleone Multiculturalist” [in Chinese], in Trust and
Business: Barriers and Bridges [in Chinese], ed. Daryl Koehn
(Shanghai: Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press, 2003) 145-68.
“Background to Marbury v. Madison: The Debate Concerning Judicial
Review at the Federal Convention and during the Ratification Period,”
in Marbury v. Madison: 1803-2003: Un dialogue franco-américain/A
French-American Dialogue, ed. Élisabeth Zoller (Paris: Dalloz, 2003)
19-36.
“The Political Needs of a Tool-Making Animal: Madison, Hamilton,
Locke, and the Question of Property,” in Natural Rights Liberalism
from Locke to Nozick, ed. Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller, Jr., and
Jeffrey Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 1-26.
“Machiavelli in the English Revolution,” in Machiavelli’s Liberal
Republican Legacy, ed. Paul A. Rahe (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2006) 9-35.
“Thomas Jefferson’s Machiavellian Political Science,” in
Machiavelli’s Liberal Republican Legacy, ed. Paul A. Rahe (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006) 208-28.
“Thucydides as Educator,” in The Past as Prologue: The Importance
of History to the Military Profession, ed. Williamson Murray and
Richard Hart Sinnreich (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)
95-110.
“Montesquieu and the Constitution of Liberty,” in America and
Enlightenment Constitutionalism, ed. Gary McDowell and Johnathan
O’Neill (London: Palgrave/MacMillan, 2006) 123-55.
“Political History’s Demise?” in Recent Themes in Early American
History: Historians in Conversation, ed. Donald A. Yerxa (Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press, 2008) 33-36.
“The Peace of Nicias,” in The Making of Peace, ed. Williamson
Murray and James Lacey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)
31-69.
“Montesquieu’s Critique of Monarchy: A Self-Destructive
Anachronism,” forthcoming in Montesquieu et la civilité, ed. Philippe
Raynaud (Paris: Dalloz, 2009).
“Republicanism in Rome and Republicanism in America,” forthcoming
in Thomas Jefferson, the Classical World, and Early America, ed.
Nicholas Cole and Peter Onuf (Charlottesville, University Press of
Virginia, 2010).
“Machiavelli’s Debt to Averroës and Lucretius,” forthcoming in
Erasmus Politicus Christianus, ed. Robert von Friedeburg.
“Sectarian Conflict, the Preservation of Liberty, and John
Churchill’s Statesmanship,” forthcoming in Winston Churchill’s Life of
Marlborough, ed. James W. Muller.
Articles in Refereed Journals
“The Military Situation in Western Asia on the Eve of Cunaxa,” The
American Journal of Philology 101 (1980): 79-96.
“The Selection of Ephors at Sparta,” Historia 29 (1980): 385-401.
“The Annihilation of the Sacred Band at Chaeronea,” The American
Journal of Archaeology 85 (1981): 84-87.
“The Primacy of Politics in Classical Greece,” The American
Historical Review 89:2 (April, 1984): 265-93.
“John Locke’s Philosophical Partisanship,” The Political Science
Reviewer 20 (1991): 1-43.
“Cicero and American Republicanism,” Ciceroniana n. s. 8 (1994):
63-78.
“Thomas Jefferson’s Machiavellian Political Science,” Review of
Politics 57:3 (Summer, 1995): 449-81.
“Thucydides’ Critique of Realpolitik,” Security Studies 5:2
(Winter, 1995): 105-41.
“Don Corleone, Multiculturalist,” The Journal of Business and
Professional Ethics 16:1-3 (1998): 133-53.
“Averting Our Gaze,” The Journal of the Historical Society 2:2
(Spring, 2002): 145-51.
“The Classical Republicanism of John Milton,” History of Political
Thought 25:2 (Summer, 2004): 243-75.
“The Political Needs of a Tool-Making Animal: Madison, Hamilton,
Locke, and the Question of Property,” Social Philosophy & Policy 22:1
(Winter, 2005): 1-26.
“The Book That Never Was: Montesquieu’s Considerations on the
Romans in Historical Context,” History of Political Thought 26:1
(Spring, 2005): 43-89. Awarded the Koren Prize for the Best Article
Published in French History in 2005 by the Society for French
Historical Studies, 21-22 April 2006.
“Between Trust and Distrust: The Federalist and The Emergence of
Modern Republican Constitutionalism,” 1650-1850: Ideas, Aesthetics,
and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era 11 (2005): 375-406.
“In the Shadow of Lucretius: The Epicurean Foundations of
Machiavelli’s Political Thought,” History of Political Thought 28:1
(Spring, 2007): 30-55.
“The Enlightenment Indicted: Rousseau’s Response to Montesquieu,”
The Journal of the Historical Society 18:2 (June, 2008): 273-302.
Other Scholarly Publications
“Church and State: Jefferson, Madison, and 200 Years of Religious
Freedom,” The American Spectator 19:1 (January, 1986): 18-23.
“Redefining Democracy for the Modern State,” Humanities 13:3
(May/June 1992): 16-19.
“The Martial Republics of Classical Greece,” The Wilson Quarterly
17:1 (Winter, 1993): 58-70.
“Virtuous Citizens,” Constitution 6:2 (Fall, 1994): 52-59.
“Extracurricular Reading,” Reason 26:7 (December, 1994): 49.
“Justice, Necessity, and the Conduct of War in Thucydides,”
Occasional Paper No. 6, Historical, Cultural, and Literary Studies,
The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (November, 1995):
1-39.
“The Contents of Our Character,” Reason 27:7 (December, 1995): 42.
“The Constitution of Liberty Within Christendom,” The
Intercollegiate Review 33:1 (Fall, 1997): 30-36.
Constitutions: Ancient, Modern, and American, The Gaspar G. Bacon
Lecture, 1996 (Boston: Boston University, 1997).
“The Electoral College: A Defense,” Perspective: A Public Policy
Journal from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs 7:12 (December,
2000): 3-7.
“The Reckoning,” The American Oxonian 89:2 (Spring, 2002): 30-33.
“An Inky Wretch: The Outrageous Genius of Marchamont Nedham,” The
National Interest 70 (Winter, 2002-2003): 55-64.
“Empires Ancient and Modern,” The Wilson Quarterly 28:3 (Summer,
2004): 68-84.
“Political History’s Demise?” Historically Speaking 5:4
(March/April, 2005): 28-30.
>> Look it up, Worthless, and check out the author too.
>
>Why? It's worthless......a bit like you!
<LOL> Run and hide, Worthless, Dr. Rahe's qualification makes yours
look like kindetgarten stuff.
>(Obsessive shite deleted.)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
CB
Lame, Lisa.
Barry
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 04:42:53 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> >> >prove this assertion?
>
> >> ...from page 248 of "Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift: Montesquieu,
> >> Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect" By Paul A. Rahe.
>
> >Not a work of film history, is it?
>
> <chuckle> It's actually a work of history, by a learned history
> professor.
But it isn't a work about film history! Do you seriously imagine that
acadedemic historians are expert in all historical fields?
>
> >"Dr. Rahe recently joined Hoover Institution Fellow and host of
> >National Review Online's 'Uncommon Knowledge"video series Peter
> >Robinson to defends his position that President Obama’s health-care
> >proposals “presuppose the administrative state’s assuming a power over
> >our lives that is nothing less than tyrannical." (This illiteracy is
> >transcribed verbatim from his website.)
>
> Which is all quite true...
Well, the illiteracy is....but he may have a crap website designer....
>
> >Well, your kind of academic, Steve...... Which crap website led you to
> >him?
>
> >> This silent film was based on a best selling novel published in 1905
> >> by Thomas Dixon, who had been a classmate of Wilson's at Johns
> >> Hopkins. Entitled "The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux
> >> Klan," it restated in crude, simplistic, melodramatic, and highly
> >> exaggerated terms the argument of Wilson's "History of the American
> >> people" concerning Reconstruction and the role played by African
> >> Americans in American life, and on ornate title cards used in the
> >> movie to introduce it's depiction of Reconstruction and the foundation
> >> of the Ku Klux Klan.
>
> >Yes, we know all that!
>
> > >Griffith quoted selectively from Wilson's
> >> account.
>
> >Indeed. Do you ever read this stuff, Steve?
>
> Indeed, Griffith's movie did exactly that.. from Wilson's book,
> "History of the American people," itself an inaccurate racist account
> of the Reconstruction.
What part of "quoted selectively" don't you understand?
> >>When, at Dixon's suggestion, Wilson invited his staff and
> >> his cabinet to preview the film with him in the East Room of the White
> >> House on 18 February 1915 and, by his example, tacitly encouraged
> >> justices of the U. S. Supreme Court and members of Congress to attend
> >> the separate showing held at the National Press Club the following
> >> night, he cannot have been ignorant of the controversy stirred by
> >> Dixon's novel, which had sold more than a million copies, and by the
> >> popular play from it derived.
>
> >And what is this assertion based upon? "He cannot have been ignorant"
> >is not history!
>
> <ROTFLMAO> here's a bio for Dr. RAHE
(Irrelevant material snipped.)
Look, I don't care who he is..."he cannot have been ignorant of" is a
supposition. It's not history.
>
> >> Look it up, Worthless, and check out the author too.
I did. I wasn't particularly impressed.
>
> >Why? It's worthless......a bit like you!
>
> <LOL> Run and hide, Worthless, Dr. Rahe's qualification makes yours
> look like kindetgarten stuff.
Do they? How would you know, Steve?
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 7, 1:49 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 04:42:53 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>> >> >You do talk crap! I gave you a cite on this matter. Where's yours to
>> >> >prove this assertion?
>>
>> >> ...from page 248 of "Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift: Montesquieu,
>> >> Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect" By Paul A. Rahe.
>>
>> >Not a work of film history, is it?
>>
>> <chuckle> It's actually a work of history, by a learned history
>> professor.
>
>But it isn't a work about film history! Do you seriously imagine that
>acadedemic historians are expert in all historical fields?
The issue is about historical events, Dummy, and I do (seriously)
imagine the learned history professor knew about it.
>> >"Dr. Rahe recently joined Hoover Institution Fellow and host of
>> >National Review Online's 'Uncommon Knowledge"video series Peter
>> >Robinson to defends his position that President Obama’s health-care
>> >proposals “presuppose the administrative state’s assuming a power over
>> >our lives that is nothing less than tyrannical." (This illiteracy is
>> >transcribed verbatim from his website.)
>>
>> Which is all quite true...
>
>Well, the illiteracy is....but he may have a crap website designer....
Typos merely signify an unsatisfactory editing job.. These
newsgroups used to be haunted by a college professor from main who
consistently misused the subjective vs objective personal pronouns.
>> >Well, your kind of academic, Steve...... Which crap website led you to
>> >him?
>>
>> >> This silent film was based on a best selling novel published in 1905
>> >> by Thomas Dixon, who had been a classmate of Wilson's at Johns
>> >> Hopkins. Entitled "The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux
>> >> Klan," it restated in crude, simplistic, melodramatic, and highly
>> >> exaggerated terms the argument of Wilson's "History of the American
>> >> people" concerning Reconstruction and the role played by African
>> >> Americans in American life, and on ornate title cards used in the
>> >> movie to introduce it's depiction of Reconstruction and the foundation
>> >> of the Ku Klux Klan.
>>
>> >Yes, we know all that!
>>
>> > >Griffith quoted selectively from Wilson's
>> >> account.
>>
>> >Indeed. Do you ever read this stuff, Steve?
>>
>> Indeed, Griffith's movie did exactly that.. from Wilson's book,
>> "History of the American people," itself an inaccurate racist account
>> of the Reconstruction.
>
>What part of "quoted selectively" don't you understand?
Ok, <chuckle> so did you expect that he should have quoted the entire
book? <LOL> Of course he quoted selectively, you pathetic moron.
>> >>When, at Dixon's suggestion, Wilson invited his staff and
>> >> his cabinet to preview the film with him in the East Room of the White
>> >> House on 18 February 1915 and, by his example, tacitly encouraged
>> >> justices of the U. S. Supreme Court and members of Congress to attend
>> >> the separate showing held at the National Press Club the following
>> >> night, he cannot have been ignorant of the controversy stirred by
>> >> Dixon's novel, which had sold more than a million copies, and by the
>> >> popular play from it derived.
>>
>> >And what is this assertion based upon? "He cannot have been ignorant"
>> >is not history!
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO> here's a bio for Dr. RAHE
>
>(Irrelevant material snipped.)
>
>Look, I don't care who he is..."he cannot have been ignorant of" is a
>supposition. It's not history.
It's as good as the "Letter from J. M. Tumulty, secretary to President
Wilson, to the Boston branch of the NAACP" which claimed otherwise...
in fact, it's better because Tumulty certainly had good reason to not
speak otherwise about Wilson's involvement.
The hard cold fact is that Wilson could hardly have been unaware of
the nature of his Friend Dixon's book and could hardly have been
unaware that the movie was based upon that book.
>> >> Look it up, Worthless, and check out the author too.
>
>I did. I wasn't particularly impressed.
Like I said, his qualifications (which you snipped) make yours look
like grade school level, Worthless.
I assume you snipped his bio because it so shamed you to have to
compare it to yours...
I also suspect from Worthlesston's posts that his "understanding" of
the reconstruction period probably came from viewing Griffith's movie.
The fact is, the KKK was, during the several years after the civil, a
violent, ruthless terrorist outfit that burned, raped and killed many
innocent people. And Worthlesston seems bent on denying that fact.
>> >Why? It's worthless......a bit like you!
>>
>> <LOL> Run and hide, Worthless, Dr. Rahe's qualification makes yours
>> look like kindetgarten stuff.
>
>Do they? How would you know, Steve?
Here's what I know about you, Worthless...
"My interest is the swinging sub-culture"
-- Barry Worthington
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cea0c8e1abca656b?dmode=source&hl=en
>(Obsessive shite deleted.)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
Zepp's knowledge of investments and taxes is, shall we say, "wanting..."
"And why are dividends on 401Ks considered capital gains? (They are,
when it comes time to cash the 401K in, but Steve wouldn't know that)."
David (Zepp) Jamieson Tue, 29 Jul 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/25d56714cbea3db9?hl=en
Canyon Note: When you cash in a 401K, it's taxed as ordinary income
not as capital gains.
"If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll be in jail soon
enough. Funny. I though a big rich guy like him could afford a tax
accountant. It's obvious he isn't smart enough to do his own taxes.'
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&
Canyon Note: Irony anyone?
Barry
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 14:43:25 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
> >> >Not a work of film history, is it?
>
> >> <chuckle> It's actually a work of history, by a learned history
> >> professor.
>
> >But it isn't a work about film history! Do you seriously imagine that
> >acadedemic historians are expert in all historical fields?
>
> The issue is about historical events, Dummy, and I do (seriously)
> imagine the learned history professor knew about it.
He is an expert in every field? Amazing!
>
> >> >"Dr. Rahe recently joined Hoover Institution Fellow and host of
> >> >National Review Online's 'Uncommon Knowledge"video series Peter
> >> >Robinson to defends his position that President Obama’s health-care
> >> >proposals “presuppose the administrative state’s assuming a power over
> >> >our lives that is nothing less than tyrannical." (This illiteracy is
> >> >transcribed verbatim from his website.)
>
> >> Which is all quite true...
>
> >Well, the illiteracy is....but he may have a crap website designer....
>
> Typos merely signify an unsatisfactory editing job.. These
> newsgroups used to be haunted by a college professor from main who
> consistently misused the subjective vs objective personal pronouns.
(Snicker!!!!)
> >> > >Griffith quoted selectively from Wilson's
> >> >> account.
>
> >> >Indeed. Do you ever read this stuff, Steve?
>
> >> Indeed, Griffith's movie did exactly that.. from Wilson's book,
> >> "History of the American people," itself an inaccurate racist account
> >> of the Reconstruction.
>
> >What part of "quoted selectively" don't you understand?
>
> Ok, <chuckle> so did you expect that he should have quoted the entire
> book? <LOL> Of course he quoted selectively, you pathetic moron.
In that backpeddle, you can almost hear the gears moaning......
> >> >And what is this assertion based upon? "He cannot have been ignorant"
> >> >is not history!
>
> >> <ROTFLMAO> here's a bio for Dr. RAHE
>
> >(Irrelevant material snipped.)
>
> >Look, I don't care who he is..."he cannot have been ignorant of" is a
> >supposition. It's not history.
>
> It's as good as the "Letter from J. M. Tumulty, secretary to President
> Wilson, to the Boston branch of the NAACP" which claimed otherwise...
> in fact, it's better because Tumulty certainly had good reason to not
> speak otherwise about Wilson's involvement.
Tumulty's letter is what a historian calls 'evidence'....whatever you
may think of it..... A supposition is not evidence. A historian may
infer, but the inference has to be based on something, and it must be
flagged up as an inference. That's how you tell good historical
writing from bad.
>
> The hard cold fact is that Wilson could hardly have been unaware of
> the nature of his Friend Dixon's book and could hardly have been
> unaware that the movie was based upon that book.
It's not 'hard cold fact, though.....
>
> >> >> Look it up, Worthless, and check out the author too.
>
> >I did. I wasn't particularly impressed.
>
> Like I said, his qualifications (which you snipped) make yours look
> like grade school level, Worthless.
I wasn't talking about qualifications, but objectivity and
historicity....
>
> I assume you snipped his bio because it so shamed you to have to
> compare it to yours...
It wasn't relevant to the poibt being made, and I said so.
>
> I also suspect from Worthlesston's posts that his "understanding" of
> the reconstruction period probably came from viewing Griffith's movie.
>
> The fact is, the KKK was, during the several years after the civil, a
> violent, ruthless terrorist outfit that burned, raped and killed many
> innocent people. And Worthlesston seems bent on denying that fact.
And you now parade the fact that you are a completely ignorant person,
who cannot divorce historical opinion from personal opinion. Why?
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 7, 11:35 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 14:43:25 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>>
>> >> >Not a work of film history, is it?
>>
>> >> <chuckle> It's actually a work of history, by a learned history
>> >> professor.
>>
>> >But it isn't a work about film history! Do you seriously imagine that
>> >acadedemic historians are expert in all historical fields?
>>
>> The issue is about historical events, Dummy, and I do (seriously)
>> imagine the learned history professor knew about it.
>
>He is an expert in every field? Amazing!
Compared to you, he is, Worthless.. but then, so am I compared to
you.
>> >> >"Dr. Rahe recently joined Hoover Institution Fellow and host of
>> >> >National Review Online's 'Uncommon Knowledge"video series Peter
>> >> >Robinson to defends his position that President Obama’s health-care
>> >> >proposals “presuppose the administrative state’s assuming a power over
>> >> >our lives that is nothing less than tyrannical." (This illiteracy is
>> >> >transcribed verbatim from his website.)
>>
>> >> Which is all quite true...
>>
>> >Well, the illiteracy is....but he may have a crap website designer....
>>
>> Typos merely signify an unsatisfactory editing job.. These
>> newsgroups used to be haunted by a college professor from main who
>> consistently misused the subjective vs objective personal pronouns.
>
>(Snicker!!!!)
>
>> >> > >Griffith quoted selectively from Wilson's
>> >> >> account.
>>
>> >> >Indeed. Do you ever read this stuff, Steve?
>>
>> >> Indeed, Griffith's movie did exactly that.. from Wilson's book,
>> >> "History of the American people," itself an inaccurate racist account
>> >> of the Reconstruction.
>>
>> >What part of "quoted selectively" don't you understand?
>>
>> Ok, <chuckle> so did you expect that he should have quoted the entire
>> book? <LOL> Of course he quoted selectively, you pathetic moron.
>
>In that backpeddle, you can almost hear the gears moaning......
<LOL> More senseless bluster and fume from Worthless who suddenly
realizes that the only alternative to "quoted selectively" from a
book is to quote the whole book, and cannot offer a sensible response.
>> >> >And what is this assertion based upon? "He cannot have been ignorant"
>> >> >is not history!
>>
>> >> <ROTFLMAO> here's a bio for Dr. RAHE
>>
>> >(Irrelevant material snipped.)
>>
>> >Look, I don't care who he is..."he cannot have been ignorant of" is a
>> >supposition. It's not history.
>>
>> It's as good as the "Letter from J. M. Tumulty, secretary to President
>> Wilson, to the Boston branch of the NAACP" which claimed otherwise...
>> in fact, it's better because Tumulty certainly had good reason to not
>> speak otherwise about Wilson's involvement.
>
>Tumulty's letter is what a historian calls 'evidence'....whatever you
>may think of it.....
<ROTFL> As if Worthlesston knew what any good kind of good writing
involved..
>A supposition is not evidence. A historian may
>infer, but the inference has to be based on something, and it must be
>flagged up as an inference. That's how you tell good historical
>writing from bad.
It was based on facts... that Wilson and Dixon were friends, and that
Dixon's book was widely known.
OTOH, Tumulty's letter is nothing more than hearsay, and highly
questionable hearsay at that. His obvious ulterior motive renders the
letter total bullshit.
>> The hard cold fact is that Wilson could hardly have been unaware of
>> the nature of his Friend Dixon's book and could hardly have been
>> unaware that the movie was based upon that book.
>
>
>It's not 'hard cold fact, though.....
Of course it is. To say otherwise you'd have to assume that Wilson
was not aware of his friend Dixon's book and that he wasn't aware of
it being the basis for the movie. Those scenarios are totally
ridiculous given their friendship.
>> >> >> Look it up, Worthless, and check out the author too.
>>
>> >I did. I wasn't particularly impressed.
>>
>> Like I said, his qualifications (which you snipped) make yours look
>> like grade school level, Worthless.
>
>
>I wasn't talking about qualifications, but objectivity and
>historicity....
<ROTFL> As if Tumulty had objectivity.... and as if Worthless had
any objectivity, considering his denial of Wilson's obvious racism,
and as if Worthless knew anything about American History...
Worthlesston likes Wilson because Wilson was something of a leftist,
so in Worthlesston's mind, Wilson could do no wrong... <LOL> and
then the silly fool questions Dr. Dr. Rahe's objectivity.
>> I assume you snipped his bio because it so shamed you to have to
>> compare it to yours...
>
>It wasn't relevant to the poibt being made, and I said so.
<LOL> Bullshit, Worthless, his qualifications were absolutely
relevant.
>> I also suspect from Worthlesston's posts that his "understanding" of
>> the reconstruction period probably came from viewing Griffith's movie.
>>
>> The fact is, the KKK was, during the several years after the civil, a
>> violent, ruthless terrorist outfit that burned, raped and killed many
>> innocent people. And Worthlesston seems bent on denying that fact.
>
>
>And you now parade the fact that you are a completely ignorant person,
>who cannot divorce historical opinion from personal opinion. Why?
I'm betting that Worthless cannot find a single credible source that
supports his opinion that the KKK was not, during the several years
after the civil, a violent, ruthless terrorist outfit that burned,
raped and killed many innocent people.
OTOH, I can produce reams of credible evidence that it was...
>(Obsessive shite deleted.)
>
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
Barry
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 03:16:35 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 7, 11:35 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 14:43:25 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
> >> >> >Not a work of film history, is it?
>
> >> >> <chuckle> It's actually a work of history, by a learned history
> >> >> professor.
>
> >> >But it isn't a work about film history! Do you seriously imagine that
> >> >acadedemic historians are expert in all historical fields?
>
> >> The issue is about historical events, Dummy, and I do (seriously)
> >> imagine the learned history professor knew about it.
>
> >He is an expert in every field? Amazing!
>
> Compared to you, he is, Worthless.. but then, so am I compared to
> you.
>
You are a very silly and ignorant person Steve. You demonstrate this
every time you post.
> >> >What part of "quoted selectively" don't you understand?
> >> Ok, <chuckle> so did you expect that he should have quoted the entire
> >> book? <LOL> Of course he quoted selectively, you pathetic moron.
>
> >In that backpeddle, you can almost hear the gears moaning......
>
> <LOL> More senseless bluster and fume from Worthless who suddenly
> realizes that the only alternative to "quoted selectively" from a
> book is to quote the whole book, and cannot offer a sensible response.
I rather thought that the meaning was quite clear. Every quotation is
selective, otherwise it would not be a quotation. Conseququently, when
anyone makes a point that a 'quotation is 'selective', it usually
means that it is either taken out of context, or has been picked
because it gives a particular slant. You appear to be too thick to
realise this....
>
>
> >> >> >And what is this assertion based upon? "He cannot have been ignorant"
> >> >> >is not history!
>
> >> >> <ROTFLMAO> here's a bio for Dr. RAHE
>
> >> >(Irrelevant material snipped.)
>
> >> >Look, I don't care who he is..."he cannot have been ignorant of" is a
> >> >supposition. It's not history.
>
> >> It's as good as the "Letter from J. M. Tumulty, secretary to President
> >> Wilson, to the Boston branch of the NAACP" which claimed otherwise...
> >> in fact, it's better because Tumulty certainly had good reason to not
> >> speak otherwise about Wilson's involvement.
>
> >Tumulty's letter is what a historian calls 'evidence'....whatever you
> >may think of it.....
>
> <ROTFL> As if Worthlesston knew what any good kind of good writing
> involved..
Well, I do have work published, both academic and non-academic......
>
> >A supposition is not evidence. A historian may
> >infer, but the inference has to be based on something, and it must be
> >flagged up as an inference. That's how you tell good historical
> >writing from bad.
>
> It was based on facts... that Wilson and Dixon were friends, and that
> Dixon's book was widely known.
And two and two can make five!
>
> OTOH, Tumulty's letter is nothing more than hearsay, and highly
> questionable hearsay at that. His obvious ulterior motive renders the
> letter total bullshit.
It's a letter, you stupid prat! It isn't hearsay, nor is it an
inference.
>
> >> The hard cold fact is that Wilson could hardly have been unaware of
> >> the nature of his Friend Dixon's book and could hardly have been
> >> unaware that the movie was based upon that book.
>
> >It's not 'hard cold fact, though.....
>
> Of course it is. To say otherwise you'd have to assume that Wilson
> was not aware of his friend Dixon's book and that he wasn't aware of
> it being the basis for the movie. Those scenarios are totally
> ridiculous given their friendship.
And that is supposition. It is not fact!
You would not make the grade as a history student....or any other kind
of university student, by the way....
(Shite deleted.)
Dr. Barry Worthington
6065 Dead, 1208 since 1/20/09
> On Jun 7, 11:35 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 14:43:25 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>
>> >> >Not a work of film history, is it?
>>
>> >> <chuckle> It's actually a work of history, by a learned history
>> >> professor.
>>
>> >But it isn't a work about film history! Do you seriously imagine that
>> >acadedemic historians are expert in all historical fields?
>>
>> The issue is about historical events, Dummy, and I do (seriously)
>> imagine the learned history professor knew about it.
>
> He is an expert in every field? Amazing!
He's a regular Usenet God. Much the way Tony Hancock was an English God
50 years ago.
Steve
1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 03:16:35 -0700, Barry wrote:
>
>> On Jun 7, 11:35 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 14:43:25 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>>
>>
>>> >> >Not a work of film history, is it?
>>>
>>> >> <chuckle> It's actually a work of history, by a learned history
>>> >> professor.
>>>
>>> >But it isn't a work about film history! Do you seriously imagine that
>>> >acadedemic historians are expert in all historical fields?
>>>
>>> The issue is about historical events, Dummy, and I do (seriously)
>>> imagine the learned history professor knew about it.
>>
>> He is an expert in every field? Amazing!
>
>He's a regular Usenet God. Much the way Tony Hancock was an English God
>50 years ago.
>>
>>
Steve
You obviously haven't a clue, Worthless..
> Every quotation is
>selective, otherwise it would not be a quotation. Conseququently, when
>anyone makes a point that a 'quotation is 'selective', it usually
>means that it is either taken out of context, or has been picked
>because it gives a particular slant. You appear to be too thick to
>realise this....
<LOL> That's utter bullshit. All it means is that he selected some
quotes that support the theme of the movie. That Wilson's book had
passages that supported the theme of the racist movie is all you need
to know.... One quote he used, did indeed support the racist theme of
the movie.
"The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation...
until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a
veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country."
--WOODROW WILSON
>> >> >> >And what is this assertion based upon? "He cannot have been ignorant"
>> >> >> >is not history!
>>
>> >> >> <ROTFLMAO> here's a bio for Dr. RAHE
>>
>> >> >(Irrelevant material snipped.)
>>
>> >> >Look, I don't care who he is..."he cannot have been ignorant of" is a
>> >> >supposition. It's not history.
>>
>> >> It's as good as the "Letter from J. M. Tumulty, secretary to President
>> >> Wilson, to the Boston branch of the NAACP" which claimed otherwise...
>> >> in fact, it's better because Tumulty certainly had good reason to not
>> >> speak otherwise about Wilson's involvement.
>>
>> >Tumulty's letter is what a historian calls 'evidence'....whatever you
>> >may think of it.....
>>
>> <ROTFL> As if Worthlesston knew what any good kind of good writing
>> involved..
>
>Well, I do have work published, both academic and non-academic......
Your publications are not worth the paper they're printed on,
Worthlesston. See below:
"My interest is the swinging sub-culture"
-- Barry Worthington
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cea0c8e1abca656b?dmode=source&hl=en
>> >A supposition is not evidence. A historian may
>> >infer, but the inference has to be based on something, and it must be
>> >flagged up as an inference. That's how you tell good historical
>> >writing from bad.
>>
>> It was based on facts... that Wilson and Dixon were friends, and that
>> Dixon's book was widely known.
>
>And two and two can make five!
Worthlesston wants us to believe that Wilson decided to show the movie
in the White House, thus tacitly promoting it, and didn't have a clue
what it was about, even though his friend wrote the very well known
book, "The Clansman,"that it was based upon, and even though the movie
was originally titled "The Clansman." Is it even remotely possible
that Dixon would ask Wilson to screen the movie without telling him
that it was based on his book? I think not...
>> OTOH, Tumulty's letter is nothing more than hearsay, and highly
>> questionable hearsay at that. His obvious ulterior motive renders the
>> letter total bullshit.
>
>It's a letter, you stupid prat! It isn't hearsay, nor is it an
>inference.
It's obviously hearsay. He's relating somebody else's (Wilson)
reaction to the movie... and given his, and Wilson's ulterior
motives, it's pure garbage...
>> >> The hard cold fact is that Wilson could hardly have been unaware of
>> >> the nature of his Friend Dixon's book and could hardly have been
>> >> unaware that the movie was based upon that book.
>>
>> >It's not 'hard cold fact, though.....
>>
>> Of course it is. To say otherwise you'd have to assume that Wilson
>> was not aware of his friend Dixon's book and that he wasn't aware of
>> it being the basis for the movie. Those scenarios are totally
>> ridiculous given their friendship.
>
>And that is supposition. It is not fact!
..supported by hard cold facts... and much more solid than Tumulty's
letter.
>You would not make the grade as a history student....or any other kind
>of university student, by the way....
<chuckle> been there, done that... with much better professors
than you, Worthless,for instance they knew that "government" didn't
only refer to the executive branch...
>(Shite deleted.)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
Barry
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 06:03:25 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> > Every quotation is
> >selective, otherwise it would not be a quotation. Conseququently, when
> >anyone makes a point that a 'quotation is 'selective', it usually
> >means that it is either taken out of context, or has been picked
> >because it gives a particular slant. You appear to be too thick to
> >realise this....
>
> <LOL> That's utter bullshit. All it means is that he selected some
> quotes that support the theme of the movie.
That isn't what 'selective' quoting usually implies.
>That Wilson's book had
> passages that supported the theme of the racist movie is all you need
> to know.... One quote he used, did indeed support the racist theme of
> the movie.
>
> "The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation...
> until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a
> veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country."
> --WOODROW WILSON
But neither you nor I know the original context of that quote.
> >> >Tumulty's letter is what a historian calls 'evidence'....whatever you
> >> >may think of it.....
>
> >> <ROTFL> As if Worthlesston knew what any good kind of good writing
> >> involved..
>
> >Well, I do have work published, both academic and non-academic......
>
> Your publications are not worth the paper they're printed on,
> Worthlesston.
I'm sure that Sage Publications (the publisher of 'Sex and Shunting'
the article that you salivate over) would be interested in this
opinion. Why not contact them at:-
SAGE Publications Ltd
1 Oliver's Yard
55 City Road
London
EC1Y 1SP
Better, still, as it's a peer reviewed (you might have to get someone
to explain that to you) publication, why not tell the Editorial Board
what you think of them and their judgement? They are Tim Edensor,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK; Adrian Franklin, University of
Tasmania, Australia; and Mike A Crang, University of Durham, UK
> >> >A supposition is not evidence. A historian may
> >> >infer, but the inference has to be based on something, and it must be
> >> >flagged up as an inference. That's how you tell good historical
> >> >writing from bad.
>
> >> It was based on facts... that Wilson and Dixon were friends, and that
> >> Dixon's book was widely known.
>
> >And two and two can make five!
>
> Worthlesston wants us to believe that Wilson decided to show the movie
> in the White House, thus tacitly promoting it, and didn't have a clue
> what it was about, even though his friend wrote the very well known
> book, "The Clansman,"that it was based upon, and even though the movie
> was originally titled "The Clansman." Is it even remotely possible
> that Dixon would ask Wilson to screen the movie without telling him
> that it was based on his book? I think not...
The only hard evidence that we have is Tumuty's letter, suggesting
that Wilson wasn't aware of the content of the film. The rest is
supposition. Even Wilson's famous quote about the film cannot be
sourced (as Ebert points out).
>
> >> OTOH, Tumulty's letter is nothing more than hearsay, and highly
> >> questionable hearsay at that. His obvious ulterior motive renders the
> >> letter total bullshit.
>
> >It's a letter, you stupid prat! It isn't hearsay, nor is it an
> >inference.
>
> It's obviously hearsay. He's relating somebody else's (Wilson)
> reaction to the movie... and given his, and Wilson's ulterior
> motives, it's pure garbage...
That isn't a definition of hearsay evidence as far as a historian is
concerned. A written source is a written source, and the provenance is
the next best thing to Wilson himself.
>
> >> >> The hard cold fact is that Wilson could hardly have been unaware of
> >> >> the nature of his Friend Dixon's book and could hardly have been
> >> >> unaware that the movie was based upon that book.
>
> >> >It's not 'hard cold fact, though.....
>
> >> Of course it is. To say otherwise you'd have to assume that Wilson
> >> was not aware of his friend Dixon's book and that he wasn't aware of
> >> it being the basis for the movie. Those scenarios are totally
> >> ridiculous given their friendship.
>
> >And that is supposition. It is not fact!
>
> ..supported by hard cold facts... and much more solid than Tumulty's
> letter.
No it isn't. It's still supposition. Tumulty's letter is evidence.
>
> >You would not make the grade as a history student....or any other kind
> >of university student, by the way....
>
> <chuckle> been there, done that... with much better professors
> than you, Worthless,for instance they knew that "government" didn't
> only refer to the executive branch...
All right! Where and when did you do that? Who were your teachers?
What did you study? Put up or shut up!
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 9, 12:40 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 06:03:25 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>> > Every quotation is
>> >selective, otherwise it would not be a quotation. Conseququently, when
>> >anyone makes a point that a 'quotation is 'selective', it usually
>> >means that it is either taken out of context, or has been picked
>> >because it gives a particular slant. You appear to be too thick to
>> >realise this....
>>
>> <LOL> That's utter bullshit. All it means is that he selected some
>> quotes that support the theme of the movie.
>
>That isn't what 'selective' quoting usually implies.
Poor, dumb Worthlesston, still pretending that his lopsided opinions
are significant.
> >That Wilson's book had
>> passages that supported the theme of the racist movie is all you need
>> to know.... One quote he used, did indeed support the racist theme of
>> the movie.
>>
>> "The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation...
>> until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a
>> veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country."
>> --WOODROW WILSON
>
>
>But neither you nor I know the original context of that quote.
No further context is required. It's racist and wrong on it's
surface.
>> >> >Tumulty's letter is what a historian calls 'evidence'....whatever you
>> >> >may think of it.....
>>
>> >> <ROTFL> As if Worthlesston knew what any good kind of good writing
>> >> involved..
>>
>> >Well, I do have work published, both academic and non-academic......
>>
>> Your publications are not worth the paper they're printed on,
>> Worthlesston.
>
>I'm sure that Sage Publications (the publisher of 'Sex and Shunting'
>the article that you salivate over) would be interested in this
>opinion. Why not contact them at:-
I wouldn't stoop low enough to inquire about your perverted article,
Worthlesston..
>SAGE Publications Ltd
>1 Oliver's Yard
>55 City Road
>London
>EC1Y 1SP
>
>Better, still, as it's a peer reviewed (you might have to get someone
>to explain that to you) publication, why not tell the Editorial Board
>what you think of them and their judgement? They are Tim Edensor,
>Manchester Metropolitan University, UK; Adrian Franklin, University of
>Tasmania, Australia; and Mike A Crang, University of Durham, UK
Why don't you tell them that I think your article is pure garbage,
Worthless?
>> >> >A supposition is not evidence. A historian may
>> >> >infer, but the inference has to be based on something, and it must be
>> >> >flagged up as an inference. That's how you tell good historical
>> >> >writing from bad.
>>
>> >> It was based on facts... that Wilson and Dixon were friends, and that
>> >> Dixon's book was widely known.
>>
>> >And two and two can make five!
>>
>> Worthlesston wants us to believe that Wilson decided to show the movie
>> in the White House, thus tacitly promoting it, and didn't have a clue
>> what it was about, even though his friend wrote the very well known
>> book, "The Clansman,"that it was based upon, and even though the movie
>> was originally titled "The Clansman." Is it even remotely possible
>> that Dixon would ask Wilson to screen the movie without telling him
>> that it was based on his book? I think not...
>
>The only hard evidence
No, actually there's hard evidence that Dixon wrote the book that the
movie was based on... that the book and subsequent play were very
well known, and that Dixon was a friend of Wilson. There are several
reports that Dixon was the one that persuaded Wilson to show the
movie...
> that we have is Tumuty's letter, suggesting
>that Wilson wasn't aware of the content of the film. The rest is
>supposition. Even Wilson's famous quote about the film cannot be
>sourced (as Ebert points out).
...and the letter is both hearsay and tainted by ulterior motive...
>> >> OTOH, Tumulty's letter is nothing more than hearsay, and highly
>> >> questionable hearsay at that. His obvious ulterior motive renders the
>> >> letter total bullshit.
>>
>> >It's a letter, you stupid prat! It isn't hearsay, nor is it an
>> >inference.
>>
>> It's obviously hearsay. He's relating somebody else's (Wilson)
>> reaction to the movie... and given his, and Wilson's ulterior
>> motives, it's pure garbage...
>
>That isn't a definition of hearsay evidence as far as a historian is
>concerned. A written source is a written source, and the provenance is
>the next best thing to Wilson himself.
<LOL> So, Dr. Rahe's account, which is written source, is also
evidence...
Fact is, Dummy, that being a "written source" does not mean that it
can be relied on, and the letter is obviously tainted by the obvious
ulterior motives.
>> >> >> The hard cold fact is that Wilson could hardly have been unaware of
>> >> >> the nature of his Friend Dixon's book and could hardly have been
>> >> >> unaware that the movie was based upon that book.
>>
>> >> >It's not 'hard cold fact, though.....
>>
>> >> Of course it is. To say otherwise you'd have to assume that Wilson
>> >> was not aware of his friend Dixon's book and that he wasn't aware of
>> >> it being the basis for the movie. Those scenarios are totally
>> >> ridiculous given their friendship.
>>
>> >And that is supposition. It is not fact!
>>
>> ..supported by hard cold facts... and much more solid than Tumulty's
>> letter.
>
>No it isn't. It's still supposition. Tumulty's letter is evidence.
...tainted by ulterior motive.,..
>> >You would not make the grade as a history student....or any other kind
>> >of university student, by the way....
>>
>> <chuckle> been there, done that... with much better professors
>> than you, Worthless,for instance they knew that "government" didn't
>> only refer to the executive branch...
>
>All right! Where and when did you do that? Who were your teachers?
>What did you study? Put up or shut up!
Oh FU, Worthlesston. The fact that I best you on every subject we've
discussed is all the evidence I need.
>(Shite deleted.)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
Worthless doesn't have to pretend to be a clown. He is a clown.
First I schooled Worthless about how John Steinbeck hated governments
and how he pledged to fight against anything that inhibited
individualism.. That would obviously include any kind of
collectivism..
Then I schooled Worthless on the meaning of the word collectivism.
Then I schooled Worthless on the use of the word collectivism by
Bakunin.
Then I schooled Worthless on how Bakunin advanced the notion of
collective ownership of the means of production like Marx was also
doing.
Then I schooled Worthless about how the feud between Marx and Bakunin
was about whether the individual was subjugated to the state or to the
local commune.
Then I schooled Worthless about how in the communist manifesto, Marx
advanced the notion of the state being the high authority and ruling
over the people.
6065 Dead, 1208 since 1/20/09
Actually, it can, and despite the fact that Steve quotes it, it is pretty
much in context. Here's what Wikiquotes says: " Adventurers swarmed
out of the North, as much the enemies of one race as of the other, to
cozen, beguile and use the negroes. The white men were aroused by a mere
instinct of self-preservation — until at last there sprung into existence
a great Kuklux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the
Southern country.
A History of the American People (1901), describing the Klan as a
brotherhood of politically disenfranchised white men; famously quoted in
The Birth of a Nation (1915)."
With his views on society and race, Wilson would be a Republican today.
He believed the role of the United States was to create wealth, he was,
by today's standards, a racist, and prior to 1916, a isolationist.
Of course, it's never quite that simple. He also said things like, "The
only reason I read a book is because I cannot see and converse with the
man who wrote it." (try to imagine Bush or Palin holding that view!) and
"It has never been natural, it has seldom been possible, in this country
for learning to seek a place apart and hold aloof from affairs. It is
only when society is old, long settled to its ways, confident in habit,
and without self-questioning upon any vital point of conduct, that study
can affect seclusion and despise the passing interests of the day." --
mind you, he was saying that as an isolationist. Politics were much more
nuanced and textured then they are today.
Barry
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 18:22:59 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
> >On Jun 9, 12:40 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 06:03:25 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
> >> Worthlesston.
>
> >I'm sure that Sage Publications (the publisher of 'Sex and Shunting'
> >the article that you salivate over) would be interested in this
> >opinion. Why not contact them at:-
>
> I wouldn't stoop low enough to inquire about your perverted article,
> Worthlesston..
You chickened out!!!!!!
>
> >SAGE Publications Ltd
> >1 Oliver's Yard
> >55 City Road
> >London
> >EC1Y 1SP
>
> >Better, still, as it's a peer reviewed (you might have to get someone
> >to explain that to you) publication, why not tell the Editorial Board
> >what you think of them and their judgement? They are Tim Edensor,
> >Manchester Metropolitan University, UK; Adrian Franklin, University of
> >Tasmania, Australia; and Mike A Crang, University of Durham, UK
>
> Why don't you tell them that I think your article is pure garbage,
> Worthless?
They wouldn't be interested in the opinion of a moron.......
Chickened out again?
> >The only hard evidence
> No, actually there's hard evidence that Dixon wrote the book that the
> movie was based on... that the book and subsequent play were very
> well known, and that Dixon was a friend of Wilson. There are several
> reports that Dixon was the one that persuaded Wilson to show the
> movie...
What reports? And even if he did, what would that prove? (apart from
the fact that Dixon wanted the publicity). Does it indicate that
Wilson knew the actual content of the film beforehand? No, it
doesn't....
>
> > that we have is Tumuty's letter, suggesting
> >that Wilson wasn't aware of the content of the film. The rest is
> >supposition. Even Wilson's famous quote about the film cannot be
> >sourced (as Ebert points out).
>
> ...and the letter is both hearsay and tainted by ulterior motive...
It's written evidence...
> >That isn't a definition of hearsay evidence as far as a historian is
> >concerned. A written source is a written source, and the provenance is
> >the next best thing to Wilson himself.
>
> <LOL> So, Dr. Rahe's account, which is written source, is also
> evidence...
It's not a source! It's historical interpretation! That's what
historians do!
>
> Fact is, Dummy, that being a "written source" does not mean that it
> can be relied on, and the letter is obviously tainted by the obvious
> ulterior motives.
Bloody nutter!!!!
> >> >You would not make the grade as a history student....or any other kind
> >> >of university student, by the way....
>
> >> <chuckle> been there, done that... with much better professors
> >> than you, Worthless,for instance they knew that "government" didn't
> >> only refer to the executive branch...
>
> >All right! Where and when did you do that? Who were your teachers?
> >What did you study? Put up or shut up!
>
> Oh FU, Worthlesston. The fact that I best you on every subject we've
> discussed is all the evidence I need.
Chickened out yet again!!!!!!!!!
Cluck! Cluck! Cluck!
You are an ignorant fantasist, Steve......
(Usual obsessive shite deleted.)
Goodbye,
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 9, 2:48 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 18:22:59 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>>
>> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 9, 12:40 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 06:03:25 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>>
>> >> Your publications are not worth the paper they're printed on,
>> >> Worthlesston.
>>
>> >I'm sure that Sage Publications (the publisher of 'Sex and Shunting'
>> >the article that you salivate over) would be interested in this
>> >opinion. Why not contact them at:-
>>
>> I wouldn't stoop low enough to inquire about your perverted article,
>> Worthlesston..
>
>You chickened out!!!!!!
"chickened out??" You must be kidding... why would anyone be
afraid to do that?
>> >SAGE Publications Ltd
>> >1 Oliver's Yard
>> >55 City Road
>> >London
>> >EC1Y 1SP
>>
>> >Better, still, as it's a peer reviewed (you might have to get someone
>> >to explain that to you) publication, why not tell the Editorial Board
>> >what you think of them and their judgement? They are Tim Edensor,
>> >Manchester Metropolitan University, UK; Adrian Franklin, University of
>> >Tasmania, Australia; and Mike A Crang, University of Durham, UK
>>
>> Why don't you tell them that I think your article is pure garbage,
>> Worthless?
>
>They wouldn't be interested in the opinion of a moron.......
>
>Chickened out again?
I simply not interested in your pornography, Worthless, nor in any
morons that might consider an article on <LOL> "Sex and Shunting" to
be a scholarly work.
>> >The only hard evidence
>
>> No, actually there's hard evidence that Dixon wrote the book that the
>> movie was based on... that the book and subsequent play were very
>> well known, and that Dixon was a friend of Wilson. There are several
>> reports that Dixon was the one that persuaded Wilson to show the
>> movie...
>
>What reports? And even if he did, what would that prove? (apart from
>the fact that Dixon wanted the publicity). Does it indicate that
>Wilson knew the actual content of the film beforehand? No, it
>doesn't....
>
>>
>> > that we have is Tumuty's letter, suggesting
>> >that Wilson wasn't aware of the content of the film. The rest is
>> >supposition. Even Wilson's famous quote about the film cannot be
>> >sourced (as Ebert points out).
>>
>> ...and the letter is both hearsay and tainted by ulterior motive...
>
>It's written evidence...
>
>> >That isn't a definition of hearsay evidence as far as a historian is
>> >concerned. A written source is a written source, and the provenance is
>> >the next best thing to Wilson himself.
>>
>> <LOL> So, Dr. Rahe's account, which is written source, is also
>> evidence...
>
>It's not a source! It's historical interpretation! That's what
>historians do!
...and here's Barry Worthlesston who insists that Woodrow Wilson
selected the movie, "The birth of a nation," to be shown in the White
House for his staff and Cabinet and didn't know that his friend's
widely known book and subsequent play, "The Clansman," was the basis
for the book, even though the movie had been originally named "The
Clansman."
>> Fact is, Dummy, that being a "written source" does not mean that it
>> can be relied on, and the letter is obviously tainted by the obvious
>> ulterior motives.
>
>Bloody nutter!!!!
Poor dumb Worthless imagines that Wilson and his staff was 100% honest
when they told the NAACP that Wilson would never have selected his
friends racist movie for viewing at the White House... Oh no, even
though it was based on and originally named "The Clansman" after the
widely circulated book...
>> >> >You would not make the grade as a history student....or any other kind
>> >> >of university student, by the way....
>>
>> >> <chuckle> been there, done that... with much better professors
>> >> than you, Worthless,for instance they knew that "government" didn't
>> >> only refer to the executive branch...
>>
>> >All right! Where and when did you do that? Who were your teachers?
>> >What did you study? Put up or shut up!
>>
>> Oh FU, Worthlesston. The fact that I best you on every subject we've
>> discussed is all the evidence I need.
>
>Chickened out yet again!!!!!!!!!
>
>Cluck! Cluck! Cluck!
hehehehe, grow up, Worthless. My life is none of your business and
unlike you, I don't claim to know everything by referencing my
education. I let the fact that I best you on so many issues stand for
itself.
>You are an ignorant fantasist, Steve......
Irony anyone?
That's from Barry Worthlesston who thinks his article on <LOL> "Sex
and Shunting" is a scholarly work.
>(Usual obsessive shite deleted.)
Run and hide, Worthless...
>Goodbye,
Barry
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 00:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> >> >> Your publications are not worth the paper they're printed on,
> >> >> Worthlesston.
>
> >> >I'm sure that Sage Publications (the publisher of 'Sex and Shunting'
> >> >the article that you salivate over) would be interested in this
> >> >opinion. Why not contact them at:-
>
> >> I wouldn't stoop low enough to inquire about your perverted article,
> >> Worthlesston..
>
> >You chickened out!!!!!!
>
> "chickened out??" You must be kidding... why would anyone be
> afraid to do that?
I don't know. But you clearly are....
> >> >SAGE Publications Ltd
> >> >1 Oliver's Yard
> >> >55 City Road
> >> >London
> >> >EC1Y 1SP
>
> >> >Better, still, as it's a peer reviewed (you might have to get someone
> >> >to explain that to you) publication, why not tell the Editorial Board
> >> >what you think of them and their judgement? They are Tim Edensor,
> >> >Manchester Metropolitan University, UK; Adrian Franklin, University of
> >> >Tasmania, Australia; and Mike A Crang, University of Durham, UK
>
> >> Why don't you tell them that I think your article is pure garbage,
> >> Worthless?
>
> >They wouldn't be interested in the opinion of a moron.......
>
> >Chickened out again?
>
> I simply not interested in your pornography, Worthless, nor in any
> morons that might consider an article on <LOL> "Sex and Shunting" to
> be a scholarly work.
But they, and everyone else in the academic world, clearly do see it
as a scholarly work. But being an ignorant fool, why would anybody
take any notice of your opinion anyway?
>
(Irrelevant matter deleted.)
> >> >All right! Where and when did you do that? Who were your teachers?
> >> >What did you study? Put up or shut up!
>
> >> Oh FU, Worthlesston. The fact that I best you on every subject we've
> >> discussed is all the evidence I need.
>
> >Chickened out yet again!!!!!!!!!
>
> >Cluck! Cluck! Cluck!
>
> hehehehe, grow up, Worthless. My life is none of your business
Neither is mine, you arrogant fool!
So bugger off!!!!!!
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 9, 11:43 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 00:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>> >> >> Your publications are not worth the paper they're printed on,
>> >> >> Worthlesston.
>>
>> >> >I'm sure that Sage Publications (the publisher of 'Sex and Shunting'
>> >> >the article that you salivate over) would be interested in this
>> >> >opinion. Why not contact them at:-
>>
>> >> I wouldn't stoop low enough to inquire about your perverted article,
>> >> Worthlesston..
>>
>> >You chickened out!!!!!!
>>
>> "chickened out??" You must be kidding... why would anyone be
>> afraid to do that?
>
>I don't know. But you clearly are....
What's clear, Worthless, is that I'm clearly not interested in <LOL>
"Sex and Shunting" or in any perverts that have anything to do with
your article about it.
>> >> >SAGE Publications Ltd
>> >> >1 Oliver's Yard
>> >> >55 City Road
>> >> >London
>> >> >EC1Y 1SP
>>
>> >> >Better, still, as it's a peer reviewed (you might have to get someone
>> >> >to explain that to you) publication, why not tell the Editorial Board
>> >> >what you think of them and their judgement? They are Tim Edensor,
>> >> >Manchester Metropolitan University, UK; Adrian Franklin, University of
>> >> >Tasmania, Australia; and Mike A Crang, University of Durham, UK
>>
>> >> Why don't you tell them that I think your article is pure garbage,
>> >> Worthless?
>>
>> >They wouldn't be interested in the opinion of a moron.......
>>
>> >Chickened out again?
>>
>> I simply not interested in your pornography, Worthless, nor in any
>> morons that might consider an article oncto
>> be a scholarly work.
>
>But they, and everyone else in the academic world, clearly do see it
>as a scholarly work. But being an ignorant fool, why would anybody
>take any notice of your opinion anyway?
<ROTFL> Now Barry Worthless, the pathetic little homosexual dweeb,
imagines that he speaks for everyone in the academic world...
I'm real sure, that there's only a wee, tiny, almost insignificant
percentage of the "academic world" that has even heard of
Worthlesston's pathetic article on <LOL> "Sex and Shunting" and that a
large percentage of those dismissed it with a smirk or a giggle...
It's kind of sad that all poor Barry Worthlesston has to show for his
wasted life is a pathetic article about swingers..
>(Irrelevant matter deleted.)
>
>> >> >All right! Where and when did you do that? Who were your teachers?
>> >> >What did you study? Put up or shut up!
>>
>> >> Oh FU, Worthlesston. The fact that I best you on every subject we've
>> >> discussed is all the evidence I need.
>>
>> >Chickened out yet again!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> >Cluck! Cluck! Cluck!
>>
>> hehehehe, grow up, Worthless. My life is none of your business
>
>Neither is mine, you arrogant fool!
Sorry, Worthless, but you're the one that showed up here on Usenet
trying to garner respect by bragging about your education and your
ridiculous article about <LOL> "Sex and Shunting" and proclaiming:
"My interest is the swinging sub-culture"
-- Barry Worthington
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cea0c8e1abca656b?dmode=source&hl=en
>So bugger off!!!!!!
I'm really not interested in your homosexual activities, either,
Worthless...
>Dr. Barry Worthington
This is from Barry Worthlesston who insists that his racist hero,
Woodrow Wilson, and his staff were 100% honest when they told the
NAACP that Wilson would never have selected his friends racist
movie for viewing at the White House had they known it's racist
nature... Oh no, even though it was based on and originally named
"The Clansman" after the widely circulated book and popular play.
Barry
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 9, 11:43 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 00:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
> >> >> >> Your publications are not worth the paper they're printed on,
> >> >> >> Worthlesston.
>
> >> >> >I'm sure that Sage Publications (the publisher of 'Sex and Shunting'
> >> >> >the article that you salivate over) would be interested in this
> >> >> >opinion. Why not contact them at:-
>
> >> >> I wouldn't stoop low enough to inquire about your perverted article,
> >> >> Worthlesston..
>
> >> >You chickened out!!!!!!
>
> >> "chickened out??" You must be kidding... why would anyone be
> >> afraid to do that?
>
> >I don't know. But you clearly are....
>
> What's clear, Worthless, is that I'm clearly not interested in <LOL>
> "Sex and Shunting" or in any perverts that have anything to do with
> your article about it.
Oh? Are you looking for a libel case in England? The gentlemen may not
take kindly to what you call the. (But I doubt that even if they read
this n.g. that they would bother with someone like you.....)
> >> >> Why don't you tell them that I think your article is pure garbage,
> >> >> Worthless?
>
> >> >They wouldn't be interested in the opinion of a moron.......
>
> >> >Chickened out again?
>
> >> I simply not interested in your pornography, Worthless, nor in any
> >> morons that might consider an article oncto
> >> be a scholarly work.
>
> >But they, and everyone else in the academic world, clearly do see it
> >as a scholarly work. But being an ignorant fool, why would anybody
> >take any notice of your opinion anyway?
> <ROTFL> Now Barry Worthless, the pathetic little homosexual dweeb,
> imagines that he speaks for everyone in the academic world...
>
> I'm real sure, that there's only a wee, tiny, almost insignificant
> percentage of the "academic world" that has even heard of
> Worthlesston's pathetic article on <LOL> "Sex and Shunting" and that a
> large percentage of those dismissed it with a smirk or a giggle...
And what would you know about the academic world? Or citations? Or
reading lists?
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 9, 9:04 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 9, 11:43 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 00:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>>
>> >> >> >> Your publications are not worth the paper they're printed on,
>> >> >> >> Worthlesston.
>>
>> >> >> >I'm sure that Sage Publications (the publisher of 'Sex and Shunting'
>> >> >> >the article that you salivate over) would be interested in this
>> >> >> >opinion. Why not contact them at:-
>>
>> >> >> I wouldn't stoop low enough to inquire about your perverted article,
>> >> >> Worthlesston..
>>
>> >> >You chickened out!!!!!!
>>
>> >> "chickened out??" You must be kidding... why would anyone be
>> >> afraid to do that?
>>
>> >I don't know. But you clearly are....
>>
>> What's clear, Worthless, is that I'm clearly not interested in <LOL>
>> "Sex and Shunting" or in any perverts that have anything to do with
>> your article about it.
>
>Oh? Are you looking for a libel case in England?
<ROTFLMAO> Bring it on, you silly little queer...
>The gentlemen may not
>take kindly to what you call the. (But I doubt that even if they read
>this n.g. that they would bother with someone like you.....)
>
>> >> >> Why don't you tell them that I think your article is pure garbage,
>> >> >> Worthless?
>>
>> >> >They wouldn't be interested in the opinion of a moron.......
>>
>> >> >Chickened out again?
>>
>> >> I simply not interested in your pornography, Worthless, nor in any
>> >> morons that might consider an article oncto
>> >> be a scholarly work.
>>
>> >But they, and everyone else in the academic world, clearly do see it
>> >as a scholarly work. But being an ignorant fool, why would anybody
>> >take any notice of your opinion anyway?
>
>> <ROTFL> Now Barry Worthless, the pathetic little homosexual dweeb,
>> imagines that he speaks for everyone in the academic world...
>>
>> I'm real sure, that there's only a wee, tiny, almost insignificant
>> percentage of the "academic world" that has even heard of
>> Worthlesston's pathetic article on <LOL> "Sex and Shunting" and that a
>> large percentage of those dismissed it with a smirk or a giggle...
>
>And what would you know about the academic world? Or citations? Or
>reading lists?
I know that the vast majority of people of any kind, upon seeing an
article on <LOL> "Sex and Shunting," would dismissed it with a smirk
or a giggle...
It is, most certainly, nothing more than a pathetically ridiculous
testament to your wasted life, Worthless, and it appears to be the
sole item you have in your resume. Oh wait, you also have a travel
brochure, don't you?
>(Shite deleted.)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
This is from Barry Worthlesston who insists that his racist hero,
Woodrow Wilson, and his staff were 100% honest when they told the
NAACP that Wilson would never have selected his friends racist
movie for viewing at the White House had they known it's racist
theme... Oh no, even though it was based on and originally named
"The Clansman" after the widely circulated book and popular play.
Barry
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:20:39 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> >> "Sex and Shunting" or in any perverts that have anything to do with
> >> your article about it.
>
> >Oh? Are you looking for a libel case in England?
>
> <ROTFLMAO> Bring it on, you silly little queer...
I wasn't talking about myself, Steve...
> >The gentlemen may not
> >take kindly to what you call the. (But I doubt that even if they read
> >this n.g. that they would bother with someone like you.....)
As this passage clearly demonstrates...
One of these days, you will open that silly mouth of yours and someone
will fill it....though I suspect that may have happened in the
past....
> >> I'm real sure, that there's only a wee, tiny, almost insignificant
> >> percentage of the "academic world" that has even heard of
> >> Worthlesston's pathetic article on <LOL> "Sex and Shunting" and that a
> >> large percentage of those dismissed it with a smirk or a giggle...
>
> >And what would you know about the academic world? Or citations? Or
> >reading lists?
>
> I know that the vast majority of people of any kind, upon seeing an
> article on <LOL> "Sex and Shunting," would dismissed it with a smirk
> or a giggle...
The vast majority of people reading this thread (if anyone still is)
will rapidly come to the conclusion that I am dealing with an idiot,
and wonder why I am wasting my time....
>
> It is, most certainly, nothing more than a pathetically ridiculous
> testament to your wasted life, Worthless, and it appears to be the
> sole item you have in your resume. Oh wait, you also have a travel
> brochure, don't you?
Several academic articles, a book chapter, and a book........you can
find them on Google Scholar. But it doesn't include my non-academic
writing...try Amazon for that.....
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 9, 9:35 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:20:39 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>> >> What's clear, Worthless, is that I'm clearly not interested in <LOL>
>> >> "Sex and Shunting" or in any perverts that have anything to do with
>> >> your article about it.
>>
>> >Oh? Are you looking for a libel case in England?
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO> Bring it on, you silly little queer...
>
>I wasn't talking about myself, Steve...
>
>> >The gentlemen may not
>> >take kindly to what you call the. (But I doubt that even if they read
>> >this n.g. that they would bother with someone like you.....)
>
>As this passage clearly demonstrates...
Barry Worthlesston's 'article' demonstrates that it doesn't take much
to impress the other fools within the halls of academia.
Those that can, do, those that can't, teach, and those that don't have
a clue, administrate the teachers..
>One of these days, you will open that silly mouth of yours and someone
>will fill it....though I suspect that may have happened in the
>past....
<ROTFLMAO> Bring it on, you silly little queer... I'm not only
smarter than you, I'm way tougher, emotionally and physically, than
you could even imagine.
>> >> I'm real sure, that there's only a wee, tiny, almost insignificant
>> >> percentage of the "academic world" that has even heard of
>> >> Worthlesston's pathetic article on <LOL> "Sex and Shunting" and that a
>> >> large percentage of those dismissed it with a smirk or a giggle...
>>
>> >And what would you know about the academic world? Or citations? Or
>> >reading lists?
>>
>> I know that the vast majority of people of any kind, upon seeing an
>> article on <LOL> "Sex and Shunting," would dismissed it with a smirk
>> or a giggle...
>
>The vast majority of people reading this thread (if anyone still is)
>will rapidly come to the conclusion that I am dealing with an idiot,
>and wonder why I am wasting my time....
You're here because you need to try to get back at me for making you
look like a fool, Worthless. You probably imagine that your childish
insults bother me.
>> It is, most certainly, nothing more than a pathetically ridiculous
>> testament to your wasted life, Worthless, and it appears to be the
>> sole item you have in your resume. Oh wait, you also have a travel
>> brochure, don't you?
>
>
>Several academic articles, a book chapter, and a book........you can
>find them on Google Scholar. But it doesn't include my non-academic
>writing...try Amazon for that.....
<LOL> Pathetic.... and that's why you twice snipped the very
impressive bio of Dr. Rahe who totally blew your pathetic arguments
out of the water...
>(Shite deleted.)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
This is from Barry Worthlesston who insists that his racist hero,
Barry
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 03:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 9, 9:35 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:20:39 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> >> >> What's clear, Worthless, is that I'm clearly not interested in <LOL>
> >> >> "Sex and Shunting" or in any perverts that have anything to do with
> >> >> your article about it.
>
> >> >Oh? Are you looking for a libel case in England?
>
> >> <ROTFLMAO> Bring it on, you silly little queer...
>
> >I wasn't talking about myself, Steve...
>
> >> >The gentlemen may not
> >> >take kindly to what you call the. (But I doubt that even if they read
> >> >this n.g. that they would bother with someone like you.....)
>
> >As this passage clearly demonstrates...
>
> Barry Worthlesston's 'article' demonstrates that it doesn't take much
> to impress the other fools within the halls of academia.
>
> Those that can, do, those that can't, teach, and those that don't have
> a clue, administrate the teachers..
The facts that you don't seem to like education )there must be an
interesting story behind that) and that you are an insignificant
idiot, is not my problem.....
> >One of these days, you will open that silly mouth of yours and someone
> >will fill it....though I suspect that may have happened in the
> >past....
>
> <ROTFLMAO> Bring it on, you silly little queer... I'm not only
> smarter than you, I'm way tougher, emotionally and physically, than
> you could even imagine.
And you are a nutter......
>
> >> >> I'm real sure, that there's only a wee, tiny, almost insignificant
> >> >> percentage of the "academic world" that has even heard of
> >> >> Worthlesston's pathetic article on <LOL> "Sex and Shunting" and that a
> >> >> large percentage of those dismissed it with a smirk or a giggle...
>
> >> >And what would you know about the academic world? Or citations? Or
> >> >reading lists?
>
> >> I know that the vast majority of people of any kind, upon seeing an
> >> article on <LOL> "Sex and Shunting," would dismissed it with a smirk
> >> or a giggle...
>
> >The vast majority of people reading this thread (if anyone still is)
> >will rapidly come to the conclusion that I am dealing with an idiot,
> >and wonder why I am wasting my time....
>
> You're here because you need to try to get back at me for making you
> look like a fool, Worthless. You probably imagine that your childish
> insults bother me.
I'm starting to wonder why I am here, since no-one else bothers with
your ramblings.
But, if other people have dogs...why not a pet arsehole?
>
> >> It is, most certainly, nothing more than a pathetically ridiculous
> >> testament to your wasted life, Worthless, and it appears to be the
> >> sole item you have in your resume. Oh wait, you also have a travel
> >> brochure, don't you?
>
> >Several academic articles, a book chapter, and a book........you can
> >find them on Google Scholar. But it doesn't include my non-academic
> >writing...try Amazon for that.....
>
> <LOL> Pathetic....
Really? And what have you had published?
>and that's why you twice snipped the very
> impressive bio of Dr. Rahe who totally blew your pathetic arguments
> out of the water...
Actually, it didn't, because it was completely irrelevant to the point
at hand.
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 10, 11:52 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 03:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 9, 9:35 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:20:39 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>> >> >> What's clear, Worthless, is that I'm clearly not interested in <LOL>
>> >> >> "Sex and Shunting" or in any perverts that have anything to do with
>> >> >> your article about it.
>>
>> >> >Oh? Are you looking for a libel case in England?
>>
>> >> <ROTFLMAO> Bring it on, you silly little queer...
>>
>> >I wasn't talking about myself, Steve...
>>
>> >> >The gentlemen may not
>> >> >take kindly to what you call the. (But I doubt that even if they read
>> >> >this n.g. that they would bother with someone like you.....)
>>
>> >As this passage clearly demonstrates...
>>
>> Barry Worthlesston's 'article' demonstrates that it doesn't take much
>> to impress the other fools within the halls of academia.
>>
>> Those that can, do, those that can't, teach, and those that don't have
>> a clue, administrate the teachers..
>
>
>The facts that you don't seem to like education )there must be an
<LOL> I really like education, I just don't think much of educators.
I've been through several education systems but I've gone on to do a
lot of self education because of the failings of those systems. The
net result is that I've been very successful.
You're perfectly free to run away, Worthless.
>But, if other people have dogs...why not a pet c?
You enjoy having your arsehole kicked? Really???
>> >> It is, most certainly, nothing more than a pathetically ridiculous
>> >> testament to your wasted life, Worthless, and it appears to be the
>> >> sole item you have in your resume. Oh wait, you also have a travel
>> >> brochure, don't you?
>>
>> >Several academic articles, a book chapter, and a book........you can
>> >find them on Google Scholar. But it doesn't include my non-academic
>> >writing...try Amazon for that.....
>>
>> <LOL> Pathetic....
>
>Really? And what have you had published?
<ROTFLMAO> So now Worthlesston tries to portray his insignificant
"publications" as a measure of his success...
Any moron can get a book published these days, as evidenced by another
Usenet poster that I've slapped down countless times....
I'm sorry, Worthless, but success is measured in how much other people
value you, most noticeably, in how much they are willing to offer you
in return for what you do for them.
> >and that's why you twice snipped the very
>> impressive bio of Dr. Rahe who totally blew your pathetic arguments
>> out of the water...
>
>Actually, it didn't, because it was completely irrelevant to the point
>at hand.
Actually it did blow your arguments out of the water and his bio made
yours look like child's play...
>(Shite deleted.)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
This is from Barry Worthlesston who insists that his racist hero,
Barry
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 04:28:15 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> <LOL> I really like education, I just don't think much of educators.
> I've been through several education systems but I've gone on to do a
> lot of self education because of the failings of those systems.
Hmmm....you were...er....not a good student, then......
>The
> net result is that I've been very successful.
>
> >I'm starting to wonder why I am here, since no-one else bothers with
> >your ramblings.
>
> You're perfectly free to run away, Worthless.
I would imagine that's what most people do when they encounter you...
>
> >But, if other people have dogs...why not a pet
The word here is 'arsehole'. The adjective applies to you.
>c?
>
> You enjoy having your arsehole kicked? Really???
I usually kick yours, Steve!
>
> >> >> It is, most certainly, nothing more than a pathetically ridiculous
> >> >> testament to your wasted life, Worthless, and it appears to be the
> >> >> sole item you have in your resume. Oh wait, you also have a travel
> >> >> brochure, don't you?
>
> >> >Several academic articles, a book chapter, and a book........you can
> >> >find them on Google Scholar. But it doesn't include my non-academic
> >> >writing...try Amazon for that.....
>
> >> <LOL> Pathetic....
>
> >Really? And what have you had published?
>
> <ROTFLMAO> So now Worthlesston tries to portray his insignificant
> "publications" as a measure of his success...
>
> Any moron can get a book published these days, as evidenced by another
> Usenet poster that I've slapped down countless times....
We await your publication, Steve.
>
> I'm sorry, Worthless, but success is measured in how much other people
> value you, most noticeably, in how much they are willing to offer you
> in return for what you do for them.
Indeed it is Steve. But I wasn't aware that we were discussing
'sucess' in life. You do, however, have a peculiar urge to denigrate
other people that I find rather sad.
>
> > >and that's why you twice snipped the very
> >> impressive bio of Dr. Rahe who totally blew your pathetic arguments
> >> out of the water...
>
> >Actually, it didn't, because it was completely irrelevant to the point
> >at hand.
>
> Actually it did blow your arguments out of the water and his bio made
> yours look like child's play...
But his curriculum vitae has nothing to do with the use of supposition
in place of historical argument. Historians use supposition from time
to time, but it is always qualified. His use of supposition isn't
(assuming that he has been cited correctly).
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 10, 12:54 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 04:28:15 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>> <LOL> I really like education, I just don't think much of educators.
>> I've been through several education systems but I've gone on to do a
>> lot of self education because of the failings of those systems.
>
>Hmmm....you were...er....not a good student, then......
No, I actually got pretty good grades all my life, but I was always
way out ahead of the professors.
> >The
>> net result is that I've been very successful.
>
>>
>> >I'm starting to wonder why I am here, since no-one else bothers with
>> >your ramblings.
>>
>> You're perfectly free to run away, Worthless.
>
>I would imagine that's what most people do when they encounter you...
Your imagination is running away with you.. The fact is that I am
immensely popular among the many people I associate and have
associated with. My former employees thought I was great. The people
where I volunteer these days do also. Of course none of them are far
left socialist freaks like you.
>> >But, if other people have dogs...why not a pet
>
>The word here is 'arsehole'. The adjective applies to you.
Why would you imagine that I'd be interested in the opinions of a
pathetic loser like you, Worthless?
>>c?
>>
>> You enjoy having your arsehole kicked? Really???
>
>I usually kick yours, Steve!
Your imagination is running away with you, again.. see below:
First I schooled Worthless about how John Steinbeck hated governments
and how he pledged to fight against anything that inhibited
individualism.. That would obviously include any kind of
collectivism..
Then I schooled Worthless on the meaning of the word collectivism.
Then I schooled Worthless on the use of the word collectivism by
Bakunin.
Then I schooled Worthless on how Bakunin advanced the notion of
collective ownership of the means of production like Marx was also
doing.
Then I schooled Worthless about how the feud between Marx and Bakunin
was about whether the individual was subjugated to the state or to the
local commune.
Then I schooled Worthless about how in the communist manifesto, Marx
advanced the notion of the state being the high authority and ruling
over the people.
>> >> >> It is, most certainly, nothing more than a pathetically ridiculous
>> >> >> testament to your wasted life, Worthless, and it appears to be the
>> >> >> sole item you have in your resume. Oh wait, you also have a travel
>> >> >> brochure, don't you?
>>
>> >> >Several academic articles, a book chapter, and a book........you can
>> >> >find them on Google Scholar. But it doesn't include my non-academic
>> >> >writing...try Amazon for that.....
>>
>> >> <LOL> Pathetic....
>>
>> >Really? And what have you had published?
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO> So now Worthlesston tries to portray his insignificant
>> "publications" as a measure of his success...
>>
>> Any moron can get a book published these days, as evidenced by another
>> Usenet poster that I've slapped down countless times....
>
>We await your publication, Steve.
I have far more productive things to do..
>> I'm sorry, Worthless, but success is measured in how much other people
>> value you, most noticeably, in how much they are willing to offer you
>> in return for what you do for them.
>
>Indeed it is Steve. But I wasn't aware that we were discussing
>'sucess' in life. You do, however, have a peculiar urge to denigrate
>other people that I find rather sad.
I only denigrate people that deserve denigration. You for instance..
>> > >and that's why you twice snipped the very
>> >> impressive bio of Dr. Rahe who totally blew your pathetic arguments
>> >> out of the water...
>>
>> >Actually, it didn't, because it was completely irrelevant to the point
>> >at hand.
>>
>> Actually it did blow your arguments out of the water and his bio made
>> yours look like child's play...
>
>But his curriculum vitae has nothing to do with the use of supposition
>in place of historical argument. Historians use supposition from time
>to time, but it is always qualified. His use of supposition isn't
>(assuming that he has been cited correctly).
This is from Barry Worthlesston who insists that his racist hero,
Woodrow Wilson, and his staff were 100% honest when they told the
NAACP that Wilson would never have selected his friend's racist
movie for viewing at the White House had they known it's racist
theme... Oh no, even though it was based on and originally named
"The Clansman" after the widely circulated book and popular play.
>(Shite deleted.)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
Barry
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:31:59 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
> >On Jun 10, 12:54 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 04:28:15 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
> >> <LOL> I really like education, I just don't think much of educators.
> >> I've been through several education systems but I've gone on to do a
> >> lot of self education because of the failings of those systems.
>
> >Hmmm....you were...er....not a good student, then......
>
> No, I actually got pretty good grades all my life, but I was always
> way out ahead of the professors.
Sure, Steve...sure....(snicker!)
> >> You're perfectly free to run away, Worthless.
>
> >I would imagine that's what most people do when they encounter you...
>
> Your imagination is running away with you..
Coming from a fantasist, that's pretty funny!
>The fact is that I am
> immensely popular among the many people I associate and have
> associated with. My former employees thought I was great. The people
> where I volunteer these days do also. Of course none of them are far
> left socialist freaks like you.
How would you know? Steve, I'm prepared to believe that you do
voluntary work. But the lack of basic social skills that you
demonstrate in these postings does make me wonder about how you
interact with ordinary people.
>
> >> >But, if other people have dogs...why not a pet
>
> >The word here is 'arsehole'. The adjective applies to you.
>
> Why would you imagine that I'd be interested in the opinions of a
> pathetic loser like you, Worthless?
There's an easy answer to that. Stop these silly postings and you will
never see me again. But you won't, because your pathology means that
you always have to have the last word.....
> >>c?
>
> >> You enjoy having your arsehole kicked? Really???
>
> >I usually kick yours, Steve!
>
> Your imagination is running away with you, again.. see below:
>
(Obsessive shit deleted.)
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 10, 11:10 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:31:59 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>>
>> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 10, 12:54 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 04:28:15 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>>
>> >> <LOL> I really like education, I just don't think much of educators.
>> >> I've been through several education systems but I've gone on to do a
>> >> lot of self education because of the failings of those systems.
>>
>> >Hmmm....you were...er....not a good student, then......
>>
>> No, I actually got pretty good grades all my life, but I was always
>> way out ahead of the professors.
>
>Sure, Steve...sure....(snicker!)
Especially the one that came to later looking for a job...
>> >> You're perfectly free to run away, Worthless.
>>
>> >I would imagine that's what most people do when they encounter you...
>>
>> Your imagination is running away with you..
>
>Coming from a fantasist, that's pretty funny!
>
>>The fact is that I am
>> immensely popular among the many people I associate and have
>> associated with. My former employees thought I was great. The people
>> where I volunteer these days do also. Of course none of them are far
>> left socialist freaks like you.
>
>How would you know? Steve,
because I really know my friends and asasociates well.
I'm prepared to believe that you do
>voluntary work. But the lack of basic social skills that you
>demonstrate in these postings does make me wonder about how you
>interact with ordinary people.
My interactions with ordinary peoplke are really fine.. alrthough far
left socialist loons like yourself find me quite difficult to deal
with.
>> >> >But, if other people have dogs...why not a pet
>>
>> >The word here is 'arsehole'. The adjective applies to you.
>>
>> Why would you imagine that I'd be interested in the opinions of a
>> pathetic loser like you, Worthless?
>
>There's an easy answer to that. Stop these silly postings and you will
>never see me again. But you won't, because your pathology means that
>you always have to have the last word.....
I'm having way to much fun making you look like the fool that you are,
Worthless... Tell me again how you believe that the word "government"
only refers to the President...
>>
>> >> You enjoy having your arsehole kicked? Really???
>>
>> >I usually kick yours, Steve!
>>
>> Your imagination is running away with you, again.. see below:
>>
This is from Barry Worthlesston who insists that his racist hero,
Woodrow Wilson, and his staff were 100% honest when they told the
NAACP that Wilson would never have selected his friend's racist
movie for viewing at the White House had they known it's racist
theme... Oh no, even though it was based on and originally named
"The Clansman" after the widely circulated book and popular play.
>Dr. Barry Worthington
Barry
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 10, 11:10 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:31:59 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
> >> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 10, 12:54 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 04:28:15 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
> >> >> <LOL> I really like education, I just don't think much of educators.
> >> >> I've been through several education systems but I've gone on to do a
> >> >> lot of self education because of the failings of those systems.
>
> >> >Hmmm....you were...er....not a good student, then......
>
> >> No, I actually got pretty good grades all my life, but I was always
> >> way out ahead of the professors.
>
> >Sure, Steve...sure....(snicker!)
>
> Especially the one that came to later looking for a job...
How many times have you repeated that fantasy?
>
> >> >> You're perfectly free to run away, Worthless.
>
> >> >I would imagine that's what most people do when they encounter you...
>
> >> Your imagination is running away with you..
>
> >Coming from a fantasist, that's pretty funny!
>
> >>The fact is that I am
> >> immensely popular among the many people I associate and have
> >> associated with. My former employees thought I was great. The people
> >> where I volunteer these days do also. Of course none of them are far
> >> left socialist freaks like you.
>
> >How would you know? Steve,
>
> because I really know my friends and asasociates well.
>
> I'm prepared to believe that you do
>
> >voluntary work. But the lack of basic social skills that you
> >demonstrate in these postings does make me wonder about how you
> >interact with ordinary people.
>
> My interactions with ordinary peoplke are really fine.. alrthough far
> left socialist loons like yourself find me quite difficult to deal
> with.
But people do not walk around with signs stating their political
beliefs. Most people don't talk about politics in ordinary everyday
conversation. So you are, as usual, talking crap....
>
> >> >> >But, if other people have dogs...why not a pet
>
> >> >The word here is 'arsehole'. The adjective applies to you.
>
> >> Why would you imagine that I'd be interested in the opinions of a
> >> pathetic loser like you, Worthless?
>
> >There's an easy answer to that. Stop these silly postings and you will
> >never see me again. But you won't, because your pathology means that
> >you always have to have the last word.....
>
> I'm having way to much fun making you look like the fool that you are,
> Worthless... Tell me again how you believe that the word "government"
> only refers to the President...
Q.E.D.
> >> >> You enjoy having your arsehole kicked? Really???
>
> >> >I usually kick yours, Steve!
>
(Obsessive shit deleted.)
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 11, 12:17 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 10, 11:10 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:31:59 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>>
>> >> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 10, 12:54 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 04:28:15 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>>
>> >> >> <LOL> I really like education, I just don't think much of educators.
>> >> >> I've been through several education systems but I've gone on to do a
>> >> >> lot of self education because of the failings of those systems.
>>
>> >> >Hmmm....you were...er....not a good student, then......
>>
>> >> No, I actually got pretty good grades all my life, but I was always
>> >> way out ahead of the professors.
>>
>> >Sure, Steve...sure....(snicker!)
>>
>> Especially the one that came to later looking for a job...
>
>How many times have you repeated that fantasy?
Does poor dumb Worthless believe that a college professor can't find a
job? <LOL> All he has to do is look at himself.
>> >> >> You're perfectly free to run away, Worthless.
>>
>> >> >I would imagine that's what most people do when they encounter you...
>>
>> >> Your imagination is running away with you..
>>
>> >Coming from a fantasist, that's pretty funny!
>>
>> >>The fact is that I am
>> >> immensely popular among the many people I associate and have
>> >> associated with. My former employees thought I was great. The people
>> >> where I volunteer these days do also. Of course none of them are far
>> >> left socialist freaks like you.
>>
>> >How would you know? Steve,
>>
>> because I really know my friends and asasociates well.
>>
>> I'm prepared to believe that you do
>>
>> >voluntary work. But the lack of basic social skills that you
>> >demonstrate in these postings does make me wonder about how you
>> >interact with ordinary people.
>>
>> My interactions with ordinary peoplke are really fine.. alrthough far
>> left socialist loons like yourself find me quite difficult to deal
>> with.
>
>But people do not walk around with signs stating their political
>beliefs. Most people don't talk about politics in ordinary everyday
>conversation. So you are, as usual, talking crap....
<chuckle> It's real simple, Dummy. Why would I assume any political
affiliations for strangers with whom I might exchange random words
with? I don't. And then there's the simple fact that there aren't
all that many far left socialist loons like you around.
>> >> >> >But, if other people have dogs...why not a pet
>>
>> >> >The word here is 'arsehole'. The adjective applies to you.
>>
>> >> Why would you imagine that I'd be interested in the opinions of a
>> >> pathetic loser like you, Worthless?
>>
>> >There's an easy answer to that. Stop these silly postings and you will
>> >never see me again. But you won't, because your pathology means that
>> >you always have to have the last word.....
>>
>> I'm having way to much fun making you look like the fool that you are,
>> Worthless... Tell me again how you believe that the word "government"
>> only refers to the President...
>
>Q.E.D.
Tell me again how you believe that the word "government" only refers
to the President, Worthless.
>> >> >> You enjoy having your arsehole kicked? Really???
>>
>> >> >I usually kick yours, Steve!
>>
>
>(Obsessive shit deleted.)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
This is from Barry Worthlesston who insists that his racist hero,
Barry
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:55:46 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> >> >> >> <LOL> I really like education, I just don't think much of educators.
> >> >> >> I've been through several education systems but I've gone on to do a
> >> >> >> lot of self education because of the failings of those systems.
>
> >> >> >Hmmm....you were...er....not a good student, then......
>
> >> >> No, I actually got pretty good grades all my life, but I was always
> >> >> way out ahead of the professors.
>
> >> >Sure, Steve...sure....(snicker!)
>
> >> Especially the one that came to later looking for a job...
>
> >How many times have you repeated that fantasy?
>
> Does poor dumb Worthless believe that a college professor can't find a
> job?
I don't believe that one of your ex-teachers ever came looking for a
job with you.
><LOL> All he has to do is look at himself.
I'm quite happily retired. I thought that you were aware of that!
> >> My interactions with ordinary peoplke are really fine.. alrthough far
> >> left socialist loons like yourself find me quite difficult to deal
> >> with.
>
> >But people do not walk around with signs stating their political
> >beliefs. Most people don't talk about politics in ordinary everyday
> >conversation. So you are, as usual, talking crap....
>
> <chuckle> It's real simple, Dummy. Why would I assume any political
> affiliations for strangers with whom I might exchange random words
> with? I don't.
So how would you know the political opinions of the people you
associate with? And why would it matter to you?
>And then there's the simple fact that there aren't
> all that many far left socialist loons like you around.
But how would you know that?
> >> >There's an easy answer to that. Stop these silly postings and you will
> >> >never see me again. But you won't, because your pathology means that
> >> >you always have to have the last word.....
>
> >> I'm having way to much fun making you look like the fool that you are,
> >> Worthless... Tell me again how you believe that the word "government"
> >> only refers to the President...
>
> >Q.E.D.
>
> Tell me again how you believe that the word "government" only refers
> to the President, Worthless.
Q.E.D.
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 11, 12:52 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:55:46 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>> >> >> >> <LOL> I really like education, I just don't think much of educators.
>> >> >> >> I've been through several education systems but I've gone on to do a
>> >> >> >> lot of self education because of the failings of those systems.
>>
>> >> >> >Hmmm....you were...er....not a good student, then......
>>
>> >> >> No, I actually got pretty good grades all my life, but I was always
>> >> >> way out ahead of the professors.
>>
>> >> >Sure, Steve...sure....(snicker!)
>>
>> >> Especially the one that came to later looking for a job...
>>
>> >How many times have you repeated that fantasy?
>>
>> Does poor dumb Worthless believe that a college professor can't find a
>> job?
>
>I don't believe that one of your ex-teachers ever came looking for a
>job with you.
>
>><LOL> All he has to do is look at himself.
>
>I'm quite happily retired. I thought that you were aware of that!
<LOL> I've been retired since 1998... Sold my business when I was
52 years old and have been doing only what's fun ever since... and...
<LOL> and I'm very sure that my net worth has increased more since
then than yours has since you got out of high school..
>> >> My interactions with ordinary peoplke are really fine.. alrthough far
>> >> left socialist loons like yourself find me quite difficult to deal
>> >> with.
>>
>> >But people do not walk around with signs stating their political
>> >beliefs. Most people don't talk about politics in ordinary everyday
>> >conversation. So you are, as usual, talking crap....
>>
>> <chuckle> It's real simple, Dummy. Why would I assume any political
>> affiliations for strangers with whom I might exchange random words
>> with? I don't.
>
>So how would you know the political opinions of the people you
>associate with? And why would it matter to you?
<ROTFL> I understand that a homosexual, far left loon like you
probably has few friends and even fewer that would want to spend time
with you.... but I spend time with my friends and associates, Dummy.
We talk.
...and besides that, I'm very good at reading people... you should
know that since it took me such a short time to spot you as a
homosexual.
> >And then there's the simple fact that there aren't
>> all that many far left socialist loons like you around.
>
>But how would you know that?
<snicker> The socialist party in the United States is hardly even
noticeable. You have to look under rocks to find any of their
members.
>> >> >There's an easy answer to that. Stop these silly postings and you will
>> >> >never see me again. But you won't, because your pathology means that
>> >> >you always have to have the last word.....
>>
>> >> I'm having way to much fun making you look like the fool that you are,
>> >> Worthless... Tell me again how you believe that the word "government"
>> >> only refers to the President...
>>
>> >Q.E.D.
>>
>> Tell me again how you believe that the word "government" only refers
>> to the President, Worthless.
>
>Q.E.D.
Tell me again how you believe that the word "government" only refers
to the President, Worthless.
>(Obsessive shit deleted.)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
"And why are dividends on 401Ks considered capital
gains? (They are,when it comes time to cash the 401K
Barry
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> >I don't believe that one of your ex-teachers ever came looking for a
> >job with you.
>
> >><LOL> All he has to do is look at himself.
>
> >I'm quite happily retired. I thought that you were aware of that!
>
> <LOL> I've been retired since 1998... Sold my business when I was
> 52 years old and have been doing only what's fun ever since... and...
> <LOL> and I'm very sure that my net worth has increased more since
> then than yours has since you got out of high school..
Steve, I couldn't care less what your net worth is....real or
imagined. Nor, I think, would anyone else....
> >So how would you know the political opinions of the people you
> >associate with? And why would it matter to you?
>
> <ROTFL> I understand that a homosexual, far left loon like you
> probably has few friends and even fewer that would want to spend time
> with you.... but I spend time with my friends and associates, Dummy.
> We talk.
Steve now proves that he has a screw loose......
> ...and besides that, I'm very good at reading people... you should
> know that since it took me such a short time to spot you as a
> homosexual.
>
Well, that's another fantasy of yours......
> > >And then there's the simple fact that there aren't
> >> all that many far left socialist loons like you around.
>
> >But how would you know that?
>
> <snicker> The socialist party in the United States is hardly even
> noticeable. You have to look under rocks to find any of their
> members.
I don't live in the United States, but I daresay that there are a
number of socialists there. But that isn't the point. You cannot
possibly know a person's political beliefs unless they tell you.
6075 Dead, 1218 since 1/20/09
> On Jun 11, 11:03 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>> >I don't believe that one of your ex-teachers ever came looking for a
>> >job with you.
>>
>> >><LOL> All he has to do is look at himself.
>>
>> >I'm quite happily retired. I thought that you were aware of that!
>>
>> <LOL> I've been retired since 1998... Sold my business when I was 52
>> years old and have been doing only what's fun ever since... and...
>> <LOL> and I'm very sure that my net worth has increased more since
>> then than yours has since you got out of high school..
>
> Steve, I couldn't care less what your net worth is....real or imagined.
> Nor, I think, would anyone else....
People stopped believing his self-aggrandising claims years ago, Barry.
Steve
1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:27:47 -0700, Barry wrote:
>
>> On Jun 11, 11:03 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>>
>>> >I don't believe that one of your ex-teachers ever came looking for a
>>> >job with you.
>>>
>>> >><LOL> All he has to do is look at himself.
>>>
>>> >I'm quite happily retired. I thought that you were aware of that!
>>>
>>> <LOL> I've been retired since 1998... Sold my business when I was 52
>>> years old and have been doing only what's fun ever since... and...
>>> <LOL> and I'm very sure that my net worth has increased more since
>>> then than yours has since you got out of high school..
>>
>> Steve, I couldn't care less what your net worth is....real or imagined.
>> Nor, I think, would anyone else....
>
>People stopped believing his self-aggrandising claims years ago, Barry.
Here's David (Zepp) Jamieson, another social outcast that believes he
speaks for everyone...
Here's a post from Zepp's former "Wife."
"Me, I was born under the altar of man-love. Heh heh
heh. queer as a three dollar bill, that's me. And damn
proud of it, too."
--Greywolf AKA the former "Mrs Zepp Jamieson"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.startrek.creative.erotica.moderated/msg/85b927a7b7981ae3?hl=en
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 11, 11:03 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>> >I don't believe that one of your ex-teachers ever came looking for a
>> >job with you.
>>
>> >><LOL> All he has to do is look at himself.
>>
>> >I'm quite happily retired. I thought that you were aware of that!
>>
>> <LOL> I've been retired since 1998... Sold my business when I was
>> 52 years old and have been doing only what's fun ever since... and...
>> <LOL> and I'm very sure that my net worth has increased more since
>> then than yours has since you got out of high school..
>
>Steve, I couldn't care less what your net worth is....real or
>imagined. Nor, I think, would anyone else....
Like I implied earlier, Worthlesston couldn't find a job anywhere but
in a place where "those that can't" are employed...
>> >So how would you know the political opinions of the people you
>> >associate with? And why would it matter to you?
>>
>> <ROTFL> I understand that a homosexual, far left loon like you
>> probably has few friends and even fewer that would want to spend time
>> with you.... but I spend time with my friends and associates, Dummy.
>> We talk.
>
>Steve now proves that he has a screw loose......
Worthless thinks that it's strange to talk with your friends and
associates. But then it probably would be strange for anyone to talk
with a fruitcake like him...
>> ...and besides that, I'm very good at reading people... you should
>> know that since it took me such a short time to spot you as a
>> homosexual.
>>
>
>Well, that's another fantasy of yours......
Worthless has yet to even deny that he's a homosexual. The closest he
came was when he claimed to like women... but then, so does Elton
John.
>> > >And then there's the simple fact that there aren't
>> >> all that many far left socialist loons like you around.
>>
>> >But how would you know that?
>>
>> <snicker> The socialist party in the United States is hardly even
>> noticeable. You have to look under rocks to find any of their
>> members.
>
>I don't live in the United States, but I daresay that there are a
>number of socialists there.
A few... under rocks..
> But that isn't the point. You cannot
>possibly know a person's political beliefs unless they tell you.
Or perhaps if they wear a Bill O'Reilly cap or drink coffee from a cup
with a picture of Ronald Reagan, or maybe their car has a bumper
sticker that says "JOIN A UNION, LOSE YOUR INDUSTRY."
My friends and I often sit around and make jokes about liberals and
Democrats and Democrats and tell them in front of the liberals and
Democrats. We'd make jokes about Socialists if we ever saw any of
them, but they're hiding under their rocks...
>(Obsessive shit deleted.)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
This is from Barry Worthlesston who insists that his racist hero,
Barry
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:27:47 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
> >> <LOL> I've been retired since 1998... Sold my business when I was
> >> 52 years old and have been doing only what's fun ever since... and...
> >> <LOL> and I'm very sure that my net worth has increased more since
> >> then than yours has since you got out of high school..
>
> >Steve, I couldn't care less what your net worth is....real or
> >imagined. Nor, I think, would anyone else....
>
> Like I implied earlier, Worthlesston couldn't find a job anywhere but
> in a place where "those that can't" are employed...
Who taught you to read and write Steve?
>
> >> >So how would you know the political opinions of the people you
> >> >associate with? And why would it matter to you?
>
> >> <ROTFL> I understand that a homosexual, far left loon like you
> >> probably has few friends and even fewer that would want to spend time
> >> with you.... but I spend time with my friends and associates, Dummy.
> >> We talk.
>
> >Steve now proves that he has a screw loose......
>
> Worthless thinks that it's strange to talk with your friends and
> associates. But then it probably would be strange for anyone to talk
> with a fruitcake like him...
But most people tend to avoid persons who who are obsessed with the
political opinions of everyone that they meet.
>
> >> ...and besides that, I'm very good at reading people... you should
> >> know that since it took me such a short time to spot you as a
> >> homosexual.
>
> >Well, that's another fantasy of yours......
>
> Worthless has yet to even deny that he's a homosexual. The closest he
> came was when he claimed to like women... but then, so does Elton
> John.
Why is this so important to you Steve? I don't obsess about who on
this n.g. is gay or not. Why should you? Or does imagining that
someone is gay help you think that you are better than they are? That
you are, in some way, superior to them, thus cloaking what must be a
lack of self-esteem? Is that it?
>
> >> > >And then there's the simple fact that there aren't
> >> >> all that many far left socialist loons like you around.
>
> >> >But how would you know that?
>
> >> <snicker> The socialist party in the United States is hardly even
> >> noticeable. You have to look under rocks to find any of their
> >> members.
>
> >I don't live in the United States, but I daresay that there are a
> >number of socialists there.
>
> A few... under rocks..
Under your bed?
>
> > But that isn't the point. You cannot
> >possibly know a person's political beliefs unless they tell you.
>
> Or perhaps if they wear a Bill O'Reilly cap or drink coffee from a cup
> with a picture of Ronald Reagan, or maybe their car has a bumper
> sticker that says "JOIN A UNION, LOSE YOUR INDUSTRY."
People who do that do tend to send a signal....that they only want to
associate with people like themselves...and sensible people grant them
their wish by avoiding them. Anyway, you would only find that kind of
think in certain American shitholes.........
>
> My friends and I often sit around and make jokes about liberals and
> Democrats and Democrats and tell them in front of the liberals and
> Democrats. We'd make jokes about Socialists if we ever saw any of
> them, but they're hiding under their rocks...
And what happens when other people start making fun of you and your
friends?
Steve
I rather think that most people avoid far left socialist loons... I
know that I do and all my friends do too.
>> >> ...and besides that, I'm very good at reading people... you should
>> >> know that since it took me such a short time to spot you as a
>> >> homosexual.
>>
>> >Well, that's another fantasy of yours......
>>
>> Worthless has yet to even deny that he's a homosexual. The closest he
>> came was when he claimed to like women... but then, so does Elton
>> John.
>
>Why is this so important to you Steve?
<chuckle> It's only importance is that you are so reluctant to admit
it, Worthless. That demonstrates to me that you are a coward. And,
of course, I do enjoy waving it front of you and noting that I picked
it out quickly.
>I don't obsess about who on
>this n.g. is gay or not. Why should you? Or does imagining that
>someone is gay help you think that you are better than they are? That
>you are, in some way, superior to them, thus cloaking what must be a
>lack of self-esteem? Is that it?
<LOL> Note that Worthless still doesn't deny that he's a
homosexual..
>> >> > >And then there's the simple fact that there aren't
>> >> >> all that many far left socialist loons like you around.
>>
>> >> >But how would you know that?
>>
>> >> <snicker> The socialist party in the United States is hardly even
>> >> noticeable. You have to look under rocks to find any of their
>> >> members.
>>
>> >I don't live in the United States, but I daresay that there are a
>> >number of socialists there.
>>
>> A few... under rocks..
>
>Under your bed?
>
>>
>> > But that isn't the point. You cannot
>> >possibly know a person's political beliefs unless they tell you.
>>
>> Or perhaps if they wear a Bill O'Reilly cap or drink coffee from a cup
>> with a picture of Ronald Reagan, or maybe their car has a bumper
>> sticker that says "JOIN A UNION, LOSE YOUR INDUSTRY."
>
>People who do that do tend to send a signal....that they only want to
>associate with people like themselves...and sensible people grant them
>their wish by avoiding them. Anyway, you would only find that kind of
>think in certain American shitholes.........
All over the USA, many people do tend to advertise their political
preferences. Above are only a few of the ways. And then there's the
fact that all over the USA people DO prefer to associate with people
who are similar to themselves.
>> My friends and I often sit around and make jokes about liberals and
>> Democrats and Democrats and tell them in front of the liberals and
>> Democrats. We'd make jokes about Socialists if we ever saw any of
>> them, but they're hiding under their rocks...
>
>
>And what happens when other people start making fun of you and your
>friends?
That doesn't happen often, we tend to be a rather intimidating looking
group, and left leaning people aren't know for their courage. You
only hear from them in person when they have a large crowd to back
them up. They like to march around in large protective crowds and
chant in unison.
Slap them around a bit when they aren't in that large crowd and they
start looking for some rocks to hide under.
>(Obsessive shit deleted.)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
This is from Barry Worthlesston who insists that his racist hero,
Barry
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:44:45 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> >> associates. But then it probably would be strange for anyone to talk
> >> with a fruitcake like him...
>
> >But most people tend to avoid persons who who are obsessed with the
> >political opinions of everyone that they meet.
>
> I rather think that most people avoid far left socialist loons... I
> know that I do and all my friends do too.
But you (and your probably imaginary friends) wouldn't know a
'socialist' if you fell over one in the street. I can just imagine you
entering a shop. "Before I consider buying anything, I want to know
the political opinions of the shopkeeper and the shop assistants!"
>
> >> >> ...and besides that, I'm very good at reading people... you should
> >> >> know that since it took me such a short time to spot you as a
> >> >> homosexual.
>
> >> >Well, that's another fantasy of yours......
>
> >> Worthless has yet to even deny that he's a homosexual. The closest he
> >> came was when he claimed to like women... but then, so does Elton
> >> John.
>
> >Why is this so important to you Steve?
>
> <chuckle> It's only importance is that you are so reluctant to admit
> it, Worthless. That demonstrates to me that you are a coward. And,
> of course, I do enjoy waving it front of you and noting that I picked
> it out quickly.
You didn't pick anything out. Your Gaydar is defective. But why do you
engage on this pointless exercise?
>
> >I don't obsess about who on
> >this n.g. is gay or not. Why should you? Or does imagining that
> >someone is gay help you think that you are better than they are? That
> >you are, in some way, superior to them, thus cloaking what must be a
> >lack of self-esteem? Is that it?
>
> <LOL> Note that Worthless still doesn't deny that he's a
> homosexual..
Q.E.D.
I notice that you avoid my point.
> >> > But that isn't the point. You cannot
> >> >possibly know a person's political beliefs unless they tell you.
>
> >> Or perhaps if they wear a Bill O'Reilly cap or drink coffee from a cup
> >> with a picture of Ronald Reagan, or maybe their car has a bumper
> >> sticker that says "JOIN A UNION, LOSE YOUR INDUSTRY."
>
> >People who do that do tend to send a signal....that they only want to
> >associate with people like themselves...and sensible people grant them
> >their wish by avoiding them. Anyway, you would only find that kind of
> >think in certain American shitholes.........
>
> All over the USA, many people do tend to advertise their political
> preferences.
Nutters do. like yourself....
>Above are only a few of the ways. And then there's the
> fact that all over the USA people DO prefer to associate with people
> who are similar to themselves.
Not always.
>
> >> My friends and I often sit around and make jokes about liberals and
> >> Democrats and Democrats and tell them in front of the liberals and
> >> Democrats. We'd make jokes about Socialists if we ever saw any of
> >> them, but they're hiding under their rocks...
>
> >And what happens when other people start making fun of you and your
> >friends?
>
> That doesn't happen often, we tend to be a rather intimidating looking
> group, and left leaning people aren't know for their courage.
"Oh God...the wankers are in here tonight...let's go somewhere else!"
I'm sure that your group could clear a room in five minutes......
What bartender would welcome your crowd? (Though I'm sure that there
are places that Republican arseholes go, ones that most other people
avoid.)
>You
> only hear from them in person when they have a large crowd to back
> them up. They like to march around in large protective crowds and
> chant in unison.
In a bar? A cafe? A park?
Bloody nutter!
>
> Slap them around a bit when they aren't in that large crowd and they
> start looking for some rocks to hide under.
'Slap them around'? You couldn't slap your way out of a paper bag!
Anyway, back to the question. What does happen if someone says (in a
non-hostile way) that they thing the whole lot of you are talking
crap? Or makes a joke about Sarah Pain (the one that appeared on this
n.g. about her taking a snow plough to be repaired was quite
funny!)..........
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 12, 11:22 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:44:45 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>> >> Worthless thinks that it's strange to talk with your friends and
>> >> associates. But then it probably would be strange for anyone to talk
>> >> with a fruitcake like him...
>>
>> >But most people tend to avoid persons who who are obsessed with the
>> >political opinions of everyone that they meet.
>>
>> I rather think that most people avoid far left socialist loons... I
>> know that I do and all my friends do too.
>
>But you (and your probably imaginary friends) wouldn't know a
>'socialist' if you fell over one in the street. I can just imagine you
>entering a shop. "Before I consider buying anything, I want to know
>the political opinions of the shopkeeper and the shop assistants!"
Good Grief, Worthlesston imagines that purchasing something from a
shopkeeper or his employee is "associating" with them.
I already explained to the pathetic little homosexual dweeb that I
don't have any need to assume nor even consider the political
affiliations of strangers I might happen encounter...
>> >> >> ...and besides that, I'm very good at reading people... you should
>> >> >> know that since it took me such a short time to spot you as a
>> >> >> homosexual.
>>
>> >> >Well, that's another fantasy of yours......
>>
>> >> Worthless has yet to even deny that he's a homosexual. The closest he
>> >> came was when he claimed to like women... but then, so does Elton
>> >> John.
>>
>> >Why is this so important to you Steve?
>>
>> <chuckle> It's only importance is that you are so reluctant to admit
>> it, Worthless. That demonstrates to me that you are a coward. And,
>> of course, I do enjoy waving it front of you and noting that I picked
>> it out quickly.
>
>You didn't pick anything out. Your Gaydar is defective. But why do you
>engage on this pointless exercise?
Notice that Worthlesston still won't deny that he's a homosexual.
>> >I don't obsess about who on
>> >this n.g. is gay or not. Why should you? Or does imagining that
>> >someone is gay help you think that you are better than they are? That
>> >you are, in some way, superior to them, thus cloaking what must be a
>> >lack of self-esteem? Is that it?
>>
>> <LOL> Note that Worthless still doesn't deny that he's a
>> homosexual..
>
>Q.E.D.
>
>I notice that you avoid my point.
What point did you try to make, Worthless?
>> >> > But that isn't the point. You cannot
>> >> >possibly know a person's political beliefs unless they tell you.
>>
>> >> Or perhaps if they wear a Bill O'Reilly cap or drink coffee from a cup
>> >> with a picture of Ronald Reagan, or maybe their car has a bumper
>> >> sticker that says "JOIN A UNION, LOSE YOUR INDUSTRY."
>>
>> >People who do that do tend to send a signal....that they only want to
>> >associate with people like themselves...and sensible people grant them
>> >their wish by avoiding them. Anyway, you would only find that kind of
>> >think in certain American shitholes.........
>>
>> All over the USA, many people do tend to advertise their political
>> preferences.
>
>Nutters do. like yourself....
Worthlesston has no idea that many people here in the states advertise
their political preferences with campaign signs in their yard or on
their vehicles... but then, he has very limited knowledge of life in
the USA period... he actually though that when we used the word
"government," we were referring to only the executive.
>>Above are only a few of the ways. And then there's the
>> fact that all over the USA people DO prefer to associate with people
>> who are similar to themselves.
>
>Not always.
Yeah, they usually do. I suspect that Worthlesston doesn't have many
friends of any kind to draw any conclusions from. I can see that he's
generally on the outside looking in. That seems to be the pattern for
most of the Usenet lefties.
>> >> My friends and I often sit around and make jokes about liberals and
>> >> Democrats and Democrats and tell them in front of the liberals and
>> >> Democrats. We'd make jokes about Socialists if we ever saw any of
>> >> them, but they're hiding under their rocks...
>>
>> >And what happens when other people start making fun of you and your
>> >friends?
>>
>> That doesn't happen often, we tend to be a rather intimidating looking
>> group, and left leaning people aren't know for their courage.
>
>"Oh God...the wankers are in here tonight...let's go somewhere else!"
>
>I'm sure that your group could clear a room in five minutes......
<LOL> Actually, we usually attract a nice crowd. People like to hang
with us. We're a lot of fun.
>What bartender would welcome your crowd? (Though I'm sure that there
>are places that Republican arseholes go, ones that most other people
>avoid.)
I'm sure that you'd not be too popular at the places we go to. Not
many pathetic, little, homosexual dweebs like you, Worthless.
>>You
>> only hear from them in person when they have a large crowd to back
>> them up. They like to march around in large protective crowds and
>> chant in unison.
>
>In a bar? A cafe? A park?
Naw, the leftist loony crowds like to protest things.. quite often
in a street out in front of public buildings.
>Bloody nutter!
>
>>
>> Slap them around a bit when they aren't in that large crowd and they
>> start looking for some rocks to hide under.
>
>'Slap them around'? You couldn't slap your way out of a paper bag!
I meant that as verbal slapping, of course, however, I'm way more than
capable of slapping people around physically too if I need to. I've
had some of the best training in the world as to how to do that and
I'm still in excellent shape.
>Anyway, back to the question. What does happen if someone says (in a
>non-hostile way) that they thing the whole lot of you are talking
>crap?
I imagine that we'd all have a good laugh about it. It's not as if
I'd ever get concerned about what the gutter trash has to say...
Or makes a joke about Sarah Pain (the one that appeared on this
>n.g. about her taking a snow plough to be repaired was quite
>funny!)..........
>
>(Obsessive shit deleted.)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
This is from Barry Worthlesston who insists that his racist hero,
Barry
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:09:54 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> >> >> Worthless thinks that it's strange to talk with your friends and
> >> >> associates. But then it probably would be strange for anyone to talk
> >> >> with a fruitcake like him...
>
> >> >But most people tend to avoid persons who who are obsessed with the
> >> >political opinions of everyone that they meet.
>
> >> I rather think that most people avoid far left socialist loons... I
> >> know that I do and all my friends do too.
>
> >But you (and your probably imaginary friends) wouldn't know a
> >'socialist' if you fell over one in the street. I can just imagine you
> >entering a shop. "Before I consider buying anything, I want to know
> >the political opinions of the shopkeeper and the shop assistants!"
>
> Good Grief, Worthlesston imagines that purchasing something from a
> shopkeeper or his employee is "associating" with them.
What else are you doing?
>
> I already explained to the pathetic little homosexual dweeb that I
> don't have any need to assume nor even consider the political
> affiliations of strangers I might happen encounter...
But that contradicts your earlier statement about not associating with
'socialists', 'leftists' or other people whose political opinions you
don't like. Unless you are telepathic, how would you know what their
political opinions were? and, assuming that these were revealed in
some wy, what do you do? Expel them from your company? that would be
fun to watch!
>
> >You didn't pick anything out. Your Gaydar is defective. But why do you
> >engage on this pointless exercise?
>
> Notice that Worthlesston still won't deny that he's a homosexual.
Why would I deny something that I'm not? But, as I have nothing
against gays, I don't labour the point like you do.
>
> >> >I don't obsess about who on
> >> >this n.g. is gay or not. Why should you? Or does imagining that
> >> >someone is gay help you think that you are better than they are? That
> >> >you are, in some way, superior to them, thus cloaking what must be a
> >> >lack of self-esteem? Is that it?
>
> >> <LOL> Note that Worthless still doesn't deny that he's a
> >> homosexual..
>
> >Q.E.D.
>
> >I notice that you avoid my point.
>
> What point did you try to make, Worthless?
That you are probably a very insecure person, and accusing someone of
being gay seems an easy way of stressing your 'superiority' (which is
something that you always have to do). Either it's "I have more money
than you have," or "you are a teacher, and I had an ex teacher come
and beg me for a job, " or, for the most part "I can tell that you are
a despised homosexual." Must you always try and denigrate people so
that you can attempt to measure yourself against them? Are you really
that insecure?
> >> All over the USA, many people do tend to advertise their political
> >> preferences.
>
> >Nutters do. Like yourself....
>
> Worthlesston has no idea that many people here in the states advertise
> their political preferences with campaign signs in their yard or on
> their vehicles... but then, he has very limited knowledge of life in
> the USA period... he actually though that when we used the word
> "government," we were referring to only the executive.
I am aware that a minority of right wing American nutters tend to do
that kind of thing....and it helps ordinary people to avoid them....
>
> >>Above are only a few of the ways. And then there's the
> >> fact that all over the USA people DO prefer to associate with people
> >> who are similar to themselves.
>
> >Not always.
>
> Yeah, they usually do. I suspect that Worthlesston doesn't have many
> friends of any kind to draw any conclusions from. I can see that he's
> generally on the outside looking in. That seems to be the pattern for
> most of the Usenet lefties.
Don't judge people by your own standards, Steve.....
>
> >> >> My friends and I often sit around and make jokes about liberals and
> >> >> Democrats and Democrats and tell them in front of the liberals and
> >> >> Democrats. We'd make jokes about Socialists if we ever saw any of
> >> >> them, but they're hiding under their rocks...
>
> >> >And what happens when other people start making fun of you and your
> >> >friends?
>
> >> That doesn't happen often, we tend to be a rather intimidating looking
> >> group, and left leaning people aren't know for their courage.
>
> >"Oh God...the wankers are in here tonight...let's go somewhere else!"
>
> >I'm sure that your group could clear a room in five minutes......
>
> <LOL> Actually, we usually attract a nice crowd. People like to hang
> with us. We're a lot of fun.
Hmmm.....well, I suspect that's because ordinary people avoid
you......like I said, you would only attract people like yourself.
>
> >What bartender would welcome your crowd? (Though I'm sure that there
> >are places that Republican arseholes go, ones that most other people
> >avoid.)
>
> I'm sure that you'd not be too popular at the places we go to. Not
> many pathetic, little, homosexual dweebs like you, Worthless.
Well, I don't tend to frequent places where known arseholes
congregate....neither do others....
>
> >>You
> >> only hear from them in person when they have a large crowd to back
> >> them up. They like to march around in large protective crowds and
> >> chant in unison.
>
> >In a bar? A cafe? A park?
>
> Naw, the leftist loony crowds like to protest things.. quite often
> in a street out in front of public buildings.
Bloody nutter!
> >> Slap them around a bit when they aren't in that large crowd and they
> >> start looking for some rocks to hide under.
>
> >'Slap them around'? You couldn't slap your way out of a paper bag!
>
> I meant that as verbal slapping, of course, however, I'm way more than
> capable of slapping people around physically too if I need to. I've
> had some of the best training in the world as to how to do that and
> I'm still in excellent shape.
Sure, Steve.........(snicker!)....
>
> >Anyway, back to the question. What does happen if someone says (in a
> >non-hostile way) that they thing the whole lot of you are talking
> >crap?
>
> I imagine that we'd all have a good laugh about it. It's not as if
> I'd ever get concerned about what the gutter trash has to say...
But what if you and your crowd were regarded as the 'gutter trash'?
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 12, 10:26 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:09:54 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>
>> >> >> Worthless thinks that it's strange to talk with your friends and
>> >> >> associates. But then it probably would be strange for anyone to talk
>> >> >> with a fruitcake like him...
>>
>> >> >But most people tend to avoid persons who who are obsessed with the
>> >> >political opinions of everyone that they meet.
>>
>> >> I rather think that most people avoid far left socialist loons... I
>> >> know that I do and all my friends do too.
>>
>> >But you (and your probably imaginary friends) wouldn't know a
>> >'socialist' if you fell over one in the street. I can just imagine you
>> >entering a shop. "Before I consider buying anything, I want to know
>> >the political opinions of the shopkeeper and the shop assistants!"
>>
>> Good Grief, Worthlesston imagines that purchasing something from a
>> shopkeeper or his employee is "associating" with them.
>
>What else are you doing?
Purchasing something?
>> I already explained to the pathetic little homosexual dweeb that I
>> don't have any need to assume nor even consider the political
>> affiliations of strangers I might happen encounter...
>
>But that contradicts your earlier statement about not associating with
>'socialists', 'leftists' or other people whose political opinions you
>don't like.
Nope.. Look up "associate" you ignorant buffoon.
>Unless you are telepathic, how would you know what their
>political opinions were? and, assuming that these were revealed in
>some wy, what do you do? Expel them from your company? that would be
>fun to watch!
I had a small company. I knew each employee very well.
>> >You didn't pick anything out. Your Gaydar is defective. But why do you
>> >engage on this pointless exercise?
>>
>> Notice that Worthlesston still won't deny that he's a homosexual.
>
>Why would I deny something that I'm not? But, as I have nothing
>against gays, I don't labour the point like you do.
Notice that Worthlesston still won't deny that he's a homosexual.
>> >> >I don't obsess about who on
>> >> >this n.g. is gay or not. Why should you? Or does imagining that
>> >> >someone is gay help you think that you are better than they are? That
>> >> >you are, in some way, superior to them, thus cloaking what must be a
>> >> >lack of self-esteem? Is that it?
>>
>> >> <LOL> Note that Worthless still doesn't deny that he's a
>> >> homosexual..
>>
>> >Q.E.D.
>>
>> >I notice that you avoid my point.
>>
>> What point did you try to make, Worthless?
>
>That you are probably a very insecure person,
<LOL> I generally ignore silly, meaningless rhetoric like that
and accusing someone of
>being gay seems an easy way of stressing your 'superiority' (which is
>something that you always have to do). Either it's "I have more money
>than you have," or "you are a teacher, and I had an ex teacher come
>and beg me for a job, " or, for the most part "I can tell that you are
>a despised homosexual." Must you always try and denigrate people so
>that you can attempt to measure yourself against them? Are you really
>that insecure?
>> >> All over the USA, many people do tend to advertise their political
>> >> preferences.
>>
>> >Nutters do. Like yourself....
>>
>> Worthlesston has no idea that many people here in the states advertise
>> their political preferences with campaign signs in their yard or on
>> their vehicles... but then, he has very limited knowledge of life in
>> the USA period... he actually though that when we used the word
>> "government," we were referring to only the executive.
>
>I am aware that a minority of right wing American nutters tend to do
>that kind of thing....and it helps ordinary people to avoid them....
<LOL> You can't imagine all the campaign signs posted in people's
yards each election. On both sides of the fence... I've never seen a
socialist sign in anyone's yard though. Course, I don't go looking
under rocks where they all live, though.
>> >>Above are only a few of the ways. And then there's the
>> >> fact that all over the USA people DO prefer to associate with people
>> >> who are similar to themselves.
>>
>> >Not always.
>>
>> Yeah, they usually do. I suspect that Worthlesston doesn't have many
>> friends of any kind to draw any conclusions from. I can see that he's
>> generally on the outside looking in. That seems to be the pattern for
>> most of the Usenet lefties.
>
>Don't judge people by your own standards, Steve.....
I always judge people by my own standards, Dummy. It's really the
only way one has to judge people.
>> >> >> My friends and I often sit around and make jokes about liberals and
>> >> >> Democrats and Democrats and tell them in front of the liberals and
>> >> >> Democrats. We'd make jokes about Socialists if we ever saw any of
>> >> >> them, but they're hiding under their rocks...
>>
>> >> >And what happens when other people start making fun of you and your
>> >> >friends?
>>
>> >> That doesn't happen often, we tend to be a rather intimidating looking
>> >> group, and left leaning people aren't know for their courage.
>>
>> >"Oh God...the wankers are in here tonight...let's go somewhere else!"
>>
>> >I'm sure that your group could clear a room in five minutes......
>>
>> <LOL> Actually, we usually attract a nice crowd. People like to hang
>> with us. We're a lot of fun.
>
>Hmmm.....well, I suspect that's because ordinary people avoid
>you......like I said, you would only attract people like yourself.
I never said any such thing, Dummy. Your imagination is running away
with you again. and I also doubt that you have any idea what
ordinary people are like.
>> >What bartender would welcome your crowd? (Though I'm sure that there
>> >are places that Republican arseholes go, ones that most other people
>> >avoid.)
>>
>> I'm sure that you'd not be too popular at the places we go to. Not
>> many pathetic, little, homosexual dweebs like you, Worthless.
>
>Well, I don't tend to frequent places where known arseholes
>congregate....neither do others....
>
>>
>> >>You
>> >> only hear from them in person when they have a large crowd to back
>> >> them up. They like to march around in large protective crowds and
>> >> chant in unison.
>>
>> >In a bar? A cafe? A park?
>>
>> Naw, the leftist loony crowds like to protest things.. quite often
>> in a street out in front of public buildings.
>
>Bloody nutter!
>
>> >> Slap them around a bit when they aren't in that large crowd and they
>> >> start looking for some rocks to hide under.
>>
>> >'Slap them around'? You couldn't slap your way out of a paper bag!
>>
>> I meant that as verbal slapping, of course, however, I'm way more than
>> capable of slapping people around physically too if I need to. I've
>> had some of the best training in the world as to how to do that and
>> I'm still in excellent shape.
>
>Sure, Steve.........(snicker!)....
Best training in the world... and as far as being in shape, I've been
doing 60 to 100 mile bike rides once or twice a week ever since my
doctor told me to stop doing the daily five mile runs which was really
hard on my amputated leg
>> >Anyway, back to the question. What does happen if someone says (in a
>> >non-hostile way) that they thing the whole lot of you are talking
>> >crap?
>>
>> I imagine that we'd all have a good laugh about it. It's not as if
>> I'd ever get concerned about what the gutter trash has to say...
>
>But what if you and your crowd were regarded as the 'gutter trash'?
<LOL> I'd treat it exactly the same way as I treat squirrels
chattering at me. Why would I give significance to insignificant
people?
>> Or makes a joke about Sarah Pain (the one that appeared on this
>>
>> >n.g. about her taking a snow plough to be repaired was quite
>> >funny!)..........
>
>(Obsessive shit deleted.)
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
This is from Barry Worthlesston who insists that his racist hero,
Barry
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 16:38:36 -0700 (PDT), Barry
> >> >'socialist' if you fell over one in the street. I can just imagine you
> >> >entering a shop. "Before I consider buying anything, I want to know
> >> >the political opinions of the shopkeeper and the shop assistants!"
>
> >> Good Grief, Worthlesston imagines that purchasing something from a
> >> shopkeeper or his employee is "associating" with them.
>
> >What else are you doing?
>
> Purchasing something?
You can do that from a vending machine. Don't you ever pass the time
of day with the people who serve you? Don't you ever ask their advice
about purchases? Discuss sport with them? The weather?
> >> I already explained to the pathetic little homosexual dweeb that I
> >> don't have any need to assume nor even consider the political
> >> affiliations of strangers I might happen encounter...
>
> >But that contradicts your earlier statement about not associating with
> >'socialists', 'leftists' or other people whose political opinions you
> >don't like.
>
> Nope.. Look up "associate" you ignorant buffoon.
When Steve is in a corner, he either reaches for a dictionary, or
surfs the net for something he can cut and paste....anything....
>
> >Unless you are telepathic, how would you know what their
> >political opinions were? and, assuming that these were revealed in
> >some wy, what do you do? Expel them from your company? that would be
> >fun to watch!
>
> I had a small company. I knew each employee very well.
I couldn't really give a toss. I asked you a question, and you are
wriggling.
>
> >> >You didn't pick anything out. Your Gaydar is defective. But why do you
> >> >engage on this pointless exercise?
>
> >> Notice that Worthlesston still won't deny that he's a homosexual.
>
> >Why would I deny something that I'm not? But, as I have nothing
> >against gays, I don't labour the point like you do.
>
> Notice that Worthlesston still won't deny that he's a homosexual.
You will not be validated by me. Your insecurity will have to
fester....
> >> >> >I don't obsess about who on
> >> >> >this n.g. is gay or not. Why should you? Or does imagining that
> >> >> >someone is gay help you think that you are better than they are? That
> >> >> >you are, in some way, superior to them, thus cloaking what must be a
> >> >> >lack of self-esteem? Is that it?
>
> >> >> <LOL> Note that Worthless still doesn't deny that he's a
> >> >> homosexual..
>
> >> >Q.E.D.
>
> >> >I notice that you avoid my point.
>
> >> What point did you try to make, Worthless?
>
> >That you are probably a very insecure person,
>
> <LOL> I generally ignore silly, meaningless rhetoric like that
You ignore things that might hit a nerve......
>> .and accusing someone of
> >being gay seems an easy way of stressing your 'superiority' (which is
> >something that you always have to do). Either it's "I have more money
> >than you have," or "you are a teacher, and I had an ex teacher come
> >and beg me for a job, " or, for the most part "I can tell that you are
> >a despised homosexual." Must you always try and denigrate people so
> >that you can attempt to measure yourself against them? Are you really
> >that insecure?
And, of course, there is no response.
> >> >> All over the USA, many people do tend to advertise their political
> >> >> preferences.
>
> >> >Nutters do. Like yourself....
>
> >> Worthlesston has no idea that many people here in the states advertise
> >> their political preferences with campaign signs in their yard or on
> >> their vehicles... but then, he has very limited knowledge of life in
> >> the USA period... he actually though that when we used the word
> >> "government," we were referring to only the executive.
>
> >I am aware that a minority of right wing American nutters tend to do
> >that kind of thing....and it helps ordinary people to avoid them....
>
> <LOL> You can't imagine all the campaign signs posted in people's
> yards each election.
We weren't talking about election signs....don't move the goal posts!
>On both sides of the fence... I've never seen a
> socialist sign in anyone's yard though.
Well, if you live in a shithole, you probably have people like
yourself as neighbours (well, not...quite...like you).
>Course, I don't go looking
> under rocks where they all live, though.
>
> >> >>Above are only a few of the ways. And then there's the
> >> >> fact that all over the USA people DO prefer to associate with people
> >> >> who are similar to themselves.
>
> >> >Not always.
>
> >> Yeah, they usually do. I suspect that Worthlesston doesn't have many
> >> friends of any kind to draw any conclusions from. I can see that he's
> >> generally on the outside looking in. That seems to be the pattern for
> >> most of the Usenet lefties.
>
> >Don't judge people by your own standards, Steve.....
>
> I always judge people by my own standards, Dummy. It's really the
> only way one has to judge people.
That's why most people on this n.g. either ignore you or treat you as
a joke....
>
> >> >> >And what happens when other people start making fun of you and your
> >> >> >friends?
>
> >> >> That doesn't happen often, we tend to be a rather intimidating looking
> >> >> group, and left leaning people aren't know for their courage.
>
> >> >"Oh God...the wankers are in here tonight...let's go somewhere else!"
>
> >> >I'm sure that your group could clear a room in five minutes......
>
> >> <LOL> Actually, we usually attract a nice crowd. People like to hang
> >> with us. We're a lot of fun.
>
> >Hmmm.....well, I suspect that's because ordinary people avoid
> >you......like I said, you would only attract people like yourself.
>
> I never said any such thing, Dummy. Your imagination is running away
> with you again. and I also doubt that you have any idea what
> ordinary people are like.
More than you, methinks.....
> >> >'Slap them around'? You couldn't slap your way out of a paper bag!
>
> >> I meant that as verbal slapping, of course, however, I'm way more than
> >> capable of slapping people around physically too if I need to. I've
> >> had some of the best training in the world as to how to do that and
> >> I'm still in excellent shape.
>
> >Sure, Steve.........(snicker!)....
>
> Best training in the world... and as far as being in shape, I've been
> doing 60 to 100 mile bike rides once or twice a week ever since my
> doctor told me to stop doing the daily five mile runs which was really
> hard on my amputated leg
I'm prepared to believe that you do have an amputated leg, and you do
have my sympathy. The same way that I'm inclined to think that you
also do voluntary work (as do I and many other people.). But Steve,
your fantasisies and your behaviour on this n.g. do not do you any
favours. I must add that I think that you might need some counselling.
On that note, I think that it is probably better for both of us that
we end this exchange. I don't want to say something that I may regret
later.
Goodbye,
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Jun 13, 1:19 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 16:38:36 -0700 (PDT), Barry
>> >> >But you (and your probably imaginary friends) wouldn't know a
>> >> >'socialist' if you fell over one in the street. I can just imagine you
>> >> >entering a shop. "Before I consider buying anything, I want to know
>> >> >the political opinions of the shopkeeper and the shop assistants!"
>>
>> >> Good Grief, Worthlesston imagines that purchasing something from a
>> >> shopkeeper or his employee is "associating" with them.
>>
>> >What else are you doing?
>>
>> Purchasing something?
>
>You can do that from a vending machine. Don't you ever pass the time
>of day with the people who serve you? Don't you ever ask their advice
>about purchases?
Asking about a product does not fall under associating, you moron
Discuss sport with them? The weather?
<LOL> with a sales clerk? Hell no..
>> >> I already explained to the pathetic little homosexual dweeb that I
>> >> don't have any need to assume nor even consider the political
>> >> affiliations of strangers I might happen encounter...
>>
>> >But that contradicts your earlier statement about not associating with
>> >'socialists', 'leftists' or other people whose political opinions you
>> >don't like.
>>
>> Nope.. Look up "associate" you ignorant buffoon.
>
>When Steve is in a corner, he either reaches for a dictionary, or
>surfs the net for something he can cut and paste....anything....
Worthlesston likes to invent his own new meaning to words whenever
he's backed into a corner..
Words have meanings, Worthless. Usually those meanings can be found
in a dictionary
>> >Unless you are telepathic, how would you know what their
>> >political opinions were? and, assuming that these were revealed in
>> >some wy, what do you do? Expel them from your company? that would be
>> >fun to watch!
>>
>> I had a small company. I knew each employee very well.
>
>I couldn't really give a toss. I asked you a question, and you are
>wriggling.
I'm quite sure I had no socialists working for me. Most were gung ho,
fired up capitalists although I did have a couple of liberals.
>> >> >You didn't pick anything out. Your Gaydar is defective. But why do you
>> >> >engage on this pointless exercise?
>>
>> >> Notice that Worthlesston still won't deny that he's a homosexual.
>>
>> >Why would I deny something that I'm not? But, as I have nothing
>> >against gays, I don't labour the point like you do.
>>
>> Notice that Worthlesston still won't deny that he's a homosexual.
>
>You will not be validated by me. Your insecurity will have to
>fester....
Notice that Worthlesston still doesn't deny that he's a homosexual.
I'd give him credit for honesty if I didn't believe that his failure
to deny it is prompted by his belief that there exists evidence of his
homosexuality which I would find and throw in his face if he dared to
deny it.
I've come to the educated conclusion that Barry Worthlesston is openly
homosexual in his real time environment. What is happening here on
Usenet is that he that he's reluctant to acknowledge that I was able
to identify his homosexuality so quickly and so simply from his posts.
He's quite miffed that I was able to do that..
>> >> >> >I don't obsess about who on
>> >> >> >this n.g. is gay or not. Why should you? Or does imagining that
>> >> >> >someone is gay help you think that you are better than they are? That
>> >> >> >you are, in some way, superior to them, thus cloaking what must be a
>> >> >> >lack of self-esteem? Is that it?
>>
>> >> >> <LOL> Note that Worthless still doesn't deny that he's a
>> >> >> homosexual..
>>
>> >> >Q.E.D.
>>
>> >> >I notice that you avoid my point.
>>
>> >> What point did you try to make, Worthless?
>>
>> >That you are probably a very insecure person,
<LOL> I generally ignore silly, meaningless rhetoric like that.
You're entitled to your opinions and I <LOL> have no inclination to
defend myself to you, of all people.
>> <LOL> I generally ignore silly, meaningless rhetoric like that
>
>You ignore things that might hit a nerve......
I generally ignore silly, meaningless rhetoric. I consider it quite
ridiculous to take your childish rhetoric into an even more childish
"no,_I'm not/yes,"you_are" argument.
>>> .and accusing someone of
>> >being gay seems an easy way of stressing your 'superiority' (which is
>> >something that you always have to do). Either it's "I have more money
>> >than you have," or "you are a teacher, and I had an ex teacher come
>> >and beg me for a job, " or, for the most part "I can tell that you are
>> >a despised homosexual." Must you always try and denigrate people so
>> >that you can attempt to measure yourself against them? Are you really
>> >that insecure?
>
>And, of course, there is no response.
I generally ignore silly, meaningless rhetoric as I explained above.
>> >> >> All over the USA, many people do tend to advertise their political
>> >> >> preferences.
>>
>> >> >Nutters do. Like yourself....
>>
>> >> Worthlesston has no idea that many people here in the states advertise
>> >> their political preferences with campaign signs in their yard or on
>> >> their vehicles... but then, he has very limited knowledge of life in
>> >> the USA period... he actually though that when we used the word
>> >> "government," we were referring to only the executive.
>>
>> >I am aware that a minority of right wing American nutters tend to do
>> >that kind of thing....and it helps ordinary people to avoid them....
>>
>> <LOL> You can't imagine all the campaign signs posted in people's
>> yards each election.
>
>We weren't talking about election signs....don't move the goal posts!
Errrr, we were talking about people advertising their political
preferences. Elections signs do that, as do bumper stickers caps and
T-shirts. I see such things every day.. and from both sides of the
proverbial fence.
>>On both sides of the fence... I've never seen a
>> socialist sign in anyone's yard though.
>
>Well, if you live in a shithole, you probably have people like
>yourself as neighbours (well, not...quite...like you).
Gated condo overlooking the beach and the Gulf of Mexico.
>>Course, I don't go looking
>> under rocks where they all live, though.
>>
>> >> >>Above are only a few of the ways. And then there's the
>> >> >> fact that all over the USA people DO prefer to associate with people
>> >> >> who are similar to themselves.
>>
>> >> >Not always.
>>
>> >> Yeah, they usually do. I suspect that Worthlesston doesn't have many
>> >> friends of any kind to draw any conclusions from. I can see that he's
>> >> generally on the outside looking in. That seems to be the pattern for
>> >> most of the Usenet lefties.
>>
>> >Don't judge people by your own standards, Steve.....
>>
>> I always judge people by my own standards, Dummy. It's really the
>> only way one has to judge people.
>
>That's why most people on this n.g. either ignore you or treat you as
>a joke....
...and here's Barry Worthlesston, a dweeby little homosexual socialist
speaking for most people again. Fact is that the leftist loons
pretend to ignore me because I swat them so hard, but as you can see,
they regularly pop up to try to get at me. They're too chickenshit to
try to engage me because they know I'll swat them again like I've
swatted you.
>> >> >> >And what happens when other people start making fun of you and your
>> >> >> >friends?
>>
>> >> >> That doesn't happen often, we tend to be a rather intimidating looking
>> >> >> group, and left leaning people aren't know for their courage.
>>
>> >> >"Oh God...the wankers are in here tonight...let's go somewhere else!"
>>
>> >> >I'm sure that your group could clear a room in five minutes......
>>
>> >> <LOL> Actually, we usually attract a nice crowd. People like to hang
>> >> with us. We're a lot of fun.
>>
>> >Hmmm.....well, I suspect that's because ordinary people avoid
>> >you......like I said, you would only attract people like yourself.
>>
>> I never said any such thing, Dummy. Your imagination is running away
>> with you again. and I also doubt that you have any idea what
>> ordinary people are like.
>
>More than you, methinks.....
I'm pretty sure that you're shunned by most everyone around you,
Worthless. That's pretty much standard for homosexual socialists like
you.
>> >> >'Slap them around'? You couldn't slap your way out of a paper bag!
>>
>> >> I meant that as verbal slapping, of course, however, I'm way more than
>> >> capable of slapping people around physically too if I need to. I've
>> >> had some of the best training in the world as to how to do that and
>> >> I'm still in excellent shape.
>>
>> >Sure, Steve.........(snicker!)....
>>
>> Best training in the world... and as far as being in shape, I've been
>> doing 60 to 100 mile bike rides once or twice a week ever since my
>> doctor told me to stop doing the daily five mile runs which was really
>> hard on my amputated leg
>
>I'm prepared to believe that you do have an amputated leg, and you do
>have my sympathy.
Sympathy is for people who need it. I don't, and I slap it away when
it's offered as I do now. I don't have any handicaps. I've overcome
them all.
The same way that I'm inclined to think that you
>also do voluntary work (as do I and many other people.). But Steve,
>your fantasisies and your behaviour on this n.g. do not do you any
>favours.
As if the lopsided and ignorant opinions of a homosexual socialist
like Worthless were significant...
>I must add that I think that you might need some counselling.
As if the opinions of a homosexual socialist like Worthless were
worthy of consideration.
>On that note, I think that it is probably better for both of us that
>we end this exchange. I don't want to say something that I may regret
>later.
<Chuckle> I think Worthless is growing angry and running away.. That
often happens when I back people into corners like I have with Barry
Worthlesston.
So now I'm off on another bike ride.
>Goodbye,