[WHACK] More Enviro Whackos
The Last Real Marlboro Man
the Bush administration's deployment of the Navy's Low Frequency Active
Sonar, a key defense against stealthy, ultra-quiet diesel submarines being
developed by China, Russia, and Germany. Despite numerous precautions and
mitigation measures being taken by the Navy, Mark Palmer of the San
Francisco-based Earth Island Institute fretted on CNN last weekend that the
system is a "sonar bomb" developed by the Navy "to attack whales and other
sorts of things in the name of finding submarines, and we don't think it's
appropriate. We know very little about the effects on fish, on squid, on
other types of marine organisms."
Foreign enemies invaded our borders and murdered over 3,000 men, women and
children on Sept. 11. Hundreds of thousands of young men and women have
volunteered to make sure it doesn't happen again. And all this guy can
worry about is the comfort level of squid and plankton?"
You can read the whole thing here. Have your barf-bags ready.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin1.asp
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
------------------------------------------------------------
"No authority of government can ever prevent an American from pledging
allegiance to this one naton under God." - President George W. Bush
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Funke
misc.writing wrote:
>"Several environmental groups have announced their intention to challenge
>the Bush administration's deployment of the Navy's Low Frequency Active
>Sonar, a key defense against stealthy, ultra-quiet diesel submarines being
>developed by China, Russia, and Germany. Despite numerous precautions and
>mitigation measures being taken by the Navy, Mark Palmer of the San
>Francisco-based Earth Island Institute fretted on CNN last weekend that the
>system is a "sonar bomb" developed by the Navy "to attack whales and other
>sorts of things in the name of finding submarines, and we don't think it's
>appropriate. We know very little about the effects on fish, on squid, on
>other types of marine organisms."
>
>Foreign enemies invaded our borders and murdered over 3,000 men, women and
>children on Sept. 11. Hundreds of thousands of young men and women have
>volunteered to make sure it doesn't happen again. And all this guy can
>worry about is the comfort level of squid and plankton?"
>
>You can read the whole thing here. Have your barf-bags ready.
>
>http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin1.asp
This is old news-- you should have your whacko detectors checked.
Last week I saw this:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/781022.asp?cp1=1#BODY
And, this sonar system has been bitched about by us whacko
enviromentalists since it was first proposed in the late 80's. The
Navy has regularly agreed in the past to avoid using it because of
apparent marine damage and that pesky Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The ultraquiet submarines, btw, are only in use by the US at this
time. They require special 3-axis machinery to grind the propellors
that no one else has now. They also cost a couple of hundred million
each. Not the sort of thing you pick up at your local terrorist flea
market.
(Are we going to war with Germany again?)
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:3d3e9dcf....@news.cis.dfn.de:
> (Are we going to war with Germany again?)
Not in the near future at least, which is a *great* reason to sacrifice
military readiness and millions of dollars to a squid.
Alan Hope
said:
>"Several environmental groups have announced their intention to challenge
>the Bush administration's deployment of the Navy's Low Frequency Active
>Sonar, a key defense against stealthy, ultra-quiet diesel submarines being
>developed by China, Russia, and Germany. Despite numerous precautions and
>mitigation measures being taken by the Navy, Mark Palmer of the San
>Francisco-based Earth Island Institute fretted on CNN last weekend that the
>system is a "sonar bomb" developed by the Navy "to attack whales and other
>sorts of things in the name of finding submarines, and we don't think it's
>appropriate. We know very little about the effects on fish, on squid, on
>other types of marine organisms."
>Foreign enemies invaded our borders and murdered over 3,000 men, women and
>children on Sept. 11. Hundreds of thousands of young men and women have
>volunteered to make sure it doesn't happen again. And all this guy can
>worry about is the comfort level of squid and plankton?"
Non-sequitur of the week. You're expecting al Qaeda subs now? Send for
Jack Ryan.
>You can read the whole thing here. Have your barf-bags ready.
>http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin1.asp
Michelle Malkin wrote a lovely obit on Jack Olsen. Read that instead.
--
AH
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:reduju80bv7epfh26...@4ax.com:
> Non-sequitur of the week. You're expecting al Qaeda subs now? Send for
> Jack Ryan.
Yes, and the al Quaeda didn't launch nuclear missiles at us either, which
is an *excellent* argument against the creation of a missile-defense
system.
> Michelle Malkin wrote a lovely obit on Jack Olsen. Read that instead.
I've seen that, thanks. I read all her stuff.
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
------------------------------------------------------------
"For more than 40 years, the heathen left have successfully executed a
systematic, step by step dismantlement of a structure of morals and values
carefully put in place to protect the history, heritage and cultural
identity of America." --Linda Bowles
------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Zen
> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
> news:reduju80bv7epfh26...@4ax.com:
>
> > Non-sequitur of the week. You're expecting al Qaeda subs now? Send for
> > Jack Ryan.
>
> Yes, and the al Quaeda didn't launch nuclear missiles at us either, which
> is an *excellent* argument against the creation of a missile-defense
> system.
It surely inclines you to believe there are better things to spend
your money on. Those 'invaders' spent several months enjoying Florida
girlie bars. A missile-defence system wouldn't have stopped them but
just maybe an undercover lapdancer might have.
Zen
Alan Hope
said:
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
>news:reduju80bv7epfh26...@4ax.com:
>> Non-sequitur of the week. You're expecting al Qaeda subs now? Send for
>> Jack Ryan.
>Yes, and the al Quaeda didn't launch nuclear missiles at us either, which
>is an *excellent* argument against the creation of a missile-defense
>system.
<sigh> It's an excellent argument for not using al Qaeda as a
justification for a missile-defence system. That's why I used the term
"non sequitur".
>> Michelle Malkin wrote a lovely obit on Jack Olsen. Read that instead.
>I've seen that, thanks. I read all her stuff.
Okay. I've never had an e-quaintance die on me before. That's an odd
feeling enough, but then this one was a rather prominent public
figure, with obits in the papers and such. I don't know how to mourn.
--
AH
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> <sigh> It's an excellent argument for not using al Qaeda as a
> justification for a missile-defence system. That's why I used the term
> "non sequitur".
"Sigh" indeed. No one I know of has ever used al Qaeda as a "justification"
for missile defense. There are however those who have pointed to 911 as an
argument *against* missile defense. You know how it goes - a missile
defense system would have been useless against terrorists in airplanes,
therefore we don't need a missile defense system. The obvious flaw in that
argument is that no one can forsee the forms that future attacks might
take, or even from whence (handy word) they may come, and *especially*
given the horrible effectiveness of the attack on 9/11, it would behoove us
to be prepared for *all* concievable eventualities.
It is often the same factions who berate the administration for having
allowed us to be taken by surprise on 9/11 who make that foolish argument.
And apparently they don't see the irony in it.
It's safe to say that someday - tomorrow, next year, 20 years from now,
*someone* is going to lob a missile at the United States (And/or an
Western European country) from somewhere. It's almost inevitable. And if
911 taught us anything, it taught us that we need to be prepared for the
worst.
>I don't know how to mourn.
I don't know how to respond to that. Maybe you should write an op-ed of
your own.
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
------------------------------------------------------------
"All of the respect in the world for how Islam is practiced
by people I like doesn't take one B'hai down from the gallows." - Bill
Oliver
------------------------------------------------------------
Geno
"The Last Real Marlboro Man" <uwtiuzp...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
message news:Xns9256B98D83072uw...@216.166.71.239...
Hope does not know how to write an op-ed of his own--as he has never had an
idea or notion of his own. He only knows how to react to others' ideas and
notions. Even then, his reaction is frequently wrong.
--Geno<prove me wrong>Royer
Enough Already
he was fighting Takers with no respect for nature. The battle
continues today in a world that's far more crowded and unstable.
Have you ever visited a park like Yosemite, and if so, why? Do you
have any values outside of money and your perceived rights? Do you
understand what is meant by "the tragedy of the commons?" Do you
think we've found the only way to live with our 200-year industrial
experiment? Can you reply to a post like this without parroting some
right-wing insult?
You've been asked several times to give examples of what you consider
GOOD environmentalism, but you've only changed the subject, which
tells me you're a garden variety nature-hater. I can't understand why
some people spit on their origins and think they're taking a moral
stance.
You and many others call yourselves "conserv"atives, but what do you
really want to "conserve?" Concerns about Man destroying natural
resources are drowned out by talk of "property rights" and other
selfish mantras. You sneer at nature and value only immediate human
gratification. Where does that attitude originate except in greed?
Do you think your lack of formal education has led you to understand
ecology _better_ than scientists who've studied it for decades? A big
problem with the self-taught is lack of exposure to concepts they
don't naturally lean toward. You should at least take a beginner's
biology/ecoscience class before posting any more pompous messages on
this topic. You could sit through the entire course with your head
titled smugly, but you just might learn something you can't find in
the Bible.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:a20f7b76.02072...@posting.google.com:
> Can you reply to a post like this without parroting some
> right-wing insult?
Hey fuckwad. You entered this newsgroup and with your very first post you
went on the attack, against me personally. You cited a post of mine from
*four years ago*, which you could only have found if you either spent a
*lot* of time searching the archives for...what?, or if someone here with
an ax to grind told you about it, which indicates to me that you have an
unpleasant personal agenda. You brought Christianity into the discussion
through some mystical twist of reasoning, using the word "Christian" as a
pejortive, which identifies you as an intolerant bigot. You came in here,
not with a question or reasonable argument, but by explaining to me what is
is that I think.
You are perfectly free to do all of those things (just as others are free
to laugh at you for it). But when you do, don't whine like a child that you
aren't getting serious answers to your questions. You clearly identified
yourself as a nutcase from day one, and I don't give the time of day to
nutcases.
Got it? Good.
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
------------------------------------------------------------
"Liberals are constitutionally unable to understand that every tax
represents a transfer of power and freedom from the people to the
government." --Linda Bowles
------------------------------------------------------------
Stan (the Man)
Enough Already wrote:
<a rant to no one in particular>
EA, you might consider learning some Usenet protocols (such as citing
the person to whom you're responding) before getting all frothy and
stuff and posting your lectures.
Stan
Blanche Nonken
> You've been asked several times to give examples of what you consider
> GOOD environmentalism, but you've only changed the subject, which
> tells me you're a garden variety nature-hater.
Somebody get Annette a glass of water. I think she laughed so hard she
turned purple.
Tuples
>From: "Stan (the Man)" skid.@optonline.net.invalid
>Date: 7/27/02 4:13 AM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <3D42803E...@optonline.net.invalid>
I might also add that if a post asks a specific question such as "in what year
was the war of 1812 fought", quoting is not needed. People still get pissed off
because nothing was quoted.
You can also add a comment without the need to quote anything.
Some get pissed because they see an answer posted without any quotes. Often a
quote is not needed.
As for Usnet protocols, when did that ever make a difference?
Bob
gekko
rang out! "AUUUGGGH!" tup...@aol.com (Tuples) screamed. "...
> Bob
are you writing posts for yourself, or for others to read?
if for yourself, no biggie. if for others to read, what is your main
goal regarding those posts? to get response, to inform, to entertain,
to irritate, to insult, to garner admiration ... ?
except for "irritate" and "insult", your best choice would be to
follow conventions that people prefer. that nets you the most
readers/responders.
others will disregard what you say in order to complain about your
format, or will skip over your posts, finding them irritating.
--
gekko
In prison they will pay my way through school to learn a new career
and give me time to do it. At work they will pay for my education
but I must do it on my own time.
Stan (the Man)
Tuples wrote:
<...>
> As for Usnet protocols, when did that ever make a difference?
It doesn't, if you don't mind being considered a jerk.
Stan
Tuples
>From: "Stan (the Man)" skid.@optonline.net.invalid
>Message-id: <3D432168...@optonline.net.invalid>
little.
Bob
gekko
Last time i saw you, you were posting in misc.writing and wrote
this:
except ... it must. because, hello? you're now keeping an
attribution of sorts intact.
y'know, i wish like hell AOL would get with it and do attributions
correctly. people who have AOL have mentioned that to get an
attribution they have to do it manually, or just include the header
information.
bah.
--
gekko
A good catchword can obscure analysis for fifty years. -- Wendell L.
Wilkie
Tuples
>From: gekko ba0go...@sneakemail.com
>Date: 7/27/02 3:55 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns9258A1E5C...@news.mbue.de>
AOL does indeed suck. But I have 67,000 hours for free, so why waste them.
Bob
gekko
Last time i saw you, you were posting in misc.writing and wrote
this:
> AOL does indeed suck. But I have 67,000 hours for free, so why
> waste them.
See if they'll give you a question mark symbol in among those free
things. Here, I'll help ... looks like this ---> ?
Bwah. I kill me.
Tuples
>Message-id: <Xns9258A2D12...@news.mbue.de>
>
>Hey! tup...@aol.com (Tuples)! It's been a long time! How ya been?
>Last time i saw you, you were posting in misc.writing and wrote
>this:
>
>
>> AOL does indeed suck. But I have 67,000 hours for free, so why
>> waste them.
>
>
>See if they'll give you a question mark symbol in among those free
>things. Here, I'll help ... looks like this ---> ?
I wonder if perhaps it could be a rhetorical question?
Bob?
gekko
tup...@aol.com (Tuples) wrote in message
news:20020727193751...@mb-ma.aol.com...
yes. well. look at the striking commonality between the two sets
of things:
"rhetorical question"
"question mark"
--
gekko
Program (pro'-gram) [n] A magic spell cast over a computer allowing
it to turn one's input into error messages.
Alan Hope
said:
>You brought Christianity into the discussion
>through some mystical twist of reasoning, using the word "Christian" as a
>pejortive, which identifies you as an intolerant bigot.
How come using one label pejoratively (Christian, say) is a sign of
intolerance and bigotry, while using another (liberal, for instance)
pejoratively is a sign of Being Right and clear thinking?
--
AH
Alan Hope
said:
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
>news:bsg0ku4s6vseoi1n9...@4ax.com:
>> <sigh> It's an excellent argument for not using al Qaeda as a
>> justification for a missile-defence system. That's why I used the term
>> "non sequitur".
>"Sigh" indeed. No one I know of has ever used al Qaeda as a "justification"
>for missile defense. There are however those who have pointed to 911 as an
>argument *against* missile defense.
Um, you used them as a justification for submarine defence, and then
proceeded to introduce missile defence into the equation. I concur
with your confusion, but it's not my doing.
>You know how it goes - a missile
>defense system would have been useless against terrorists in airplanes,
>therefore we don't need a missile defense system. The obvious flaw in that
>argument is that no one can forsee the forms that future attacks might
>take, or even from whence (handy word) they may come, and *especially*
>given the horrible effectiveness of the attack on 9/11, it would behoove us
>to be prepared for *all* concievable eventualities.
>It is often the same factions who berate the administration for having
>allowed us to be taken by surprise on 9/11 who make that foolish argument.
>And apparently they don't see the irony in it.
>It's safe to say that someday - tomorrow, next year, 20 years from now,
>*someone* is going to lob a missile at the United States (And/or an
>Western European country) from somewhere. It's almost inevitable. And if
>911 taught us anything, it taught us that we need to be prepared for the
>worst.
>>I don't know how to mourn.
>I don't know how to respond to that. Maybe you should write an op-ed of
>your own.
Thought about it. It's the idea of feeling sad at the passing of
someone famous, known more intimately than celebrities usually are,
but still only briefly, and slightly, and virtually. What's the
correct level of regret? I'm wary of being like one of those
bubbleheads who meet by Jim Morrison's grave, and am testing my
feelings for authenticity.
So, was that a commission I read up there? I warn you I don't come
cheap, but I do come on time.
--
AH
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> So, was that a commission I read up there?
What am I, a slut?
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
------------------------------------------------------------
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> How come using one label pejoratively (Christian, say) is a sign of
> intolerance and bigotry, while using another (liberal, for instance)
> pejoratively is a sign of Being Right and clear thinking?
How come some things (the sky, say) are blue, while other things (grass,
for instance) are green?
Stan (the Man)
The Last Real Marlboro Man wrote:
>
> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
> news:3ld6kucmi167p753l...@4ax.com:
>
> > So, was that a commission I read up there?
>
> What am I, a slut?
'S what you told me.
Stan
gekko
> I do come on time.
Mrs. Alan's a lucky lady.
--
gekko
The easiest way to find something lost around the house is to buy a
replacement.
Geno
> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
> news:vkd6kuggdv1ohtu7j...@4ax.com:
>
> > How come using one label pejoratively (Christian, say) is a sign of
> > intolerance and bigotry, while using another (liberal, for instance)
> > pejoratively is a sign of Being Right and clear thinking?
>
> How come some things (the sky, say) are blue, while other things (grass,
> for instance) are green?
>
> --
> Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
> The Tocquevillian Magazine
> http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
Liberal is not pejorative. It simply means leftist and wrong. How can
something that is so obviously wrong to all clear thinking people be
pejorative? It is merely a fact.
My e-mail tells me every day that people who thought they were liberals have
discovered that they are not. They say things like, "Myghod, I thought I
was a liberal; but then thanks to you, I see what liberals really believe
and how they try to subvert the government and this nation's children, and
how they don't believe in God, and I say what have I been thinking all these
years."
I always just shrug and write back and tell they how fucking stupid they
have been.
--Geno<ALWAYS glad to tell it like it is>Royer
Alan Hope
said:
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
>news:3ld6kucmi167p753l...@4ax.com:
>> So, was that a commission I read up there?
>What am I, a slut?
No, but I thought I was.
--
AH
Alan Hope
said:
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
>news:vkd6kuggdv1ohtu7j...@4ax.com:
>> How come using one label pejoratively (Christian, say) is a sign of
>> intolerance and bigotry, while using another (liberal, for instance)
>> pejoratively is a sign of Being Right and clear thinking?
>How come some things (the sky, say) are blue, while other things (grass,
>for instance) are green?
I guess Analogy 101 must be next semester. The distinction between
blue and green is not the same as the distinction between wrong and
okay.
And you're comparing two different things. I was highlighting an
inconsistent response to two similar things -- using a label
pejoratively and using a label pejoratively.
You already have the class reading list. It's in your interest to
obtain the texts and get started as soon as you can.
--
AH
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> And you're comparing two different things.
Yeah, I know. But it sounded clever.
My real answer won't satisfy you, but here it is.
I do use "liberal" as a pejorative, because it is. The premise of your
question necessarily assumes moral equivillance between the main world
religions and a failed leftist ideology.
I don't buy that. I could just as easily use the word neo-Nazi as a
pejorative (if the subject was indeed a neo-Nazi) without being a
hypocrite.
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
------------------------------------------------------------
"Anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism go hand in hand." --Don Feder
------------------------------------------------------------
Geno
> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
> news:0i09kucqu27v3sgrk...@4ax.com:
>
> > And you're comparing two different things.
>
> Yeah, I know. But it sounded clever.
>
> My real answer won't satisfy you, but here it is.
>
> I do use "liberal" as a pejorative, because it is. The premise of your
> question necessarily assumes moral equivillance between the main world
> religions and a failed leftist ideology.
>
> I don't buy that. I could just as easily use the word neo-Nazi as a
> pejorative (if the subject was indeed a neo-Nazi) without being a
> hypocrite.
>
>
> --
> Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
> The Tocquevillian Magazine
> http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
>
Hmmm. Mebbe I'm confused as to the definition of pejorative. I thought it
was an insult.
I never call liberals that name to insult them but to identify them as such.
--Geno<I need to go back to school. I wonder if they saved my desk>Royer
Bill Oliver
Enough Already <enough_...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>Do you think your lack of formal education has led you to understand
>ecology _better_ than scientists who've studied it for decades? A big
>problem with the self-taught is lack of exposure to concepts they
>don't naturally lean toward.
Well, he's certainly doing no worse than you.
billo
gekko
>
> "The Last Real Marlboro Man" <uwtiuzp...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns9259D9D38FE60uw...@216.166.71.239...
> > Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
> > news:0i09kucqu27v3sgrk...@4ax.com:
> >
> > > And you're comparing two different things.
> >
> > Yeah, I know. But it sounded clever.
> >
> > My real answer won't satisfy you, but here it is.
> >
> > I do use "liberal" as a pejorative, because it is. The premise of your
> > question necessarily assumes moral equivillance between the main world
> > religions and a failed leftist ideology.
> >
> > I don't buy that. I could just as easily use the word neo-Nazi as a
> > pejorative (if the subject was indeed a neo-Nazi) without being a
> > hypocrite.
>
>
> was an insult.
> I never call liberals that name to insult them but to identify them as such.
>
> --Geno<I need to go back to school. I wonder if they saved my desk>Royer
The touchy-feelie school of emotive assignation says that since
you despise liberalism, you knowingly *intend* to insult those
whom you label "liberal".
What's interesting is when the members of that school apply
labels to those with whom they disagree. Then it is not
insult. Saucy gooses, innit.
--
gekko
Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic. -- Sterne
Alan Hope
said:
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
>news:0i09kucqu27v3sgrk...@4ax.com:
>> And you're comparing two different things.
>Yeah, I know. But it sounded clever.
>My real answer won't satisfy you, but here it is.
>I do use "liberal" as a pejorative, because it is. The premise of your
>question necessarily assumes moral equivillance between the main world
>religions and a failed leftist ideology.
>I don't buy that. I could just as easily use the word neo-Nazi as a
>pejorative (if the subject was indeed a neo-Nazi) without being a
>hypocrite.
I'm sure you don't buy it. Just as others will not buy the converse,
and argue that the superiority of their ideology gave them carte
blanche to be dismissive and inconsistent. The best you can do is to
admit that you may only describe pejorative labelling as "wrong" from
the POV of and within your own system, unless you go on to accept that
labelling in itself is wrong.
In other words, don't dish it out if you can't take it, and the record
shows you can't. No-one here reacts with more outrage to being
pejoratively labelled, yet you use the technique enthusiastically
yourself. Pick a position and stick to it, I say. Flip-flopping ill
becomes you.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>MOMMY!!! Look what Geno <sire...@ev1.net> left in the bathroom sink:
>> "The Last Real Marlboro Man" <uwtiuzp...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>> message news:Xns9259D9D38FE60uw...@216.166.71.239...
>> > Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
>> > news:0i09kucqu27v3sgrk...@4ax.com:
>> > > And you're comparing two different things.
>> > Yeah, I know. But it sounded clever.
>> > My real answer won't satisfy you, but here it is.
>> > I do use "liberal" as a pejorative, because it is. The premise of your
>> > question necessarily assumes moral equivillance between the main world
>> > religions and a failed leftist ideology.
>> > I don't buy that. I could just as easily use the word neo-Nazi as a
>> > pejorative (if the subject was indeed a neo-Nazi) without being a
>> > hypocrite.
>> Hmmm. Mebbe I'm confused as to the definition of pejorative. I thought it
>> was an insult.
>> I never call liberals that name to insult them but to identify them as such.
>> --Geno<I need to go back to school. I wonder if they saved my desk>Royer
>The touchy-feelie school of emotive assignation says that since
>you despise liberalism, you knowingly *intend* to insult those
>whom you label "liberal".
Since his views on liberalism are known, and boy are they known by
now, what other possible interpretation could be put on the word?
>What's interesting is when the members of that school apply
>labels to those with whom they disagree. Then it is not
>insult. Saucy gooses, innit.
You bring me right back round to my initial point, and I thank you.
Those who affect to dislike labels when used pejoratively (like
"Christian") are enthusiastic in their own use of such labels against
others (like "liberal"). Now how can that be, you ask. I asked it too,
and I'm still waiting for an answer. Any ideas?
--
AH
gekko
elusive butterfly of love in message
news:vqmbku8mfgqphmp48...@4ax.com...
When I was a kid, I decided to run with the "in" crowd in the
neighborhood. They were all into being "women's libbers". We were
8, 9 years old and had little idea what that meant, but it sounded
good. So the leader of that little clique wanted to be a feminist,
and we all followed along. That meant, it turns out, that we went
out and played in the dirt. We played "make-believe horse ranchers"
and "cops and robbers". Hide and seek. We did NOT play "Barbies".
That was forbidden. We wore shorts and pants -- skirts and dresses
were right out. We wore our hair short, or at least in pony tails so
it would look short.
Except I grew bored with being a wannabe boy. I *wanted* to play
with my Barbie dolls. I wanted to play make-believe "house" and I
wanted to wear my hair long and in curls. And I liked the new skirt
that I got for my birthday.
So I eschewed the in-crowd, one day, and went down the street to play
Barbies with the new girl. I wore my skirt and some play make-up.
We played dress-up, too.
The leader of the clique caught wind of this transgression and rang
me up.
"I heard you were playing *Barbies* with that new girl." Her tone
was icy, accusatory, and she *spat* the word "Barbies" out at me.
"Yes." I mumbled, because she was daunting. (Her name was, and
presumably still is "Wendy". No relation to Ms. Chatley-Green.).
"You. You're nothing but a ... GIRL!" The insult was dripping down
the sides of the word "girl" and onto the floor. I could hear it
going "ploop. ploop." in the background in the ensuing silence. I
was supposed to be shamed, and deeply wounded, and insulted.
But I wasn't.
Isn't that strange?
I felt ... proud. Very proud. Yes. I *was* a girl. I did girl
things. I enjoyed doing what I did and did not enjoy playing cops
and robbers. There was no shame in being a girl, and thus no real
insult in being called one.
"Yes. That's what I am, Wendy. A girl." I hung up the phone.
Of course, if the touchy-feelie sensitive types want to feel insult,
they'll feel it. I mean, it's *intended* as insult, so it must be,
yes?
>
>>What's interesting is when the members of that school apply
>>labels to those with whom they disagree. Then it is not
>>insult. Saucy gooses, innit.
>
> You bring me right back round to my initial point, and I thank
> you. Those who affect to dislike labels when used pejoratively
> (like "Christian") are enthusiastic in their own use of such
> labels against others (like "liberal"). Now how can that be, you
> ask. I asked it too, and I'm still waiting for an answer. Any
> ideas?
No one likes to be insulted. Few see anything wrong with insulting
others, especially when they "know" they are in the "right". I see
no mystery there, nor do I see any reason for "shame" in it. There's
no shame in adopting a position and holding to it consistently. If
that position is "My ideals are correct, yours are incorrect, and
because mine are correct your insults are vapid and mine are
weighty" then I see nothing wrong with that.
But, of course, your touchy-feelie wishy-washy sensitivism (and
enabling of same) would dictate otherwise.
Did you get what you wanted out of this, luvvy?
--
gekko
Beethoven had an ear for music. -- anonymous
gekko
bright, elusive butterfly of love in message
> Of course, if the touchy-feelie sensitive types want to feel
> insult, they'll feel it. I mean, it's *intended* as insult, so it
> must be, yes?
Tsk. Me bad. I left out one other comment that is important:
If the label applied does not fit the person to whom it is applied,
or if the person to whom it is applied does not believe it fits, the
insult will likely be felt. So, if someone calls me a nigger-hater,
I'd probably get all touchy-feelie sensitive. Doesn't fit, you see?
If a person is *not* a "liberal", and yet must endure Geno or Wayne
calling him a "liberal" (as opposed to, say, accusing him of using a
liberal argument), then sure. Feel the insult.
Or not. Depends on how seriously you take this stuff.
--
gekko
If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must
be the process of putting them in.
Alan Hope
[Hope tries to catch a waiter's eye]
>Except I grew bored with being a wannabe boy. I *wanted* to play
>with my Barbie dolls. I wanted to play make-believe "house" and I
>wanted to wear my hair long and in curls. And I liked the new skirt
>that I got for my birthday.
>So I eschewed the in-crowd, one day, and went down the street to play
>Barbies with the new girl. I wore my skirt and some play make-up.
>We played dress-up, too.
[Still no success. He drinks the dregs from his glass, again]
>The leader of the clique caught wind of this transgression and rang
>me up.
>"I heard you were playing *Barbies* with that new girl." Her tone
>was icy, accusatory, and she *spat* the word "Barbies" out at me.
[A waiter appears to notice, and starts moving in their direction. But
no. At the last minute he veers away to another table]
>"Yes." I mumbled, because she was daunting. (Her name was, and
>presumably still is "Wendy". No relation to Ms. Chatley-Green.).
>"You. You're nothing but a ... GIRL!" The insult was dripping down
>the sides of the word "girl" and onto the floor. I could hear it
>going "ploop. ploop." in the background in the ensuing silence. I
>was supposed to be shamed, and deeply wounded, and insulted.
Mmm.
[Finally, a waiter looks over. Hope motions for another round of the
same drinks, and breathes a sigh of relief]
>But I wasn't.
Hmm?
>Isn't that strange?
Oh, my. Yes indeed.
>I felt ... proud. Very proud. Yes. I *was* a girl. I did girl
>things. I enjoyed doing what I did and did not enjoy playing cops
>and robbers. There was no shame in being a girl, and thus no real
>insult in being called one.
>"Yes. That's what I am, Wendy. A girl." I hung up the phone.
>Of course, if the touchy-feelie sensitive types want to feel insult,
>they'll feel it. I mean, it's *intended* as insult, so it must be,
>yes?
Of course. If it's intended to be an insult then that's what it is. It
may or may not be effective, as your delightful little anecdote
illustrates. But that's like saying my throwing a rock at you is not
an assault if it doesn't split your noggin.
We were talking, or I was, about someone who uses insults despite
being outraged when someone does the same to him. He, and you besides,
gets unmistakeably upset when people insult his faith. There's no
doubt of that. So I wanted to know why such a person would so blithely
insult others.
>>>What's interesting is when the members of that school apply
>>>labels to those with whom they disagree. Then it is not
>>>insult. Saucy gooses, innit.
>> You bring me right back round to my initial point, and I thank
>> you. Those who affect to dislike labels when used pejoratively
>> (like "Christian") are enthusiastic in their own use of such
>> labels against others (like "liberal"). Now how can that be, you
>> ask. I asked it too, and I'm still waiting for an answer. Any
>> ideas?
>No one likes to be insulted. Few see anything wrong with insulting
>others, especially when they "know" they are in the "right". I see
>no mystery there, nor do I see any reason for "shame" in it. There's
>no shame in adopting a position and holding to it consistently.
But the position is not consistent. It's a case of "can dish it out,
can't take it". It's also a case of "don't do as I do, do as I say".
>If
>that position is "My ideals are correct, yours are incorrect, and
>because mine are correct your insults are vapid and mine are
>weighty" then I see nothing wrong with that.
You don't? But it's utterly one-sided, inconsistent and hypocritical.
It applies one set of rules (don't denigrate my beliefs) to others
that are not applied to oneself. I'm not interested in the relative
merits of people's beliefs. I'm asking why someone who shows no sign
of respect for other people's beliefs would expect to be immune from
the same disdain. Why is respect a one-way street?
>But, of course, your touchy-feelie wishy-washy sensitivism (and
>enabling of same) would dictate otherwise.
If you give it out, you shouldn't complain when you get some back.
Does that seem like an odd principle for Usenet?
>Did you get what you wanted out of this, luvvy?
I'm insulted at your implication, you ... girl.
--
AH
Wendy Chatley Green
:(Her name was, and
:>presumably still is "Wendy". No relation to Ms. Chatley-Green.).
My name is not hyphenated. It consists of a first name (Wendy), a
middle name (Chatley), and a last name (Green): Wendy Chatley Green.
Accept no substitutions or misspellings.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
gekko
> Speaking earlier on the misc.writing show, gekko said:
<whap>
> >Of course, if the touchy-feelie sensitive types want to feel insult,
> >they'll feel it. I mean, it's *intended* as insult, so it must be,
> >yes?
>
> Of course. If it's intended to be an insult then that's what it is. It
> may or may not be effective, as your delightful little anecdote
> illustrates. But that's like saying my throwing a rock at you is not
> an assault if it doesn't split your noggin.
No, insult is as insult does.
>
> We were talking, or I was, about someone who uses insults despite
> being outraged when someone does the same to him. He, and you besides,
> gets unmistakeably upset when people insult his faith. There's no
> doubt of that. So I wanted to know why such a person would so blithely
> insult others.
The issue isn't whether it is wrong or right to insult. That's
a matter of personal philosophy. When someone like, say, Wayne
insults people, he's not simulataneously saying it's wrong
for them to insult him.
> >No one likes to be insulted. Few see anything wrong with insulting
> >others, especially when they "know" they are in the "right". I see
> >no mystery there, nor do I see any reason for "shame" in it. There's
> >no shame in adopting a position and holding to it consistently.
>
> But the position is not consistent. It's a case of "can dish it out,
> can't take it". It's also a case of "don't do as I do, do as I say".
Oh bullshit. You find me one instance where Wayne has
whined about being insulted (and be sure to point to where
he's whining that someone is insulting him, not that they're
being bigots about religion). You find me an instance where
he has said "you're not allowed to insult people."
And none of that made-up "it *felt* like this therefore
it *must be* this" new age shit.
> >If
> >that position is "My ideals are correct, yours are incorrect, and
> >because mine are correct your insults are vapid and mine are
> >weighty" then I see nothing wrong with that.
>
> You don't? But it's utterly one-sided, inconsistent and hypocritical.
No, it isn't. If I believe that I am right and good, and that
your beliefs are wrong and evil, then my telling you that your
beliefs are wrong and evil are not inconsistent nor hypocritical.
You're mixing things up, Alan.
> It applies one set of rules (don't denigrate my beliefs) to others
> that are not applied to oneself.
>
> I'm not interested in the relative
> merits of people's beliefs. I'm asking why someone who shows no sign
> of respect for other people's beliefs would expect to be immune from
> the same disdain. Why is respect a one-way street?
That's a corner of "absolutism". There *is* no such thing
as "relative merits".
Kidnapping, viciously sodomizing and murdering a little child
is wrong. Is it wrong to denigrate a person who does that?
If that person denigrates *you* by calling you names, is he
worthy of scorn for doing that? Must there be "respect" for that
person in that case?
Back up however many steps you want from that. Leaving oily
nose prints on your mother's just-cleaned window is wrong.
Is she wrong to yell at you for doing that? Must she "respect"
your privilege to choose to press your nose up against her
window?
If holding liberal views is *wrong*, then they are *wrong* and
those views are worthy of denigration. If you, after being
"enlightened", persist in holding to them, then you are worthy
of denigration. If you denigrate back, that's your choice, but
why would you expect someone who is certain you're wrong and
he's right to smile and nod and say "sure, I respect you,
man."?
Pretty fucking silly, if you ask me.
> >But, of course, your touchy-feelie wishy-washy sensitivism (and
> >enabling of same) would dictate otherwise.
>
> If you give it out, you shouldn't complain when you get some back.
> Does that seem like an odd principle for Usenet?
Jeezus.
Denigrating people for their faith is bigotry. If you have
faith, you have it because the spirit (or whatever) moved
within you. That is an essential part of you, as your skin
color is. If you lack it, that, too, is an essential part
of you.
Political systems, political ideologies are *learned*. They
may well be wrapped up with your faith, but they are actually
learned and adapted. They are mutable. One may (and many
do) change their political outlooks as time passes.
Denigrating people for having what you feel is the *wrong*
political outlook is not bigotry.
So it is right and good to complain about bigotry. So far,
I've not seen Wayne complain about people denigrating his
conservatism. I've seen him insulting the hell out of them,
but not *complaining*.
Perhaps you've seen a post that I haven't properly understood,
however. I await your enlightenment.
>
> >Did you get what you wanted out of this, luvvy?
>
> I'm insulted at your implication, you ... girl.
*smooch*
Why are my spreadsheet chart bars so very thin?
--
gekko
Q: How many sopranos does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: One. She holds up the bulb and waits for the world to revolve around her.
gekko
> For some inexplicable reasons, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> :(Her name was, and
> :>presumably still is "Wendy". No relation to Ms. Chatley-Green.).
>
> My name is not hyphenated. It consists of a first name (Wendy), a
> middle name (Chatley), and a last name (Green): Wendy Chatley Green.
>
> Accept no substitutions or misspellings.
>
That was me, and I apologize for the hyphen.
--
gek-ko
6.66% 5 year fixed CD rate at the Bank of the Beast
Alan Hope
>For some inexplicable reasons, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
No he didn't.
>:(Her name was, and
>:>presumably still is "Wendy". No relation to Ms. Chatley-Green.).
>My name is not hyphenated. It consists of a first name (Wendy), a
>middle name (Chatley), and a last name (Green): Wendy Chatley Green.
> Accept no substitutions or misspellings.
--
AH
Wendy Chatley Green
:Speaking earlier on the misc.writing show, Wendy Chatley Green said:
:
:>For some inexplicable reasons, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
:
:No he didn't.
:
You're correct; you didn't.
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
wrote:
>For some inexplicable reasons, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>:(Her name was, and
>:>presumably still is "Wendy". No relation to Ms. Chatley-Green.).
>
>My name is not hyphenated. It consists of a first name (Wendy), a
>middle name (Chatley), and a last name (Green): Wendy Chatley Green.
>
> Accept no substitutions or misspellings.
Aw, not even one from column A and two from column B?
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davida @ jdc . org . il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"A fiction writer's memory is an especially imperfect
provider of detail; we can always imagine a better detail
than the one we can remember." -- John Irving
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~
Alan Hope
>Subtlety is the art of saying what you think and getting out of the way before it is understood. Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be>, who posted in misc.writing on Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:46:06 +0200 demonstrates this principle in this way:
>> Speaking earlier on the misc.writing show, gekko said:
><whap>
>> >Of course, if the touchy-feelie sensitive types want to feel insult,
>> >they'll feel it. I mean, it's *intended* as insult, so it must be,
>> >yes?
>> Of course. If it's intended to be an insult then that's what it is. It
>> may or may not be effective, as your delightful little anecdote
>> illustrates. But that's like saying my throwing a rock at you is not
>> an assault if it doesn't split your noggin.
>No, insult is as insult does.
You're not thinking straight, girly. That position is untenable. Allow
me to explain why:
It takes no account of intent, and in doing so absolves the speaker of
all responsibility for his own words. It hands power over his words to
someone else. So if I'm insulted by something you say, you have to
suck it up and admit, by your own logic, that you insulted me.
Regardless of what your intent was, I get to decide whether you spoke
an insult or not.
You therefore have to admit, retrospectively, the justice of Erin
Barrett's claim to be offended by some post about blondes. It wasn't
for the original poster to defend himself or explain his true
intention, since you have handed the reins over to the recipient. Erin
was insulted, so the initial comment was an insult. Case closed.
This means, for example, that all the critics of Gene Royer down the
ages were right. His use of the word Negro is offensive, because
someone along the line was offended. His protests are irrelevant,
since it's not for him to decide what effect his words have. If
someone was insulted, he committed an insult.
>> We were talking, or I was, about someone who uses insults despite
>> being outraged when someone does the same to him. He, and you besides,
>> gets unmistakeably upset when people insult his faith. There's no
>> doubt of that. So I wanted to know why such a person would so blithely
>> insult others.
>The issue isn't whether it is wrong or right to insult. That's
>a matter of personal philosophy. When someone like, say, Wayne
>insults people, he's not simulataneously saying it's wrong
>for them to insult him.
Not simultaneously, of course. But the position on that matter is
still inconsistent with his position regarding others. Here's my rule:
don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. Sound
familiar?
>> >No one likes to be insulted. Few see anything wrong with insulting
>> >others, especially when they "know" they are in the "right". I see
>> >no mystery there, nor do I see any reason for "shame" in it. There's
>> >no shame in adopting a position and holding to it consistently.
>> But the position is not consistent. It's a case of "can dish it out,
>> can't take it". It's also a case of "don't do as I do, do as I say".
>Oh bullshit. You find me one instance where Wayne has
>whined about being insulted (and be sure to point to where
>he's whining that someone is insulting him, not that they're
>being bigots about religion). You find me an instance where
>he has said "you're not allowed to insult people."
He only points out they're being bigots about religion because he's
insulted by attacks on his faith. Some of you (I include you in this
explicitly) react to all attacks, insults and denigrations of
Christianity as if the attack etc. had been perpetrated on you
personally. Go ahead and internalise your religion all you want, but
don't then blame me when an insult to the religion looks like an
insult on you. You're responsible for that.
>And none of that made-up "it *felt* like this therefore
>it *must be* this" new age shit.
But you just said "insult is as insult does". So if a person *feels*
insulted, who are you to say they weren't insulted? You droned on an
interminable length to try to prove an attempted insult didn't work,
and so didn't qualify for the name. The one who's been relying for her
point on what things *felt like* is you, my dear.
>> >If
>> >that position is "My ideals are correct, yours are incorrect, and
>> >because mine are correct your insults are vapid and mine are
>> >weighty" then I see nothing wrong with that.
>> You don't? But it's utterly one-sided, inconsistent and hypocritical.
>No, it isn't. If I believe that I am right and good, and that
>your beliefs are wrong and evil, then my telling you that your
>beliefs are wrong and evil are not inconsistent nor hypocritical.
It is if you don't extend the same possibility to other people. I'm
aware that certain religious beliefs *require* adherents to consider
themselves above non-believers, and look down on them as inhuman scum.
I say that's fine, so long as you keep it within the confines of your
own religious community, where it cuts some ice. Out here, though, in
the community in general, you have to abide by the rules of the
community or be hauled over the coals for not doing so, and one of the
main rules is "Can't take it? Don't dish it out".
>You're mixing things up, Alan.
No, you are. No surprises there. How often do we see you tie yourself
in logical knots in an attempt to defend one of your buddies (who,
meantime, has had the sense to withdraw and leave the slanging to
others)? You get into these endless two-handed threads because, I
suspect, you believe you have a gift for arguing. I wish I could
lighten your burden by pointing to even an occasional success, but
sadly nothing comes to mind.
I congratulate you on your selfless loyalty, though. Selfless, loyal
and unrequited -- I don't ever see the gang jumping to bail you out of
a tight spot. You may want to discuss that with them, with an eye on
the keyword: reciprocity.
>> It applies one set of rules (don't denigrate my beliefs) to others
>> that are not applied to oneself.
>> I'm not interested in the relative
>> merits of people's beliefs. I'm asking why someone who shows no sign
>> of respect for other people's beliefs would expect to be immune from
>> the same disdain. Why is respect a one-way street?
>That's a corner of "absolutism". There *is* no such thing
>as "relative merits".
Are you saying you're an absolutist? There is such a thing if we
decide to discuss it.
>Kidnapping, viciously sodomizing and murdering a little child
>is wrong. Is it wrong to denigrate a person who does that?
>If that person denigrates *you* by calling you names, is he
>worthy of scorn for doing that? Must there be "respect" for that
>person in that case?
Oh, get fucked, if this it the best level your argument can reach.
>Back up however many steps you want from that. Leaving oily
>nose prints on your mother's just-cleaned window is wrong.
>Is she wrong to yell at you for doing that? Must she "respect"
>your privilege to choose to press your nose up against her
>window?
If she's in the habit of pressing her nose against some windows, she's
in a very dodgy position in forbidding you to do so, see how that
works?
>If holding liberal views is *wrong*, then they are *wrong* and
>those views are worthy of denigration. If you, after being
>"enlightened", persist in holding to them, then you are worthy
>of denigration. If you denigrate back, that's your choice, but
>why would you expect someone who is certain you're wrong and
>he's right to smile and nod and say "sure, I respect you,
>man."?
He doesn't need to, all all, ever. Is that clear?
But if he holds to that position, he should just shut the fuck up and
take it when someone does the same to him. That's all I'm saying. Have
you got it yet? If you want to bad-mouth people of differing views,
don't whine and sob for a tissue when they do it back to you.
Have a word with Geno. He understands this quid pro quo perfectly
well, and that's why you'll never see him going Waaaah! Nasty bigots
trod all over my religious beliefs, waaah! The way you do, and the way
others do. Check back when you've found one example of Geno looking
for special treatment just because he's a Christian.
>Pretty fucking silly, if you ask me.
It's fucking silly because you made it all up. If it had been what I
said, you wouldn't be saying that.
>> >But, of course, your touchy-feelie wishy-washy sensitivism (and
>> >enabling of same) would dictate otherwise.
>> If you give it out, you shouldn't complain when you get some back.
>> Does that seem like an odd principle for Usenet?
>Jeezus.
>Denigrating people for their faith is bigotry. If you have
>faith, you have it because the spirit (or whatever) moved
>within you. That is an essential part of you, as your skin
>color is. If you lack it, that, too, is an essential part
>of you.
This is more bullshit special pleading. You're looking for people to
give you a pass just because your beliefs happen to be religious ones,
even though the people whose indulgence you seek don't share your
views. Ask billo, a learned man who's studied many aspects of faith,
what he thinks about allowing special dispensation to
religiously-driven people. He's currently engaged in a tooth-and-nail
fight to prove all Muslims are murderers. It appears that the spirit
has to be *your* spirit for the magic to work. The faith has to be
*your* faith, or the cloak of invisibility is powerless.
Why not try this? Why not let your beliefs compete in the marketplace
along with all others, and defend them as if they weren't specially
protected by God? If you were willing to do that, you'd be making a
strong case for your faith. It's not impossible: Paul Harwood does it.
This attitude of noli me tangere you adopt the minute the debate turns
to Christianity makes it seem like you're afraid of dissent. One is
forced to ask the question: since you have God on your side, why so
scared?
>Political systems, political ideologies are *learned*. They
>may well be wrapped up with your faith, but they are actually
>learned and adapted. They are mutable. One may (and many
>do) change their political outlooks as time passes.
And none of that applies to religious matters, right. That may apply
to you, that you growed that way and that's that. It doesn;t have to
be that way. Paul Harwood seems to have learned a lot of what he
believes, and is still in the process of learning. No doubt he'd agree
with you, that the Spirit moved him that way. But it wasn't a one-time
thing. You can be called and then go on learning.
In any case, I fail to see why the distinction between being born some
way and learning to be some way should be important.
>Denigrating people for having what you feel is the *wrong*
>political outlook is not bigotry.
Why not? And if I agree it's not, then why doesn't the same apply to
religion? You still haven't addressed that initial question, other
than to claim "Just because".
>So it is right and good to complain about bigotry. So far,
>I've not seen Wayne complain about people denigrating his
>conservatism. I've seen him insulting the hell out of them,
>but not *complaining*.
You'll see him complaining about people denigrating his religious
beliefs. What's the difference?
>Perhaps you've seen a post that I haven't properly understood,
>however. I await your enlightenment.
I have a fleet of drivers working 24/7 trying to deliver enlightenment
to your address, and they all come back with a full load and say
nobody answered the door.
>> >Did you get what you wanted out of this, luvvy?
>> I'm insulted at your implication, you ... girl.
>*smooch*
>Why are my spreadsheet chart bars so very thin?
--
AH
Alan Hope
[gekko's very poor ad homs and slithering word-twistings snipped out
of good taste]
>Each of us makes a determination that there is "right"
>and there is "wrong", and each of us denigrates the "wrong" while
>holding the "right" to be sacrosanct. Each of us, that is, except
>for a few squirrelly wishy-washy types who cannot make up their
>minds.
>Some do so *more intensely* than others. Their boundaries of
>"right" and "wrong" are very clear cut, and absolute.
>There is no inconsistency in denigrating the wrong and holding up the
>right.
>None.
One: Adopting and maintaining such a position is the sign of a closed
mind, and a rather stupid person.
Two: Accept and reject what you will, but don't come the cry-baby when
other people don't go along with you. If you're willing to put others'
opinions down summarily and insultingly, be man enough to take it when
it comes back to you, and no whining. Bigotry exists in many forms,
one of them being the attitude you so admiringly ascribe to Wayne.
Three: If you want to play at rock-throwing with the bigger boys, no
crying to Momma when a rock hits you.
Four: Don't dish it out if you can't take it. And no getting girls to
fight your battles for you. That's totally whack.
I hope this sorts out some of the profound confusion in your mind.
Feel free to come back to me with any other issues your friend is
having trouble with. If you have questions of your own, my door is
similarly always open.
--
AH
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> He only points out they're being bigots about religion because he's
> insulted by attacks on his faith.
You are *so*....European. Dead wrong, about it all, in other words.
The idiotic line above wouldn't explain my the manner in which I latch onto
and blast the bigots who hate the Jews, would it?
You see, Alan, you *European*, I hate bigotry in general, but I hate
religious bigotry in particular precisely because that particular form of
hatred it is so *acceptable* to people like you. It is so *excusable* to
"progressives" like you. You see me pointing it out so frequently *because
no one else will.* Got that? If someone were to display bigotry of a more
politically acceptable kind, the peanut gallery would be all over him like
pigs to the trough. But it takes someone with integrity, like me, to point
out *all* forms of bigotry, even the politically protected kind.
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
------------------------------------------------------------
"Tolerance is a virtue deeply embedded in the American people -- more so
indeed than in their elites who are periodically swept up in intolerant
puritanical campaigns whether for prohibition or university 'speech
codes'." --John O'Sullivan
------------------------------------------------------------
Geno
> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
> news:2fegkucp2s48adk3k...@4ax.com:
>
> > He only points out they're being bigots about religion because he's
> > insulted by attacks on his faith.
>
> You are *so*....European. Dead wrong, about it all, in other words.
>
> The idiotic line above wouldn't explain my the manner in which I latch
onto
> and blast the bigots who hate the Jews, would it?
>
> You see, Alan, you *European*, I hate bigotry in general, but I hate
> religious bigotry in particular precisely because that particular form of
> hatred it is so *acceptable* to people like you. It is so *excusable* to
> "progressives" like you. You see me pointing it out so frequently *because
> no one else will.* Got that? If someone were to display bigotry of a more
> politically acceptable kind, the peanut gallery would be all over him like
> pigs to the trough. But it takes someone with integrity, like me, to point
> out *all* forms of bigotry, even the politically protected kind.
>
> --
> Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
> The Tocquevillian Magazine
> http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
>
Big guy, the ungodly see no bigotry in their hatred and attacks on
Christianity. They are under the influence of evil, and they live in a
world where such comments are commonplace and acceptable to their ungodly
peers. Few people have the balls to point out their bigotry, and they
always bristle when it is done. I laud you your forthrightness and honor.
Please don't let any *do-gooder* Christians come along and entice you to
water down your timely retorts to these enemies of God.
--Geno<damn I'm good>Royer
Alan Hope
>"My own logic" was sarcasm, boyo.
Then you're arguing up your own fundament. Nothing to see here. Carry
on.
--
AH
Alan Hope
said:
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
>news:2fegkucp2s48adk3k...@4ax.com:
>> He only points out they're being bigots about religion because he's
>> insulted by attacks on his faith.
>You are *so*....European. Dead wrong, about it all, in other words.
>The idiotic line above wouldn't explain my the manner in which I latch onto
>and blast the bigots who hate the Jews, would it?
Wouldn't it? I think it might.
>You see, Alan, you *European*, I hate bigotry in general, but I hate
>religious bigotry in particular precisely because that particular form of
>hatred it is so *acceptable* to people like you. It is so *excusable* to
>"progressives" like you. You see me pointing it out so frequently *because
>no one else will.* Got that?
Huh. No-one else apart from Royer, Oliver, gekko, Stan -- did I miss
anyone?
>If someone were to display bigotry of a more
>politically acceptable kind, the peanut gallery would be all over him like
>pigs to the trough.
And that's the form of bigotry I'm accusing you of either committing
or condoning. The kind that denigrates non-conservatives, Europeans,
Brits, feminists, environmentalists.
>But it takes someone with integrity, like me, to point
>out *all* forms of bigotry, even the politically protected kind.
Bully for you. I look forward to seeing you over in the thread where
billo is tarring all Muslims with the extremist brush. I'm sure when
you said "religious bigotry" you weren't only referring to your own
religion. And you'll have something to say about Royer's bigotry
towards Norwegians next. You have a full workload, kiddo. Go to it.
--
AH
Bill Oliver
Paul Harwood <pa...@wrevel.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 09:29:04 GMT, The Last Real Marlboro Man said in
>misc.writing:
>
>>But it takes someone with integrity, like me, to point
>>out *all* forms of bigotry, even the politically protected kind.
>
>
>Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own
>opinions and prejudices.
>
>
>Makes you think, doesn't it?
>
Yes, it makes me think that there exist other dictionaries.
billo
Bill Oliver
Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>Bully for you. I look forward to seeing you over in the thread where
>billo is tarring all Muslims with the extremist brush.
This is, of course, a lie.
I have never made any claim about all Moslems. I have never
made a claim about *most* Moslems.
My claims were, and have always been twofold:
1) The extremist Moslems are a sizeable number, and not
the mere few "rotten" apples.
2) That this sizeable minority is accepted in a collegial
sense by the majority of Moslems, and as such is part
of the mainstream, in the same way that fundamentalist
Christians are part of mainstream Christianity.
billo
Tuples
>From: bi...@radix.net (Bill Oliver)
>Date: 8/1/02 2:13 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <aic89m$g76$1...@news1.Radix.Net>
http://www.helsinki.fi/~hkantola/dict.html
Bob
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> You have a full workload, kiddo. Go to it.
You are a person who is incapable of making moral distinctions, you see,
Alan. *Anything* I say to you on this subject is arguable from your
relativistic viewpoint. We have no common ground from which to begin a
discussion, don't you know.
If taken to its logicial conclusion, your reasoning would condemn me for
hating communism, devil-worship, and other destructive, evil or murderous
isms.
In order to have a real discussion, you insufferable British boor, we would
first have to agree that there is a difference between good and evil, right
and wrong, dangerous and benign - and that that difference can be defined
and agreed to by rational humans.
But you are British, Eurpopean, and liberal, which is redundant I know, but
which also disqualifies you from said hypothetical discussion.
Bill Oliver
Tuples <tup...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>Here is a good dictionary site.
>
>http://www.helsinki.fi/~hkantola/dict.html
>
>Bob
Thanks. It is.
billo
Tuples
>Date: 8/1/02 2:35 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns925DB3ADEC608uw...@216.166.71.239>
>
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
>news:rpuiku8havtufoi7i...@4ax.com:
>
>> You have a full workload, kiddo. Go to it.
>
>You are a person who is incapable of making moral distinctions, you see,
>Alan. *Anything* I say to you on this subject is arguable from your
>relativistic viewpoint. We have no common ground from which to begin a
>discussion, don't you know.
>
>If taken to its logicial conclusion, your reasoning would condemn me for
>hating communism, devil-worship, and other destructive, evil or murderous
>isms.
>
>In order to have a real discussion, you insufferable British boor, we would
>first have to agree that there is a difference between good and evil, right
>and wrong, dangerous and benign - and that that difference can be defined
>and agreed to by rational humans.
>
>But you are British, Eurpopean, and liberal, which is redundant I know, but
>which also disqualifies you from said hypothetical discussion.
>
I should have realized AH is from across the pond. That explains quite a bit.
WAYNE? Are you aware of any believable studies that show just how harmful
pornography is to children?
Bob
Bob
Geno
"Tuples" <tup...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020801182937...@mb-fg.aol.com...
Wayne, do you have any believable studies that show just how harmful
pictures and stories of people having indiscriminate kinky and perverse sex
is to young (prepubescent) humans who have not gained the maturity to
discern right from wrong and fantasy from reality? Can we really say it is
harmful to the developing minds of these children to see men plowing one
another like rooting hogs and women swallowing manmeat like it was summer
sausage. Surely it is harmless, don't you think?
If there is no harm to it, it seems we may be making a lot of noise about
nothing.
--Geno<keeping an open mind>Royer
Tuples
>Date: 8/1/02 3:49 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <ukjejjc...@corp.supernews.com>
naked people are really as serious of a problem as some want us to believe.
To be sure, there are extremes. Your rather nice descriptions have put me off
sex for the next month. I maintain that there are worse things for kids out
there than exposure to nekked people cavorting.
Bob
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:20020801190149...@mb-fg.aol.com:
> To be sure, there are extremes. Your rather nice descriptions have put
> me off sex for the next month. I maintain that there are worse things
> for kids out there than exposure to nekked people cavorting.
But you have to understand that most of the pornography out there could
only disingenuously be referred to as "naked people cavorting." Gene's
answer *was* serious, and spot-on.
But there's another element to the issue - one more of many, actually. I'm
not sure how you got from where we were in this thread, to pornography -
I'm assuming you're picking the issue up from that other thread about
libraries. If so, than that other issue is one of parental control, and the
usurping of parental control by meddling social engineers who think they
know better than mere parents do.
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
------------------------------------------------------------
"Pollyanna sleeps very well; she knows she's the meanest
bitch in the kingdom. That knowledge helps her ignore
the whining of all the little girls who envy her, and would
be like her if only they had the courage that liberty
requires." - Bill Oliver
------------------------------------------------------------
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:0ahjkuo671tdbc42i...@4ax.com:
> So what does your dictionary give as the definition of "bigot"?
Doesn't really matter all that much. Usage is 9/10ths of the law. You know
that.
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
------------------------------------------------------------
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> To be sure, there are extremes. Your rather nice descriptions have put
> me off sex for the next month. I maintain that there are worse things
> for kids out there than exposure to nekked people cavorting.
But you have to understand that most of the pornography out there could
only disingenuously be referred to as "naked people cavorting." Gene's
answer *was* serious, and spot-on.
But there's another element to the issue - one more of many, actually. I'm
not sure how you got from where we were in this thread, to pornography -
I'm assuming you're picking the issue up from that other thread about
libraries. If so, than that other issue is one of parental control, and the
usurping of parental control by meddling social engineers who think they
know better than mere parents do.
--
Geno
> > >
> >Wayne, do you have any believable studies that show just how harmful
> >pictures and stories of people having indiscriminate kinky and perverse
sex
> >is to young (prepubescent) humans who have not gained the maturity to
> >discern right from wrong and fantasy from reality? Can we really say it
is
> >harmful to the developing minds of these children to see men plowing one
> >another like rooting hogs and women swallowing manmeat like it was summer
> >sausage. Surely it is harmless, don't you think?
> >
> >If there is no harm to it, it seems we may be making a lot of noise about
> >nothing.
> >
> I am asking a serious question here. I am interested in knowing if
pictures of
> naked people are really as serious of a problem as some want us to
believe.
>
> To be sure, there are extremes. Your rather nice descriptions have put me
off
> sex for the next month. I maintain that there are worse things for kids
out
> there than exposure to nekked people cavorting.
>
> Bob
Duh
gekko
i read misc.writing, where i found The Last Real Marlboro Man
<uwtiuzp...@sneakemail.com> saying:
> But there's another element to the issue - one more of many,
> actually. I'm not sure how you got from where we were in this
> thread, to pornography - I'm assuming you're picking the issue up
> from that other thread about libraries. If so, than that other
> issue is one of parental control, and the usurping of parental
> control by meddling social engineers who think they know better
> than mere parents do.
which is my take on it.
My philosophy (like it or not):
It is my place as the parent to determine what my child may and may
not have access to. It is not the library's, nor the government's.
For that reason, it is not the *government's* place to tell the
library that it MUST restrict access to pornography. That job falls
to me, the adult, the parent, and the patron of the library.
If my local library does not have what I consider to be adequate
controls on its resources, then it is my duty as a parent to ensure
that my child does not pass by the boundaries I have set. I can do
this by preventing my child from going to the library. Or I can go
with the child to the library and supervise. Or I can ask the
library to put the controls in place. If sufficient numbers of
parents do this, then the library will in all likelihood go ahead and
put the controls in place.
Our local library has such controls -- voluntarily. They have nanny
software on the childrens' computers. They restrict the children to
those computers unless the children are accompanied by an adult, or
the library has a card on file, signed by the parent (and witnessed
by a librarian) giving that child permission to use the adult
resources. The children's computers are in full view of the
librarian. Parents are required to accompany young children (under
the age of 9) and encouraged to accompany the middle children (up to
middle school).
--
gekko
Men own basketball teams. Every year cheerleaders' outfits get
tighter and briefer, and players' shorts get baggier and longer. --
Rita Rudner
Rick FF
>Doesn't really matter all that much. Usage is 9/10ths of the law. You know
>
>that.
The expression is "nine points of the law."
"Actually holding something is better than merely claiming it. For example,
When Karen told John he must return the sofa he'd borrowed, he said possession
is nine points of the law. This term originally alluded to nine elements that
would aid someone's lawsuit, among them a good lawyer, good witnesses, a good
jury, a good judge, and good luck. In time, however, the term was used more for
squatter's rights. [Late 1500s]"
The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer © 1997 by The
Christine Ammer 1992 Trust
Rick
------
Doug and Bob are metropolitan policemen with a difference.--Monty Python
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:20020801203310...@mb-mn.aol.com:
> The expression is "nine points of the law."
Ironic, what?
Alan Hope
Yes, right.
1. Extremists are mainstream in Islam. Christian extremists, on the
other hand, are exceptions to the rule.
2. Extremists are accepted by mainstream Muslims. Call it guilt by
association. I called it tarring with the same brush.
You've made your point of view very clear, thanks.
--
AH
Alan Hope
said:
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
>news:rpuiku8havtufoi7i...@4ax.com:
>> You have a full workload, kiddo. Go to it.
>You are a person who is incapable of making moral distinctions, you see,
>Alan. *Anything* I say to you on this subject is arguable from your
>relativistic viewpoint. We have no common ground from which to begin a
>discussion, don't you know.
You don't actually know what my viewpoint is on anything here.
>If taken to its logicial conclusion, your reasoning would condemn me for
>hating communism, devil-worship, and other destructive, evil or murderous
>isms.
I've specifically said you may condemn whatever takes your fancy, or
doesn't. But having done so, you must not whimper like a girly-man
when someone else treats you and your views the same way.
>In order to have a real discussion, you insufferable British boor, we would
>first have to agree that there is a difference between good and evil, right
>and wrong, dangerous and benign - and that that difference can be defined
>and agreed to by rational humans.
There is of course a difference between right and wrong, but the
occasions where we agree on the specifics will be rare. The difference
between us is that I'll grant you your right to decide your way
without having my own views compromised in the slightest, but you
won't return the favour. That's because I'm secure in my values. You
give the impression of believing your whole system will fall down
about you if anyone questions it, even for a second.
>But you are British, Eurpopean, and liberal, which is redundant I know, but
>which also disqualifies you from said hypothetical discussion.
Yet here you are, having it. Your bully-boy tactics rob you of a
valuable opportunity, you know -- that of having your beliefs tested
by fire. You're lucky I'm not easily cowed, and remain unimpressed by
your chest-puffing discourse. More intelligent people read your
bluster and see a blockhead, and reason there's no point in sticking
around.
Instead of calling me <sob> nasty names, you'd do better to try to
convince me. There's only an outside chance it'll turn my head, but it
would improve your thinking no end.
--
AH
Bill Oliver
Funny, you seem to have a problem with that misrepresentation
thing, don't you. I post my points explicitly, and the best
you can do is *rewrite them* to what you *wish* my points
were.
Nope, Alan. My points are the points *I* wrote, not the
points you want to *pretend* I wrote.
You, on the other hand, demand that I deny a connection between
Wahabism and Islam! That's pretty pathetic.
billo
Alan Hope
>>Yes, right.
So you think misrepresentation is wrong, do you?
>You, on the other hand, demand that I deny a connection between
>Wahabism and Islam! That's pretty pathetic.
Show me where I "deny a connection".
--
AH
Bill Oliver
To quote:
>You've yet to link the practices you've condemned to Islam. You appear
>to think that everything that goes on in a state populated by Muslims
>is attributable to Islam. The absurdity of this position has been
>pointed out to you again and again, but you refuse to listen. You're
>engaging in nothing more than smear tactics, and your insistence on
>pressing a point that's been comprehensively rebutted illustrates your
>determination to convict regardless of the evidence.
Now, *I* happen to believe that Wahabism is practiced in Saudi
Arabia. You know, the place that is run by Islamic Law? The place
where conversion to Christianity is punishable by beheading?
The place where women are not allowed to drive? The place
(Mecca -- perhaps you've heard of it) where women were not
allowed to leave a burning house by mutawwa'in because they
were not wearing abaye as they tried to leave?
What do *you* think is practiced there?
Or do you think it is "hate-mongering" to object to the
beheading of Christians? Do you think it is "hate-mongering"
to condemn the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia -- even though
(though you will never admit it) the majority of women there
support most of the restrictions?
Tell me, Alan. Is Wahabism the dominant cultural norm in
Saudi Arabia or not?
billo
The Apprentice
news:4vakkukqemk8mt3mu...@4ax.com...
he is secure in his values. i think, but i'm not sure, he would simply
consider attempting to back them up seriously with those who show
themselves at opposite ends of his ideology would be casting pearls
before swine. so he offers slop instead.
aj
gekko
<snip>
> > Yet here you are, having it. Your bully-boy tactics rob you of a
> > valuable opportunity, you know -- that of having your beliefs tested
> > by fire. You're lucky I'm not easily cowed, and remain unimpressed by
> > your chest-puffing discourse. More intelligent people read your
> > bluster and see a blockhead, and reason there's no point in sticking
> > around.
> >
> > Instead of calling me <sob> nasty names, you'd do better to try to
> > convince me. There's only an outside chance it'll turn my head, but it
> > would improve your thinking no end.
> >
>
> he is secure in his values. i think, but i'm not sure, he would simply
> consider attempting to back them up seriously with those who show
> themselves at opposite ends of his ideology would be casting pearls
> before swine. so he offers slop instead.
Wayne *has* presented his views in calm, logical fashion for
years. What often happens is that people tend to scoff at them, or read
into them and start calling him names like "homophobe" and refuse
to back up their ad hominem. Or they argue with his ideas by
re-wording them according to how the they understood them, then
arguing against that re-interpretation, or taking offense at the
re-interpretation.
After so much of the scoffing, ad hominem and pointless offended
airs, he gives up and attacks back. Those who avoid the temptation
to sneer or get lost in subtext get better treatment.
There's no mystery here.
--
gekko
Only an engineer would try to repair a $5.00 radio.
PJ
: > he is secure in his values. i think, but i'm not sure, he would
: > simply consider attempting to back them up seriously with
: > those who show themselves at opposite ends of his ideology
: > would be casting pearls before swine. so he offers slop
: > instead.
:
: Wayne *has* presented his views in calm, logical fashion for
: years. What often happens is that people tend to scoff at them,
: or read into them and start calling him names like "homophobe"
: and refuse to back up their ad hominem. Or they argue with his
: ideas by re-wording them according to how the they
: understood them, then arguing against that re-interpretation, or
: taking offense at the re-interpretation.
<...>
I wonder if Wayne feels a bit left out with you guys discussing his
personality traits.
If you keep speaking on his behalf, I'm gonna start calling him a
pussy for needing a girl to defend him.
PJ
<ducking>
--
Geno
"PJ" <auth...@onebox.com> wrote in message
news:9Bx39.155855$uh7.25268@sccrnsc03...
So what are you saying PJ> Are you hinting that the above poster should
butt out and stop defending her friend? Her friend who has often defended
her as well?
--Geno
PJ
: So what are you saying PJ> Are you hinting that the above
: poster should butt out and stop defending her friend? Her
: friend who has often defended her as well?
Of course not. I was teasing, and I think my <ducking> made that quite
obvious.
PJ
--
Geno
Not to me. And I'm sensitive about things like that.
--Geno<And my e-mail is running 9 to 1 likewise>Royer
PJ
: > : So what are you saying PJ> Are you hinting that the above
: > : poster should butt out and stop defending her friend? Her
: > : friend who has often defended her as well?
: >
: > Of course not. I was teasing, and I think my <ducking> made
: > that quite obvious.
:
: Not to me. And I'm sensitive about things like that.
:
: --Geno<And my e-mail is running 9 to 1 likewise>Royer
You used to be able to get away with remarks like this. But then I met
you in person. Now I can picture the smart alecky smile on your face
as you type.
So you can just tell all those email buddies that I said ...
How naaaice!
PJ
--
Geno
I've been outted! Again.
My little negro mailman lady just came by and rang my outside gate bell.
She had a book for me that was too big to put in the little pigeon hole
where my mail goes, and all of her large lock-up boxes were already taken.
We shared a root beer before the thunder clouds arrived and got her back in
high gear.
Rain is on its way.
--Geno
gekko
> "gekko" and Arleen chatted about Wayne
>
> : > he is secure in his values. i think, but i'm not sure, he would
> : > simply consider attempting to back them up seriously with
> : > those who show themselves at opposite ends of his ideology
> : > would be casting pearls before swine. so he offers slop
> : > instead.
> :
> : Wayne *has* presented his views in calm, logical fashion for
> : years. What often happens is that people tend to scoff at them,
> : or read into them and start calling him names like "homophobe"
> : and refuse to back up their ad hominem. Or they argue with his
> : ideas by re-wording them according to how the they
> : understood them, then arguing against that re-interpretation, or
> : taking offense at the re-interpretation.
>
> <...>
>
> I wonder if Wayne feels a bit left out with you guys discussing his
> personality traits.
If he did, you can be sure he'd come in and say something. He's never
been shy about telling me when I'm wrong. If he doesn't comment,
then either he's dead, or I'm correct.
>
> If you keep speaking on his behalf, I'm gonna start calling him a
> pussy for needing a girl to defend him.
Well, duh! I mean, not that it's "pussy" to need a girl to
defend you. After all, it's a natural state of affairs -- only not
generally acknowledged. But I never cared much about keeping
those tired out, sexist old protocols going.
Just come right out and admit it: men need women, and there's
nothing pussy about it!
Say it strong! Say it proud!
MEN NEED WOMEN!
>
> PJ
> <ducking>
You misspelled fucking.
--
gekko
Now I can read a book like a banshee, but I couldn't stuff a parrot to save my life
gekko
Hook. Line. Sinker.
--
gekko (that's a hint, hon)
PJ
I said
: > If you keep speaking on his behalf, I'm gonna start calling him
: > a pussy for needing a girl to defend him.
:
: Well, duh! I mean, not that it's "pussy" to need a girl to
: defend you. After all, it's a natural state of affairs -- only not
: generally acknowledged. But I never cared much about
: keeping those tired out, sexist old protocols going.
I seem to remember you defending me about a year ago. Correction, I
seem to remember you acting like a pit bull on my behalf about a year
ago.
I remember it well because Geno accused you of sucking on my finger
from the time I joined the newsgroup.
And no I didn't misspell tit.
PJ
--
Dr Zen
> said:
>
> >Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> "wrote" <snort!> in
> >news:rpuiku8havtufoi7i...@4ax.com:
>
> >> You have a full workload, kiddo. Go to it.
>
> >You are a person who is incapable of making moral distinctions, you see,
> >Alan. *Anything* I say to you on this subject is arguable from your
> >relativistic viewpoint. We have no common ground from which to begin a
> >discussion, don't you know.
>
> You don't actually know what my viewpoint is on anything here.
>
Put it on the table then.
What was that about dishing it out? Some here put their balls on the
table, dude. I've never so much as seen a sniff of yours.
> >If taken to its logicial conclusion, your reasoning would condemn me for
> >hating communism, devil-worship, and other destructive, evil or murderous
> >isms.
>
> I've specifically said you may condemn whatever takes your fancy, or
> doesn't. But having done so, you must not whimper like a girly-man
> when someone else treats you and your views the same way.
But we are allowed to carp and snip but never offer anything? I've
never seen you put out a view on anything but the vaguest generality.
You offer a wishy-washy, ambiguous kissy-kissiness but no bollocks.
You know the rules. Get 'em out.
Or shut the fuck up.
>
> >In order to have a real discussion, you insufferable British boor, we would
> >first have to agree that there is a difference between good and evil, right
> >and wrong, dangerous and benign - and that that difference can be defined
> >and agreed to by rational humans.
>
> There is of course a difference between right and wrong, but the
> occasions where we agree on the specifics will be rare.
What is the difference? You say there is one. Delineate it.
Get the cojones out.
Or shut the fuck up.
> The difference
> between us is that I'll grant you your right to decide your way
> without having my own views compromised in the slightest, but you
> won't return the favour. That's because I'm secure in my values.
That's why you've kept them under wraps. Show just enough to get the
boot in. Never hang it out there so that you can take a kicking.
> You
> give the impression of believing your whole system will fall down
> about you if anyone questions it, even for a second.
>
We know what Wayne stands for. It's reprehensible but it's in full
view. What about you, you cowering beastie? What are you for?
Get 'em out, Jocko.
Or shut the fuck up.
> >But you are British, Eurpopean, and liberal, which is redundant I know, but
> >which also disqualifies you from said hypothetical discussion.
>
> Yet here you are, having it. Your bully-boy tactics rob you of a
> valuable opportunity, you know -- that of having your beliefs tested
> by fire. You're lucky I'm not easily cowed, and remain unimpressed by
> your chest-puffing discourse. More intelligent people read your
> bluster and see a blockhead, and reason there's no point in sticking
> around.
>
No, actually, I think he has a point. I'm more intelligent than him,
and you, most likely, and I think he has a point. I'm glad I read this
thread. You do suffer from a very European type of moral relativism,
which says "everything's okay" and leaves the moral being with nowhere
to turn for bearings. If you don't, prove us wrong, and get your
fucking moral distinctions out on the table where we can see them.
> Instead of calling me <sob> nasty names, you'd do better to try to
> convince me. There's only an outside chance it'll turn my head, but it
> would improve your thinking no end.
How does he know whether he can turn your head? We don't know what you
stand for, dude. How can we change your mind if we don't know what it
is?
Get 'em out. Or go cringe behind Gekko's skirts like the wee pussy you
are.
Zen
Alan Hope
>Wayne *has* presented his views in calm, logical fashion for
>years.
Bwah!
I want a job like yours, spin-doctoring for a Usenet persona. But who
to choose?
What's the money like? You do get paid, I trust?
I don't see what's in it for you, otherwise.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>After so much of the scoffing, ad hominem and pointless offended
>airs, he gives up and attacks back. Those who avoid the temptation
>to sneer or get lost in subtext get better treatment.
Name one.
--
AH
gekko
>
> I said
> : > If you keep speaking on his behalf, I'm gonna start calling him
> : > a pussy for needing a girl to defend him.
> :
> : Well, duh! I mean, not that it's "pussy" to need a girl to
> : defend you. After all, it's a natural state of affairs -- only not
> : generally acknowledged. But I never cared much about
> : keeping those tired out, sexist old protocols going.
>
> I seem to remember you defending me about a year ago. Correction, I
> seem to remember you acting like a pit bull on my behalf about a year
> ago.
Well, now, see? Even girls need girls. Did *you* remember the
Wesson this time? Everyone always forgets.
> I remember it well because Geno accused you of sucking on my finger
> from the time I joined the newsgroup.
>
> And no I didn't misspell tit.
I sucked on *your* finger? I thought it was the other way around.
If you weren't sucking my finger, who was?
--
gekko
Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything you want to do. - Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)
ing
>
> .....Some here put their balls on the
> table, dude. I've never so much as seen a sniff of yours.
Well, there's a vision I could've done without.
ing
gekko
and, furthermore, said:
me. cf: the library thread. also, back a few months, the multiple-
marriage thread. prior to that, the discussion focusing on wives who
wanted to enjoy a social life with men but which did not meet with
their husbands' approval.
harwood, before he started diverting things by reinterpreting what
people say and arguing as though they had said things they did not.
billo.
you, on those few occasions when you deigned to be sincere instead of
sneering.
Oh. wait. you said "one". I'll pick you, then. That's without
googling, mind you.
--
gekko
CARPERPETUATION (kar' pur pet u a shun) n. The act, when vacuuming, of
running over a string or a piece of lint at least a dozen times,
reaching over and picking it up, examining it, then putting it back
down to give the vacuum one more chance.
gekko
bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop, and, furthermore, said:
> Er, well, honesty compels me to point out the fact that the
> "reinterpretation" you mention was in fact me pointing out that I
> felt that Wayne was attacking me.
Well, now. Let's see if the shoe actually *fits* that foot. I mean,
here you are bandying about the word "fact", which, of course, it
isn't. I mean, I'm sure there is a fact that you felt that Wayne was
attacking you, but it is NOT fact that you were pointing that out.
That, of course, is open to interpretation. Re-interpretation, even.
Y'see, from this side of things, it looked pretty much like an
attack, not a complaint that someone was attacking you.
Funny how that all works, isn't it? Read on.
> You know: Deluded Leftist
> thinking, and all of that. Also, proper use of the language forces
> me to point out that this was my "interpretation", not my
> "reinterpretation".
You're correct. I was engaging in a hyperbolic grammar faux pas.
Thanks for pointing that out.
> Nor was I the one who "diverted things" --
> Lord, did we actually read the same thread? -- it was Wayne who
> said that he refused to continue the discussion until I apologized
> for asking if he ever had a political discussion that didn't
> devolve to name-calling.
<ahem> Well, Paul, no. When you did not address his arguments but
instead attacked him (or, if you prefer, addressed your feeling that
he was attacking you (he was actually attacking your arguments)), you
took that first step in diverting things. I know I hate being
misrepresented. I see that you hate it too. I am pretty certain
Wayne hates it as much.
Keep reading.
> I have to say: If you are as loosey-goosey with the facts in your
> other examples as you are in this one, then your point is far from
> made.
I don't know. My point was that Wayne is rational, respectful, and
serious until he feels he can no longer make a difference with logic,
or until he has lost respect for his opponent -- at that point he
either drops it, or starts insulting or toying with his opponents.
That point is made when I list the people with whom he has had
disagreements, but with whom he has NOT engaged in hyperbole, ad
hominem, or, as you like to [mis]characterize it, "hatred". If you
want to see him actually doing this, you can do your own googling. I
know it to be true, and have no need to dig it up.
I'm sure you can recall the times prior to your recent disagreement
when Wayne disagreed with you, but did so respectfully.
I'm glad you've *finally* deigned to respond to me on this. I tried
the direct route and got no response at all that you either
understood or did not understand. You've now had a wee taste of the
misrepresentation you've been doing to me (and to Wayne). So maybe
you can keep that in mind when next we find ourselves on opposite
sides in a discussion.
--
gekko
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but
when there is nothing left to take away. - Antoine de Saint Exupery
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:mm6uku009kipnupcg...@4ax.com:
> -- it was Wayne who said that he refused to continue the discussion
> until I apologized ...
?? Boyo, I'd *love* to see you quote me saying that I "refused to continue
the discussion." Oh, wait. Your *feeling* is the same thing as fact, and
you are the only one allowed that privilage. Sorry, I almost forgot.
> I have to say: If you are as loosey-goosey with the facts in your other
> examples as you are in this one, then your point is far from made.
No shit.
> Lord, did we actually read the same thread?
Have you ever had a conversation without resorting to calling your opponent
a liar?
Rick FF
Not me. I gotta see this.
Rick
------
One thing is for sure, the sheep is not a creature of the air.--Monty Python
Dr Zen
> With nets of wonder, Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> chased the bright, elusive butterfly of love in message <5e7da04d.02080...@posting.google.com>...
> > gekko <ba0go...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9264AEAFC...@news.mbue.de>...
> > > Ohmigosh! It's Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be>! And look! On 08 Aug
> > > 2002 s/he wrote something in misc.writing! See?
> > >
> > >
> > > > It's give and take is it? Usenet?
> > >
> > > Of course. As you well know, Usenet is a give-and-take situation.
>
> > > Indeed, it is better that you simply admit that you
> > > are an imperfect coward than to try to twist the Holy Spirit to
> > > rationalize your personal failings as a Christian (and a person).
> >
> > Hurts, doesn't it, to have your bullshit thrown back in your face?
> > Does Jesus say "turn the other cheek except when Iraq might be
> > building biological weapons"? "Love thy neighbour except when he's a
> > Moslem"?
> >
> > You think I'm a coward, nancy? You're too scared to live up to your
> > convictions and you think *I* am a coward. Fine.
> > Zen
>
> Right. Play the wounded maiden, hand to back of head oh my. It's
> not as if anyone here actually gives a fuck. Only Hormel, after all
> makes its weiners from the finest ingredients. It's all about mirrors
> innit. Listen, Zenneroonies, you're playing the waffle game and
> it's an ugly thing. You diminish yourself as you ponder the
> existential ramifications and totally ignore the reality. Is it
> really just false dichotomy after false dichotomy for you? Can
> there be no shades of lovely vermillon and rich buttery amber? You
> have no fucking convictions, man. It's all just a game, a sham, and
> your cheek's been smacked so often it's a wonder there's any skin
> left. Look to loving your own fucking neighbor, before you
> command me to love mine. Fucking hypocritical cunt.
Jaysus, next, my dog accuses me of barking.
Zen
gekko
posts to misc.writing, saying ...
Sure, I'm a bitch, you misogynistic little fuck. I never read your
fucking posts anyway, Zen. You're too whiny, too pissy, too
rednosed. Who has the time to parse through your world of pale
embittered skin and shoeblackened hair? Beat that drum elsewhere,
sobbing boy. This is SO not writing-related. Fucking hypocritical
biscotti.
--
gekko
No one can earn a million dollars honestly. - William Jennings Bryan
(1860-1925)
Dr Zen
I'm giving it three posts until you give in and "tell us what the joke is".
> I never read your
> fucking posts anyway, Zen. You're too whiny, too pissy, too
> rednosed. Who has the time to parse through your world of pale
> embittered skin and shoeblackened hair? Beat that drum elsewhere,
> sobbing boy. This is SO not writing-related. Fucking hypocritical
> biscotti.
You're not even good at it, though. *Even* my dog does it better.
Zen
gekko
(Dr Zen) had the nerve to say in message
news:5e7da04d.02081...@posting.google.com...
Forget it, Zen. I don't read your posts.
--
gekko
I call myself a writer because, when people are looking to hire
someone who can do some writing, it makes it much easier for them to
find me than if I called myself a plumber. -- Jerry Kindall
PJ
Zen wrote
: >> > Jaysus, next, my dog accuses me of barking.
: >>
: >> Sure, I'm a bitch, you misogynistic little fuck.
: >
: > I'm giving it three posts until you give in and "tell us what the
: > joke is".
: >
: >> I never read your fucking posts anyway, Zen.
: >
: > You're not even good at it, though. *Even* my dog does it
: > better.
:
: Forget it, Zen. I don't read your posts.
Okay, I've had enough and I can't take anymore, I have to say ...
G
A
R
Y
T
--