People's taboos.
David
With the image of Mohammed for example.
In Aotearoa it is considered taboo to put your backside
on something related to food.
e.g. sit on someone's pillow.
The worst example perhaps today would be to wash your nappies
in the same wash with your tea towels.
How would you like to walk into a restaurant and see all the staff
sitting on the tables.
In our local oral history there was a Lebanese Moslem hawker.
Local youth nailed a pork chop to the front of his wagons.
Or paint a swastika on a Jewish grave?
Why go out to deliberately piss someone off?
What are we?
David.
Roger Dewhurst
"David" <gos...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ds6f0r$4me$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Would you get a little pissed off if a rag-head cut your sister's head off
with a blunt knife?
R
David
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ds6f73$4n4$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Anyone with a gun licence will tell you-
you ring up the police and get them to sort it out.
Peter Metcalfe
> In Aotearoa it is considered taboo to put your backside
> on something related to food.
> e.g. sit on someone's pillow.
How is a pillow related to food? The only expression that I
can recall "pillow-biting" is non-gustatory in meaning.
> Why go out to deliberately piss someone off?
Because they needed pissing off?
--Peter Metcalfe
Patrick FitzGerald
>
>In Aotearoa it is considered taboo to put your backside
>on something related to food.
>
>e.g. sit on someone's pillow.
So you eat pillows David
Patrick
David
"Peter Metcalfe" <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e518a85d...@news.individual.net...
> In article <ds6f0r$4me$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, gos...@es.co.nz says...
>
>> In Aotearoa it is considered taboo to put your backside
>> on something related to food.
>
>> e.g. sit on someone's pillow.
>
> How is a pillow related to food? The only expression that I
> can recall "pillow-biting" is non-gustatory in meaning.
You caught me with that big word.
For Maori the head was considered most sacred. And the place where
food enters the body.
I guess the the taboo was far more relevant when people wore no knickers.
In the same way the Moslem and Jewish taboo on pork is probably less
relevant in the days of cool storage.
>
>> Why go out to deliberately piss someone off?
>
> Because they needed pissing off?
It may still occur today in Ireland that the mention of the name 'Cromwell'
would send someone into a hissy-fit.
Well, I would not go out of my way to knowingly upset other people...
>
> --Peter Metcalfe
grumpyoldhori
>
> Would you get a little pissed off if a rag-head cut your sister's head off
> with a blunt knife?
>
> R
And when did this happen to your sister.
grumpy
grumpyoldhori
>
> Because they needed pissing off?
>
So you want the US newspapers to run the cartoons to
give the insurgents more reason to kill US troops.
Logic is lacking in this debate.
grumpy
BTMO
"David" <> wrote
> For Maori the head was considered most sacred. And the place where
> food enters the body.
I don't wish to be inflammatory, but if that is the case, why did they sell
heads to foreign sailors in the old days, and why do we see Maori today
hitting their kids (and wives, and others) in the head??
BTMO
"David" <> wrote
> Why go out of your way to upset and annoy other people.
>
> With the image of Mohammed for example.
They are cartoons.
Get over it.
Yes, it is wrong for Muslims to draw pictures of Mohammed - it is NOT wrong
for "infidels" to do it. Everything about "infidels" is wrong anyway...
And let us remember - putting a couple of contentious cartoons in the paper
isn't quite the same as burning down buildings, trade sanctions, threatening
to kidnap / kill....
David
"BTMO" <bt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5VzFf.133524$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
If the head or body belonged to your enemy than it was considered okay
to disgrace them.
The trade in heads was two-sided.
It is well known that the rate of crime is, or was higher amongst Maori.
Reverence for the head is traditional. It is not practised by all Maori, or
for that matter by all others.
-David.
David
>
> "David" <> wrote
>
>> Why go out of your way to upset and annoy other people.
>>
>> With the image of Mohammed for example.
>
> They are cartoons.
>
> Get over it.
I don't think people realise how deeply ingrained the use of human images is
for traditional Islam. Their building contain no images of anyone.
The whole issues is a case of hysteria let loose on all sides...
I mean people are posting links to such images.
How do you think women would feel if people started posting
links to graphic paedophilia?
Joy
>
> "BTMO" <bt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_WzFf.133527$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>
>> "David" <> wrote
>>
>>> Why go out of your way to upset and annoy other people.
>>>
>>> With the image of Mohammed for example.
>>
>> They are cartoons.
>>
>> Get over it.
>
> I don't think people realise how deeply ingrained the use of human images
> is
> for traditional Islam. Their building contain no images of anyone.
>
> The whole issues is a case of hysteria let loose on all sides...
>
> I mean people are posting links to such images.
>
> How do you think women would feel if people started posting
> links to graphic paedophilia?
I'ts not the same thing at all. The muslim taboo's are traditional for
them. I can't see why they are so upset when someone else breaks their
taboos, I mean, this taboo breaking thing happens all the time. Do the
muslims want us all to adhere to their culture? How ridiculous.
Joy
David
"Joy" <jh...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ds6jch$cjo$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Give me one good example.
-Newsman-
Now, how about maori cultural and superstitious behaviour and demands
in New Zealand and the white man's enforced compliance with it,
taniwhas, tapus and all?
BTMO
"David" <> wrote
>> They are cartoons.
>>
>> Get over it.
>
> I don't think people realise how deeply ingrained the use of human images
> is
> for traditional Islam. Their building contain no images of anyone.
And yet, there are Muslim examples of *just* that sort of thing...
> The whole issues is a case of hysteria let loose on all sides...
>
> I mean people are posting links to such images.
>
> How do you think women would feel if people started posting
> links to graphic paedophilia?
Lets examine that, shall we?
There **ARE** magazines that contain graphic paedophilia. And people deal in
graphic peadophilia.
The individuals that deal in them are prosecuted when captured.
The countries they live in aren't condemned for the actions of the few
people who deal in this filth - the *individuals* are charged.
Now - how is what you suggested related to a newspaper publishing cartoons
in a non-muslim country?
I find hacking the heads off of defensiveless hostages offensive - should I
use this as an excuse to firebomb Arab embassies?
Miche
wrote:
> How do you think women would feel if people started posting
> links to graphic paedophilia?
About the same as men would, I imagine.
Miche
--
WWMVD?
shannon
Is that what happened to the cartoonist or the Danish newspaper editor ?
John Cawston
The Virgin in a Condom, Piss Christ and a thousand others.
Each one of these erodes respect for all religion and paves the way for
these cartoons. You cant accept these erosions over decades and then
suddenly develop respect for Islam just because an Islamist might blow
you up.
JC
John Cawston
Not yet. The cartoonist at least is in hiding.
JC
Fred Dagg
>Why go out of your way to upset and annoy other people.
>
>With the image of Mohammed for example.
It was not done to upset people. It was done to illustrate how
over-the-top muslims were. Gee, I wonder if they had a point.
>In Aotearoa it is considered taboo to put your backside
>on something related to food.
No it's not.
>e.g. sit on someone's pillow.
>
>The worst example perhaps today would be to wash your nappies
>in the same wash with your tea towels.
>
>How would you like to walk into a restaurant and see all the staff
>sitting on the tables.
>
>In our local oral history there was a Lebanese Moslem hawker.
>Local youth nailed a pork chop to the front of his wagons.
>
>Or paint a swastika on a Jewish grave?
>
>Why go out to deliberately piss someone off?
>
>What are we?
>
It is not considered taboo in NZ to sit on a table. It is a silly
taboo of Maori culture, enforced on others, and dates back to when
they they wore grass skirts and didn't wipe their bums.
Well, I wear trousers and underwear, and I can assure you I do wipe my
bum. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason I shouldn't sit on a
table.
If I was offended by yellow cars, should everyone with a yellow car
repaint it?
The point is, almost everything will offend someone. It really is
unrealistic to expect everyone to conform to everyone elses beliefs.
shannon
You'ld think he would be the type to stand up for his freedom of speech
rights, instead of leaving others on both sides to endure the consequences.
Remember the old line about free speech not being the right to yell "fire".
Fred Dagg
exclaimed:
>
>"BTMO" <bt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:_WzFf.133527$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>
>> "David" <> wrote
>>
>>> Why go out of your way to upset and annoy other people.
>>>
>>> With the image of Mohammed for example.
>>
>> They are cartoons.
>>
>> Get over it.
>
>I don't think people realise how deeply ingrained the use of human images is
>for traditional Islam. Their building contain no images of anyone.
>
>The whole issues is a case of hysteria let loose on all sides...
>
>I mean people are posting links to such images.
People have a right to view the images and make up their own minds.
Are you implying that they shouldn't be able to?
Maybe you should educate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
>How do you think women would feel if people started posting
>links to graphic paedophilia?
Oh, I see. You're a fool! Now the rest of your comments make sense.
David
"Fred Dagg" <fred...@dagg.com> wrote in message
news:kbqdu1dlphu8auovt...@4ax.com...
>>I don't think people realise how deeply ingrained the use of human images
>>is
>>for traditional Islam. Their building contain no images of anyone.
>>
>>The whole issues is a case of hysteria let loose on all sides...
>>
>>I mean people are posting links to such images.
>
> People have a right to view the images and make up their own minds.
> Are you implying that they shouldn't be able to?
Ok, so far only property has been damaged.
However it has enflamed an already tense
international situation.
Does the press have the freedom to kill?
David
Thinking people are joining in boycotting businesses advertising in the
Dominion Post and The Press
for publishing images likely to anger and annoy people.
I future I WILL NOT be purchasing any BMW advertised in either paper.
(signed)
David.
Fred Dagg
exclaimed:
Oh, come on. That is so bloody leftist.
News flash: It's not the press that have burnt down buildings. It's
not the press that have threatened to torture and kill people who show
cartoons.
It is an absolutely unacceptable position to advocate not doing
something because of a threat of violence.
Fred Dagg
exclaimed:
And a lot more people are, quiet rightly, boycotting businesses who
stop advertising in these papers for exercising their rights to
freedom of speech.
David
Torys seem to say that individuals are entirely responsible for their
own actions.
Perhaps the media should publish articles pesuding people to excercise
restraint.
David.
BTMO
"David" <> wrote
> Ok, so far only property has been damaged.
> However it has enflamed an already tense
> international situation.
>
> Does the press have the freedom to kill?
The press *haven't* attempted to kill anyone, nor have they set fire to
anything.
It is infantile nutters that have been burning and destroying.
grumpyoldhori
>
> News flash: It's not the press that have burnt down buildings. It's
> not the press that have threatened to torture and kill people who show
> cartoons.
>
> It is an absolutely unacceptable position to advocate not doing
> something because of a threat of violence.
Do the press have any responsibility at all,or only to get
the story out.
Take The Falklands for example,before the Paras attacked Goose Green,
the bloody BBC broadcast what they would be attacking.
So were the BBC right or wrong in their approach.
grumpy
Fred Dagg
exclaimed:
The only people that need to show restraint are those that burn down
diplomatically protected buildings, and threaten to torture and kill
people.
Fred Dagg
<grumpy...@gmail.com> exclaimed:
We all know that freedom is the first thing to go in war.
Are you saying that we are at war now?
grumpyoldhori
>
> We all know that freedom is the first thing to go in war.
>
> Are you saying that we are at war now?
So bush and his supporters in this country tell us.
grumpy
David
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ds6nj7$k9m$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>I mean, this taboo breaking thing happens all the time.
>>
>>Give me one good example.
>>
>
> The Virgin in a Condom, Piss Christ and a thousand others.
>
> Each one of these erodes respect for all religion and paves the way for
> these cartoons. You cant accept these erosions over decades and then
> suddenly develop respect for Islam just because an Islamist might blow you
> up.
>
> JC
I am a christian and those things did not offend or annoy me.
I was interested of course and i put them in context.
The traditional Moslem world has a different context.
David
>>Perhaps the media should publish articles pesuding people to excercise
>>restraint.
>
> The only people that need to show restraint are those that burn down
> diplomatically protected buildings, and threaten to torture and kill
> people.
Ok, big boy, what are you going to do about that!
David
Ah, gimme a break!
WeeWillyWonka
>I am a christian and those things did not offend or annoy me.
You are a Moslem and a liar.
willy
BTMO
"Iswhatid" <> wrote
>>> For Maori the head was considered most sacred. And the place where
>>> food enters the body.
>>
>>I don't wish to be inflammatory, but if that is the case, why did they
>>sell
>>heads to foreign sailors in the old days,
>
> Because they were the heads of their enemies or slaves. They
> wouldn't sell their own ancestors heads, they kept them in caves
> and such places.
So... any complaints of non-Maori touching other peoples heads, and sitting
on pillows and tables are irrelevant - right?
>
>>and why do we see Maori today
>>hitting their kids (and wives, and others) in the head??
>
> They aren't pure blooded maoris, none have more than about 10%
> real maori blood in them so it doesn't matter.
So... any complaints of non-Muslims creating cartoons of whatever they like
are irrelevant, right?
John Cawston
>"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:ds6nj7$k9m$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>
>>>I mean, this taboo breaking thing happens all the time.
>>>
>>>Give me one good example.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The Virgin in a Condom, Piss Christ and a thousand others.
>>
>>Each one of these erodes respect for all religion and paves the way for
>>these cartoons. You cant accept these erosions over decades and then
>>suddenly develop respect for Islam just because an Islamist might blow you
>>up.
>>
>>JC
>>
>>
>
>
>I am a christian and those things did not offend or annoy me.
>
>
Of course not. Over the decades you have accepted the erosion of your
religion and its values to the point where you now consider a Christian
charity like Rotary a bunch of "red necks".
JC
rob
>
> With the image of Mohammed for example.
>
> Why go out to deliberately piss someone off?
>
Its not about pissing people off, the cartoons are about the right of we in
the West to free speech. Why should we let others tell us what newspapers
can and cant print? Governments sure as hell cant (as it should be) so good
on the Danes to not cowering to thinly veiled threats.
Free speech is about being allowed to say what others might find
objectionable or offensive and if a few drawings of thier prophet gets the
Muslims so upset then they should harden up.
John B
"rob" <rob...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gzEFf.134751$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
The prophet is a fictitious mystical nothing. It is impossible to
draw a picture of something or someone you have never seen.
-Newsman-
wrote:
>It is an absolutely unacceptable position to advocate not doing
>something because of a threat of violence.
So would you advocate provoking a pitbull until it attacks you?
Fred Dagg
<grumpy...@gmail.com> exclaimed:
Oh, I see. You live in the States. Sorry, I mistook you for a kiwi.
Oh, that's right, there's no such thing - only Maoris and Pakeha...
Annemarie
"David" <gos...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ds6f0r$4me$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Why go out of your way to upset and annoy other people.
>
> With the image of Mohammed for example.
>
> on something related to food.
>
> e.g. sit on someone's pillow.
Who's needs are more important though - When my elderly Dad was in hospital
dieing my mother sat at his side, but the chair provided was too low and she
could not reach him from it, she was not allowed to sit on a pillow to reach
him. So she had to sit for several hours without being able to reach even
his hand because they would not let her sit on a pillow. After that ( I
threw a wobbly) a better chair was found.
>
> The worst example perhaps today would be to wash your nappies
> in the same wash with your tea towels.
>
> How would you like to walk into a restaurant and see all the staff
> sitting on the tables.
Well it would be weird, but it would not bother me in the slightest unless
of course they were naked and there were no plates to eat off. :o)
>
> In our local oral history there was a Lebanese Moslem hawker.
> Local youth nailed a pork chop to the front of his wagons.
>
> Or paint a swastika on a Jewish grave?
>
> Why go out to deliberately piss someone off?
>
> What are we?
>
>
> David.
>
Publishing these cartoons was perhaps ill advised, but the moslem reaction
to me has just made the moslem people look out of control and fanatical.
Religiously insensitive stuff happens e.g. the virgin in a condom yet you
did not see the catholics in NZ turning violent, they quietly protested and
prayed outside Te Papa, however the exhibit was not withdrawn.
A. Lovejoy Prune
> Why go out of your way to upset and annoy other people.
>
> With the image of Mohammed for example.
>
> In Aotearoa it is considered taboo to put your backside
> on something related to food.
No it isn't. Among *some people* in NZ this is true. Among others it's
a non-issue.
>
> e.g. sit on someone's pillow.
>
> The worst example perhaps today would be to wash your nappies
> in the same wash with your tea towels.
>
> How would you like to walk into a restaurant and see all the staff
> sitting on the tables.
>
> In our local oral history there was a Lebanese Moslem hawker.
> Local youth nailed a pork chop to the front of his wagons.
>
> Or paint a swastika on a Jewish grave?
>
> Why go out to deliberately piss someone off?
Good question. Why would some people in NZ kick up a fuss about our
traditional freedom of the press and freedom of laughter and freedom to
take the piss? Being offended is one thing, demanding that nobody
offend them and backing up that demand with threats of violence to
property and/or people is another.
>
> What are we?
Yes, what are we? The kind of people who give in to blackmail, or the
kind who don't?
A L P
John B
"-Newsman-" <sla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43e71c7e...@news.actrix.co.nz...
So you admit they are nothing more than mad animals?
A. Lovejoy Prune
> "Peter Metcalfe" <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1e518a85d...@news.individual.net...
>> In article <ds6f0r$4me$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, gos...@es.co.nz says...
>>
>>> In Aotearoa it is considered taboo to put your backside
>>> on something related to food.
>> can recall "pillow-biting" is non-gustatory in meaning.
>
> You caught me with that big word.
>
> For Maori the head was considered most sacred. And the place where
> food enters the body.
>
>
> In the same way the Moslem and Jewish taboo on pork is probably less
> relevant in the days of cool storage.
>>> Why go out to deliberately piss someone off?
>
> It may still occur today in Ireland that the mention of the name 'Cromwell'
> would send someone into a hissy-fit.
>
> Well, I would not go out of my way to knowingly upset other people...
>> --Peter Metcalfe
>
>
There are always people who get offended - some who base their whole
life's meaning on finding things to take offence at. Taking offence is
something that happens within them. They can choose to make a major
grudge out of it or to let it go. Probably those people need more, not
less offending so they can build up immunity to it and no longer suffer
such violent allergic reactions such as uncontrollable rage - or perhaps
move to areas that better suit their emotional health.
But there is no point in attempting to live one's life avoiding all
behaviours that might upset *someone*.
Have you - any of you - been upset by somebody's words or drawings
recently? Did it do you immeasurable harm you or have you learned to
get on with your life? Is it worth your while getting in a tizzy about
words (excluding the context of close personal relationships) or symbols
or can you use the energy elsewhere?
Why is being upset such a terrible thing anyway? It's just another emotion.
A L P
A L P
A. Lovejoy Prune
>
> Reverence for the head is traditional. It is not practised by all Maori, or
> for that matter by all others.
>
So it's, like, part-time kind of semi-traditional....... here and
there........ up to a point......... among some folks?
Kinda like the reverence for Speights.......
A L P
A. Lovejoy Prune
>
> Now, how about maori cultural and superstitious behaviour and demands
> in New Zealand and the white man's enforced compliance with it,
> taniwhas, tapus and all?
A phase.
Check the latest What's Hot and What's Not listings........
A L P
A. Lovejoy Prune
> David wrote:
>
>>
>> I mean, this taboo breaking thing happens all the time.
>>
>> Give me one good example.
>>
>>
>
> The Virgin in a Condom, Piss Christ and a thousand others.
>
> Each one of these erodes respect for all religion and paves the way for
> these cartoons. You cant accept these erosions over decades and then
> suddenly develop respect for Islam just because an Islamist might blow
> you up.
>
The Roman Catholics were mightily peeved at the Virgin in a Condom, and
not just because it was a poor little novelty number of slender artistic
merit. But they didn't blow up Te Papa or cut Cheryl Southeran's hands
off, they just complained loud and long and then got on with their lives.
A L P
A. Lovejoy Prune
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:14:48 +1300, David wrote:
>
>> How do you think women would feel if people started posting
>> links to graphic paedophilia?
>
> What makes a woman so especially sensitive to paedophilia?
>
>
We are but fragile creatures and the mention of marital practices
between a gentleman and his lady wife is likely to induce a fit of the
vapours.
A L P
A. Lovejoy Prune
>
> Ok, so far only property has been damaged. However it has enflamed an
> already tense international situation.
>
> Does the press have the freedom to kill?
>
How, by dropping an old-fashioned linotype machine out of the window
onto a passer-by? Laborious and inaccurate unless the target were tied
up and placed on the footpath underneath the window.
Sticks and stones ... but words..... (complete this quotation, with
help if need be, and ponder its meaning).
A L P
Peter Ashby
Now hold on just one minute. Reverence for Mr Speight's Sparkling Ale is
an absolute. I am only worshipping other idols due to the expense and
general lack of availabilty of the Amber Nectar in these parts (though
we did buy a crate of stubbies to accompany our viewing of the Lions
Tour). That was a necessity and damn the expense!
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
Peter Ashby
> >
> > What are we?
>
> Yes, what are we? The kind of people who give in to blackmail, or the
> kind who don't?
Indeed, one thing to remember is that once paid some money many
blackmailers come back for more. That was true back when the term was
coined in the Borders (was down there at the weekend for a wedding this
weekend, no sign of Reavers. Give in to this blackmail and before you
know it you'll be eagerly instituting Sharia Law.
For the record I think the original cartoons were rather crass, but the
resulting furore stinks of deliberate orchestration. When something
smoulders it is not generally helpful to pour petrol on it then go fetch
extra fuel.
Fred Dagg
Fred Dagg
exclaimed:
Not especially. You're welcome to try if you would like.
The muslims will be interested to know you are comparing them to a
dog. They'll probably burn down the NZ embassy, now.
Fred Dagg
exclaimed:
Sure. What would you like? Nose? Arm, maybe?
John Cawston
>A. Lovejoy Prune <pon...@vanitas.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>What are we?
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, what are we? The kind of people who give in to blackmail, or the
>>kind who don't?
>>
>>
>
>Indeed, one thing to remember is that once paid some money many
>blackmailers come back for more. That was true back when the term was
>coined in the Borders (was down there at the weekend for a wedding this
>weekend, no sign of Reavers. Give in to this blackmail and before you
>know it you'll be eagerly instituting Sharia Law.
>
>For the record I think the original cartoons were rather crass, but the
>resulting furore stinks of deliberate orchestration. When something
>smoulders it is not generally helpful to pour petrol on it then go fetch
>extra fuel.
>
>
Wasn't it amazing how in all those spontaneous demonstrations of flag
burning we saw, in just about every Muslim country, from ye Highlands to
ye Lo'lands, everyone just managed to find a Danish flag to burn and
jump up and down on.
As a couple of writers have pointed out, everyone has a stack of the
Great Satan's flags.. they get handed out free every month with the
welfare cheque so that burning can commence an hour or two before the GS
does whatever it's going to do... but Danish flags?
Then there was that odd bit of growth in the number of cartoons that
were shown in each Muslim country. When the Danish imams set out on
their odessy around the world to show how badly Danish immigrants were
treated by the bestial natives, they had 12 cartoons, but ended up
showing 15. The extra cartoons ascribed to the Danes were one of
Mohammed with a pig face and snout, one of a praying Muslim being rooted
by a dog and one of Mohammed as a paedophile. (There are reports of a
further dozen or so like this).
JC
>Peter
>
>
Peter Ashby
> >
> >For the record I think the original cartoons were rather crass, but the
> >resulting furore stinks of deliberate orchestration. When something
> >smoulders it is not generally helpful to pour petrol on it then go fetch
> >extra fuel.
> >
> >
>
> Wasn't it amazing how in all those spontaneous demonstrations of flag
> burning we saw, in just about every Muslim country, from ye Highlands to
> ye Lo'lands, everyone just managed to find a Danish flag to burn and
> jump up and down on.
>
> As a couple of writers have pointed out, everyone has a stack of the
> Great Satan's flags.. they get handed out free every month with the
> welfare cheque so that burning can commence an hour or two before the GS
> does whatever it's going to do... but Danish flags?
>
> Then there was that odd bit of growth in the number of cartoons that
> were shown in each Muslim country. When the Danish imams set out on
> their odessy around the world to show how badly Danish immigrants were
> treated by the bestial natives, they had 12 cartoons, but ended up
> showing 15. The extra cartoons ascribed to the Danes were one of
> Mohammed with a pig face and snout, one of a praying Muslim being rooted
> by a dog and one of Mohammed as a paedophile. (There are reports of a
> further dozen or so like this).
Yes, it was those 'extra' cartoons I was thinking of when referring to
''extra fuel'
BTMO
"A. Lovejoy Prune" <> wrote
It has a nice Wile E. Coyote theme though...
David
"A. Lovejoy Prune" <pon...@vanitas.net.nz> wrote in message
news:43e7...@clear.net.nz...
Sticks and stones may break my bones
but words will always hurt me.
David
I am an avid reader of cartoons. Some if not most go right to the edge....
The Mohammad one wasn't accurate at all. As far as I can see the vast
majority of Moslems do not support or advocate terrorism.
Its fine to poke fun at someone if it is deserved... ...but...
David
There was no threat of violence, but I guess there is now.
If you poke a stick at someone or something- (a bee hive
for example) what do you think will happen?
David
"Annemarie" <a...@bbb.com> wrote in message
news:CxGFf.134785$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "David" <gos...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:ds6f0r$4me$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> Why go out of your way to upset and annoy other people.
>>
>> With the image of Mohammed for example.
>>
>> In Aotearoa it is considered taboo to put your backside
>> on something related to food.
>>
>> e.g. sit on someone's pillow.
>
> Who's needs are more important though - When my elderly Dad was in
> hospital dieing my mother sat at his side, but the chair provided was too
> low and she could not reach him from it, she was not allowed to sit on a
> pillow to reach him. So she had to sit for several hours without being
> able to reach even his hand because they would not let her sit on a
> pillow. After that ( I threw a wobbly) a better chair was found.
Well, commonsense should prevail. Why not use a cushion.
I believe in Dunedin pillow slips are a different colour from
cushions. (or planned to be.)
I think the practise should be followed by those who believe in it.
When others are involved it does get out of hand- political pettiness.
-D
BTMO
"David" <> wrote
>>> In Aotearoa it is considered taboo to put your backside
>>> on something related to food.
>>>
>>> e.g. sit on someone's pillow.
>>
>> Who's needs are more important though - When my elderly Dad was in
>> hospital dieing my mother sat at his side, but the chair provided was too
>> low and she could not reach him from it, she was not allowed to sit on a
>> pillow to reach him. So she had to sit for several hours without being
>> able to reach even his hand because they would not let her sit on a
>> pillow. After that ( I threw a wobbly) a better chair was found.
>
>
> Well, commonsense should prevail.
Annemarie has already demonstrated that common sense *didn't* prevail!
Still, I guess being PC is more important than allowing some old woman to
grieve with her dying husband, right?
After all - someone might walk past and be offended. The silly old bint
should have just sucked it in and taken one for the team, right?
> Why not use a cushion.
> I believe in Dunedin pillow slips are a different colour from
> cushions. (or planned to be.)
>
> I think the practise should be followed by those who believe in it.
> When others are involved it does get out of hand- political pettiness.
That is kind of the point of this whole discussion....
Peter Ashby
>
> I am an avid reader of cartoons. Some if not most go right to the edge....
> The Mohammad one wasn't accurate at all. As far as I can see the vast
> majority of Moslems do not support or advocate terrorism.
Ah but Islam is used as a justification and enticement for people who
are suicide bombers. Thought of in that light the cartoon is not so wide
of the mark. That was the context in which I took it.
Peter Ashby
Inaccurate. A better one would be: if you hear third or even more hand
about someone who might or might not have had a stick (or was it a
finger, or maybe a log?) poked at them. What do you think will happen?
Roger Dewhurst
"shannon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:43e6e03f$1...@clear.net.nz...
> Roger Dewhurst wrote:
> > "David" <gos...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:ds6f0r$4me$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >>
> >> With the image of Mohammed for example.
> >>
> >> In Aotearoa it is considered taboo to put your backside
> >> on something related to food.
> >>
> >>
> >> The worst example perhaps today would be to wash your nappies
> >> in the same wash with your tea towels.
> >>
> >> How would you like to walk into a restaurant and see all the staff
> >> sitting on the tables.
> >>
> >> In our local oral history there was a Lebanese Moslem hawker.
> >> Local youth nailed a pork chop to the front of his wagons.
> >>
> >> Or paint a swastika on a Jewish grave?
> >>
> >> Why go out to deliberately piss someone off?
> >
off
> > with a blunt knife?
> >
> > R
> >
> >
>
> Is that what happened to the cartoonist or the Danish newspaper editor ?
It was a Dutch playright who was shot and knifed on the street.
R
BrentC
yep
My mumbo jumbo is better than your mumbo jumbo
Most Taboo's - Religions - were/are good rules to live by - they are
now mostly irrelevant (particuarly food related Taboo's) and those who
persist in teaching the bullshit need to be re-educated.
Also - any faith or teaching than requires you to nod your head while
learning the book by rote is a CULT and should be outlawed.
**************
BrentC
Roger Dewhurst
>
> "John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:ds6nj7$k9m$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >>I mean, this taboo breaking thing happens all the time.
> >>
> >>Give me one good example.
> >>
> >
> > The Virgin in a Condom, Piss Christ and a thousand others.
> >
> > Each one of these erodes respect for all religion and paves the way for
> > these cartoons. You cant accept these erosions over decades and then
> > suddenly develop respect for Islam just because an Islamist might blow
you
> > up.
> >
>
>
> I am a christian and those things did not offend or annoy me.
>
> I was interested of course and i put them in context.
>
> The traditional Moslem world has a different context.
In that case let the moslems live in their moslem world in their own 'moslem
context' but when they want to live in the western world they had better be
prepared to put up with the 'western context'.
R
>
>
Barry Phease
> Yes, it was those 'extra' cartoons I was thinking of when referring to
> ''extra fuel'
So, are you saying that you believed that those imams penned those
cartoons to add to the outrage? Or perhaps they were published elsewhere
and brought out as additional examples which then got mixed up?
Of course there was an element of orchestration in some of the protests.
In many cases the violence has more to do with something happening locally
(eg Lebanon) with the cartoons as a spark. However there is no denying
the outrage of the local Danish muslim community, which was expressed a
long time ago when the cartoons were first published. Many in the NZ
muslim community have expressed their feelings only after seeing them on
TV or in the newspaper.
The freedom of the press gives people the legal right to offend others.
However that doesn't make it right.
--
Barry Phease
Roger Dewhurst
>
>
> >>I don't think people realise how deeply ingrained the use of human
images
> >>is
> >>for traditional Islam. Their building contain no images of anyone.
> >>
> >>The whole issues is a case of hysteria let loose on all sides...
> >>
> >>I mean people are posting links to such images.
> >
> > People have a right to view the images and make up their own minds.
> > Are you implying that they shouldn't be able to?
>
> Ok, so far only property has been damaged.
> However it has enflamed an already tense
> international situation.
>
> Does the press have the freedom to kill?
At some point western societies have to draw the line at just how far
muslims can go in attacking the cultures of the western societies in which
they have chosen to live. When a western society grovels and panders to an
islamic mob you can be sure that society is inviting the mob to threaten
even more violence with even less excuse. When does a western society cave
in completely and give them Sharia law?
The demand will keep beeing ratcheted up. It is well past the time when the
line should have been drawn.
R
>
>
Roger Dewhurst
"-Newsman-" <sla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43e71c7e...@news.actrix.co.nz...
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:39:14 +1300, Fred Dagg <fred...@dagg.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >It is an absolutely unacceptable position to advocate not doing
> >something because of a threat of violence.
>
> So would you advocate provoking a pitbull until it attacks you?
Just how far are you prepared to let an alien culture modify our culture
with threats of force?
R
>
>
John Cawston
>On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:51:59 +0000, Peter Ashby wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Yes, it was those 'extra' cartoons I was thinking of when referring to
>>''extra fuel'
>>
>>
>
>So, are you saying that you believed that those imams penned those
>cartoons to add to the outrage? Or perhaps they were published elsewhere
>and brought out as additional examples which then got mixed up?
>
>
Its looking more and more like a set up. Interestingly, now that Iran
has been referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear antics,
guess who's in the Chair... Denmark.
http://islamonline.net/English/News/2005-11/18/article02.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/vidino200602060735.asp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1703235,00.html
JC
Annemarie
Well exactly, I can tell you I was pretty p'ed off. I asked for blankets
for her to sit on instead but there were none spare, I argued the pillow
thing saying nobody would know, the pillow slips would be washed..... All
to no avail, after leaving it for a while and watching my poor old mother
get upset I threw a fit - threatened the humans rights commission, amazingly
within ten minutes a chair that was high enough and more comfortable was
found.
Peter Ashby
It depends on whether or not the outrage is genuine or not, or justfied.
On many of those counts I don't believe it is. Especially since the
original offense happened way back in October. Add in reasons why it
might be advantageous for some to kick up a stink now and the whole
thing looks increasingly like a beat up. Add in lurid anti Jewish
cartoons in some of the Arab press and you can have hypocrisy in the
mix. Not that many of the same charges can't be laid at the feet of
people in the press, but that does not justify the ersatz anger.
shannon
At least he didn't go into hiding like the cowardly cartoonist.
It was deliberately provocative rightard mischief-making designed to
cause offense againts a muslim minority in Denmark.
They have left others to deal with the consequences.
Scumbags
Annemarie
>
> "BTMO" <bt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_WzFf.133527$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>
>> "David" <> wrote
>>
>>> Why go out of your way to upset and annoy other people.
>>>
>>> With the image of Mohammed for example.
>>
>>
>> Get over it.
>
> I don't think people realise how deeply ingrained the use of human images
> is
> for traditional Islam. Their building contain no images of anyone.
>
> The whole issues is a case of hysteria let loose on all sides...
>
> I mean people are posting links to such images.
>
> links to graphic paedophilia?
>
Well I would hope that men would be offended by graphic paedophilia
too!!!!!!!
OK I do no think that the cartoons should have been published - however the
is too much fuss and violence etc being made over it by some muslin people.
A. Lovejoy Prune
>
> At some point western societies have to draw the line at just how far
> muslims can go in attacking the cultures of the western societies in which
> they have chosen to live. When a western society grovels and panders to an
> islamic mob you can be sure that society is inviting the mob to threaten
> even more violence with even less excuse. When does a western society cave
> in completely and give them Sharia law?
> The demand will keep beeing ratcheted up. It is well past the time when the
> line should have been drawn.
It's time for a new Just Say No campaign...
Just Say No to Muslim Blackmail!
A L P
A. Lovejoy Prune
> "David" <gos...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:ds843r$674$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> "Annemarie" <a...@bbb.com> wrote in message
>> news:CxGFf.134785$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>> Who's needs are more important though - When my elderly Dad was in
>>> hospital dieing my mother sat at his side, but the chair provided was too
>>> low and she could not reach him from it, she was not allowed to sit on a
>>> pillow to reach him. So she had to sit for several hours without being
>>> able to reach even his hand because they would not let her sit on a
>>> pillow. After that ( I threw a wobbly) a better chair was found.
>>
>>
>> I think the practise should be followed by those who believe in it.
>> When others are involved it does get out of hand- political pettiness.
>>
>> -D
>>
>
> Well exactly, I can tell you I was pretty p'ed off. I asked for blankets
> for her to sit on instead but there were none spare, I argued the pillow
> thing saying nobody would know, the pillow slips would be washed..... All
> to no avail, after leaving it for a while and watching my poor old mother
> get upset I threw a fit - threatened the humans rights commission, amazingly
> within ten minutes a chair that was high enough and more comfortable was
> found.
>
>
Good on you! And thanks for the tip. Who knows when it will come in handy:
"Human rights commission trumps cultural sensitivity."
A L P
Roger Dewhurst
>
>
> Thinking people are joining in boycotting businesses advertising in the
> Dominion Post and The Press
> for publishing images likely to anger and annoy people.
>
> I future I WILL NOT be purchasing any BMW advertised in either paper.
>
> David.
I am sure you will be able to find a paper advertising the BMW model that
you want.
R
>
>
BrentC
wrote:
I will get excited as soon as the imams start to deplore the rapes etc
in the name of Allah someone - in the meantime I wish that the Muslim
community would shut up - they are offending me and denigrating my
belief that I have the freedom to print anything I want to - their
actions are verging on contraveneing the hate speech laws in the Bill
of Rights.
**************
BrentC
Roger Dewhurst
"John B" <m...@anywherenearthere.com> wrote in message
news:vKEFf.134754$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> >> Why go out of your way to upset and annoy other people.
> >>
> >> With the image of Mohammed for example.
> >>
> >> Why go out to deliberately piss someone off?
> >>
> >
> > Its not about pissing people off, the cartoons are about the
> > right of we in the West to free speech. Why should we let
> > others tell us what newspapers can and cant print? Governments
> > sure as hell cant (as it should be) so good on the Danes to not
> > cowering to thinly veiled threats.
> >
> > Free speech is about being allowed to say what others might
> > find objectionable or offensive and if a few drawings of thier
> > prophet gets the Muslims so upset then they should harden up.
>
> draw a picture of something or someone you have never seen.
There appears to have been a bloodthirsty pederast of that name a while ago.
>
>
Roger Dewhurst
"Barry Phease" <bar...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.02.06....@es.co.nz...
If they do not like the freedom of the press in those countries which have
misguidedly taken them in and given them undreampt of benefits they can go
back to their homelands and practice their bloodlust in the sand. The time
has come when we have to say "If you want to stay here you will accept our
language, our rules and our customs. If you do not like that then bugger
off back to wherever you came from".
R
geopelia
"David" <gos...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ds6f0r$4me$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Why go out of your way to upset and annoy other people.
>
> With the image of Mohammed for example.
>
> on something related to food.
>
> e.g. sit on someone's pillow.
>
> The worst example perhaps today would be to wash your nappies
> in the same wash with your tea towels.
>
> How would you like to walk into a restaurant and see all the staff
> sitting on the tables.
>
> In our local oral history there was a Lebanese Moslem hawker.
> Local youth nailed a pork chop to the front of his wagons.
>
>
> Why go out to deliberately piss someone off?
>
> What are we?
>
>
>
Today everything goes in the washing machine, including underpants and
teatowels. I have heard though that Maori keep teatowels separate because of
tapu.
Not many women wash nappies today, preferring disposables.
I've seen women sit the baby on the counter in a food shop, and small
children sit in the supermarket trolleys.
shannon
Spit in their faces, tag their businesses, ridicule them in the media
then tell them can't object because rights are for real kiwis not ragheads.
wooohoooo, we're all mainstream now !!
Roger Dewhurst
"shannon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:43e7f06b$1...@clear.net.nz...
>
> Spit in their faces, tag their businesses, ridicule them in the media
> then tell them can't object because rights are for real kiwis not
ragheads.
Rules of the game in some islamic countries. Just see how the chinese, and
others, got the rough end of the pineapple in Malaysia and Indonesia
recently.
R
-Newsman-
> "-Newsman-" <sla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43e71c7e...@news.actrix.co.nz...
>
>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:39:14 +1300, Fred Dagg
>><fred...@dagg.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>It is an absolutely unacceptable position to advocate not doing
>>>something because of a threat of violence.
>>
>>So would you advocate provoking a pitbull until it attacks you?
>
>
I am making comparisons bewteen actions, not people.
Only the hopelessly uneducated could fail to preceive the difference.
-Newsman-
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:55:30 GMT, sla...@hotmail.com (-Newsman-)
> exclaimed:
>
>
>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:39:14 +1300, Fred Dagg <fred...@dagg.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>It is an absolutely unacceptable position to advocate not doing
>>>something because of a threat of violence.
>>
>>So would you advocate provoking a pitbull until it attacks you?
>
>
>
> The muslims will be interested to know you are comparing them to a
> dog. They'll probably burn down the NZ embassy, now.
I am making comparisons bewteen actions, not people.
Only a hopeless twerp could fail to perceive the difference.
-Newsman-
More germane:
When you already know you're dealing with a force that can, when
gratuitously provoked, do you harm, what do you think would be your
wisest course of action?
shannon
Do you want to be like them ?
Roger Dewhurst
"shannon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:43e7f857$1...@clear.net.nz...
I suggested something else if you care to look.
R
David
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ds8baj$j8a$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> The traditional Moslem world has a different context.
>
> In that case let the moslems live in their moslem world in their own
> 'moslem
> context' but when they want to live in the western world they had better
> be
> prepared to put up with the 'western context'.
Karaiki, you must have a lot of hair on your chest!
What is cultural context?
To some extent we ought to accomodate our migrants and their culture.
Don't you remember- didn't someone accomodate ours?
-David.
David
"A. Lovejoy Prune" <pon...@vanitas.net.nz> wrote in message
news:43e7d658$1...@clear.net.nz...
And I say NO to crusader chainmail. So there!
David
>
> "David" <> wrote
>
>>>> In Aotearoa it is considered taboo to put your backside
>>>> on something related to food.
>>>>
>>>> e.g. sit on someone's pillow.
>>>
>>> hospital dieing my mother sat at his side, but the chair provided was
>>> too low and she could not reach him from it, she was not allowed to sit
>>> on a pillow to reach him. So she had to sit for several hours without
>>> being able to reach even his hand because they would not let her sit on
>>> a pillow. After that ( I threw a wobbly) a better chair was found.
>>
>>
>
> Annemarie has already demonstrated that common sense *didn't* prevail!
Tikanga operated by pakeha is not common sense.
>
> Still, I guess being PC is more important than allowing some old woman to
> grieve with her dying husband, right?
No, and I said that
>
> After all - someone might walk past and be offended. The silly old bint
> should have just sucked it in and taken one for the team, right?
>
>> Why not use a cushion.
>> I believe in Dunedin pillow slips are a different colour from
>> cushions. (or planned to be.)
>>
>> I think the practise should be followed by those who believe in it.
>> When others are involved it does get out of hand- political pettiness.
>
> That is kind of the point of this whole discussion....
Agreed.