Should the Arms Deal era be put to bed?
ProfQ
94% of South Africans reject this question, probably with the contempt
it deserves. Many South Africans are saying they have not considered
voting for the opposition parties until now. More South Africans now
want the ANC out and a coalition of IFP and DA in. Many of the
respondents are black South Africans. Is the light beginning to shine
through the dinginess of Black Intelligence?
Bob Dubery
> Interface, SABC 3, Sunday 21 September 2008
>
> 94% of South Africans reject this question, probably with the contempt
> it deserves.
Rejected the question? Does that mean they didn't answer?
Do tell. Who conducted the poll? On what date? What were the results?
Of the 6 percent that didn't reject the question, how many answered
"yes" and how many answered "no". Oh... and how was it determined that
the person rejecting the question was "South African"?
Many South Africans are saying they have not considered
> voting for the opposition parties until now. More South Africans now
> want the ANC out and a coalition of IFP and DA in.
Figures please.... where? When?
> Many of the
> respondents are black South Africans. Is the light beginning to shine
> through the dinginess of Black Intelligence?
Careful.... your slip is showing.
ProfQ
> On Sep 21, 8:31 pm, ProfQ <pse...@intelligence.info> wrote:
>> Interface, SABC 3, Sunday 21 September 2008
>>
>> 94% of South Africans reject this question, probably with the contempt
>> it deserves.
>
> Rejected the question? Does that mean they didn't answer?
You obviously did not watch! THEY SAID NO!
> Do tell. Who conducted the poll? On what date? What were the results?
> Of the 6 percent that didn't reject the question, how many answered
> "yes" and how many answered "no". Oh... and how was it determined that
> the person rejecting the question was "South African"?
You did not read the top line where I wrote: "Interface, SABC 3" Sunday
21 September 2008" HELLO?!
> Many South Africans are saying they have not considered
>> voting for the opposition parties until now. More South Africans now
>> want the ANC out and a coalition of IFP and DA in.
> Figures please.... where? When?
SABC did not disclose figures.
<snip> possibly an unfair comment, withdrawn.
While everyone is "presumed" innocent until proven "guilty" there are so
many of us who feel JZ is "guilty" simply because we do not like the
man. I feel he's rather like a rattle-snake. I do not sense that he has
the makings of a statesman, not the intelligence to run a country, but
to give the devil his due, we should wait and see. Adopt the "give the
slimeball a chance", he can always be evicted like Thabo was if he
doesn't perform properly.
Personally I would prefer to see Helen Zille as President of SA and the
ANC back on Robben Island, if not Gough Island, if not SANAE, if not on
Mars or Pluto ....
Q
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 8:31 pm, ProfQ <pse...@intelligence.info> wrote:
> >> Interface, SABC 3, Sunday 21 September 2008
>
> >> 94% of South Africans reject this question, probably with the contempt
> >> it deserves.
>
> > Rejected the question? Does that mean they didn't answer?
>
> You obviously did not watch! THEY SAID NO!
another.
>
> > Do tell. Who conducted the poll? On what date? What were the results?
> > Of the 6 percent that didn't reject the question, how many answered
> > "yes" and how many answered "no". Oh... and how was it determined that
> > the person rejecting the question was "South African"?
>
> You did not read the top line where I wrote: "Interface, SABC 3" Sunday
> 21 September 2008" HELLO?!
Africans are going to vote for something other than the ANC next
year?
>
> > Many South Africans are saying they have not considered
> >> voting for the opposition parties until now. More South Africans now
> >> want the ANC out and a coalition of IFP and DA in.
> > Figures please.... where? When?
>
> SABC did not disclose figures.
>
> <snip> possibly an unfair comment, withdrawn.
>
> While everyone is "presumed" innocent until proven "guilty" there are so
> many of us who feel JZ is "guilty" simply because we do not like the
> man.
somebody to be guilty just because they don't like him? There are
people that I don't like. That doesn't make them guilty of anything in
my mind. Based on what I have seen posted on this group I don't like
Bodie very much, but it stops there. I don't imagine him or want him
to be guilty of some crime or another just because I don't like him.
Bob Dubery
> On Sep 23, 6:50 pm, ProfQ <pse...@intelligence.info> wrote:> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > On Sep 21, 8:31 pm, ProfQ <pse...@intelligence.info> wrote:
> > >> Interface, SABC 3, Sunday 21 September 2008
>
> > >> 94% of South Africans reject this question, probably with the contempt
> > >> it deserves.
>
> > > Rejected the question? Does that mean they didn't answer?
>
> > You obviously did not watch! THEY SAID NO!
>
> You said they rejected the question. That's not answering one way or
> another.
>
> > > Do tell. Who conducted the poll? On what date? What were the results?
> > > Of the 6 percent that didn't reject the question, how many answered
> > > "yes" and how many answered "no". Oh... and how was it determined that
> > > the person rejecting the question was "South African"?
>
> > You did not read the top line where I wrote: "Interface, SABC 3" Sunday
> > 21 September 2008" HELLO?!
>
> Ah. Do you actually believe that? Do you think that 94% of South
> Africans are going to vote for something other than the ANC next
> year?
said.
I'm still dubious though, because of the use of terms like "many" and
"more". "Many" is not a number. "More" might mean 1000 5 years ago and
1001 today.
It's interesting though, given the perception that the SABC is the
ANC's mouthpiece.
Bob Dubery
> Which is ridiculous. Why should anybody in their right mind consider
> somebody to be guilty just because they don't like him? There are
> people that I don't like. That doesn't make them guilty of anything in
> my mind. Based on what I have seen posted on this group I don't like
> Bodie very much, but it stops there. I don't imagine him or want him
> to be guilty of some crime or another just because I don't like him.
That was out of line. My apologies to Bodie. It was unfair in this
instance to talk about a general principle and then use him as a
specific example.
ProfQ
> Which is ridiculous. Why should anybody in their right mind consider
> somebody to be guilty just because they don't like him? There are
> people that I don't like. That doesn't make them guilty of anything in
> my mind. Based on what I have seen posted on this group I don't like
> Bodie very much, but it stops there. I don't imagine him or want him
> to be guilty of some crime or another just because I don't like him.
>
Ridiculous, really? Since you have admitted not to like Bodie very much
and Bodie appears to support my rhetoric, perhaps you and Brooks are in
the same camp and go ahead vote for the ANC if you must. I still
maintain it's time the ANC went back to the desert or the south pole or
pluto or some other part of the globe and left decent, honest, reliable,
intelligent people to get on and make a decent future for ALL OUR
PEOPLE, irrespective of race, colour, gender, ability or disability,
masculine or feminine, etc., ad nauseum!
BTW, I do not support the AWB, nor do I support the ANC, nor do I
support any political party that vaunts itself against the knowledge of
moderate things, that displays political arrogance, that displays
spiritual wickedness in high places, that is morally as well as
sociopathically corrupt (where not even a maggot would dare enter) ...
and I am no puritan either. Moderation in all things never killed
anyone. However, political bigotry, self-righteous arrogance, moral
destitution, etc., have seen the demise of many countries' leaders in
history and will again in the future.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 6:50 pm, ProfQ <pse...@intelligence.info> wrote:
>
> <big snip>
>
> > Which is ridiculous. Why should anybody in their right mind consider
> > somebody to be guilty just because they don't like him? There are
> > people that I don't like. That doesn't make them guilty of anything in
> > my mind. Based on what I have seen posted on this group I don't like
> > Bodie very much, but it stops there. I don't imagine him or want him
> > to be guilty of some crime or another just because I don't like him.
>
> Ridiculous, really? Since you have admitted not to like Bodie very much
> and Bodie appears to support my rhetoric, perhaps you and Brooks are in
> the same camp and go ahead vote for the ANC if you must.
just because you don't like them.
This in reply to your claim that
> there are so
> many of us who feel JZ is "guilty" simply because we do not like the
> man.
It's got nothing to do with buying into some set of rhetoric. It's to
do with principle. I actually extended that principle to the guy you
say is in your camp and not mine.
I actually didn't have that many problems with Mbeki (though if I
thought about it a bit more I might have) but when a high court judge
said that it was probable that he'd interfered with the judicial
process to further his own ambitions then I had to pay attention to
that.
The problem with too many people is that they want leniency for those
they like (or are like them) and heavy-handedness for those they don't
like (or who are perceived as being on the other side or different).
> I still
> maintain it's time the ANC went back to the desert or the south pole or
> pluto or some other part of the globe and left decent, honest, reliable,
> intelligent people to get on and make a decent future for ALL OUR
> PEOPLE, irrespective of race, colour, gender, ability or disability,
> masculine or feminine, etc., ad nauseum!
Actually the ANC are from South Africa. You're playing the same "go
back to wherever it is that you came from" game that black racists
play. You're also working on the assumption that there are two kinds
of people.
1) Decent, honest, reliable, intelligent people
2) The ANC
Which doesn't seem like a very well thought out position. I wonder how
you tested intelligence, reliability etc. And "decency". Well there's
a good, subjective yard stick that you can define any old arbitrary
way you like.
> BTW, I do not support the AWB, nor do I support the ANC, nor do I
> support any political party that vaunts itself against the knowledge of
> moderate things, that displays political arrogance, that displays
> spiritual wickedness in high places, that is morally as well as
> sociopathically corrupt (where not even a maggot would dare enter) ...
> and I am no puritan either. Moderation in all things never killed
> anyone. However, political bigotry, self-righteous arrogance, moral
> destitution, etc., have seen the demise of many countries' leaders in
> history and will again in the future.
You're getting awfully defensive.
ProfQ
Bob Dubery wrote:
> You're getting awfully defensive.
That's my democratic right. And if it appears contradictory, then that's
fine too. As I said, draw your own conclusion. I was simply stating my
point of view, not to be interpreted by anyone, just plain and simply
black text on white background with nothing in between. That's probably
what's between my ears - nothing but blank space!
Good night, Bob.
Bob Dubery
Your words. Not mine.
But since you're complaining about being misunderstood, it might help
if you tool a consistent, coherent position on something.
ProfQ
Ah recognition at last. My fever-tortured brain has finally been recognised.