Re: The banana republic walk before breakfast/draft/geb
Uncle Sam
Martijn Blunders wrote:
> Well, the whole world agrees on the banana republic thing. There are
> basically two rogue states in the world at the moment: the US and
> Israel. Both have an active racist policy that involves having
> secret service beating people to death all over the world in the
> name of 'freedom'...
That's right, Blunders. And since the U.S. is the strongest and
most powerful country in the world, you'd better GET USED TO IT.
Because if you don't, we'll come and beat YOU to death. In the
name of 'freedom,' of course.
Freedom from mindless, leftist/collectivist wackos like yourself.
Wake up, Blunders. Nederland, and all of Europe, is a flea; a gnat.
We can squash you anytime we choose.
Your opinion is totally irrelevant. We DON'T CARE what you think.
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions favoring vege-
tarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
Understand what this means. Then be VERY afraid.
- Sam
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
M.H.Benders
>>Well, the whole world agrees on the banana republic thing. There are
>>basically two rogue states in the world at the moment: the US and
>>Israel. Both have an active racist policy that involves having
>>secret service beating people to death all over the world in the
>>name of 'freedom'...
>
> That's right, Blunders. And since the U.S. is the strongest and
> most powerful country in the world, you'd better GET USED TO IT.
Let's get one thing straight: there is nothing 'strong' about facing an
enemy from behind a computer screen or from a high altitude bomber.
From the perspective of the art of warfare the US are cowards. They've
always been that, see WWII were they waited for the russians to do the
real work.
The only thing you guys are good at is bombing wedding parties. And
beating people to death in the name of freedom.
Now there's something to be proud of.
M.H.Benders
Art
"In 1942, a transport camp was erected near Westerbork. Concentration
camps were built near Vught and Amersfoort. At the end of the war, only
about 20,000 of the 140,000 Dutch Jews remained alive. Among those who
died was Anne Frank, who later gained world-wide fame when her diary,
written while hiding from the Nazis, was found and published."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Netherlands
Brave little Benders; Brave little Holland. Too bad ya brought up WWII, innit?
---
Art
"No; I have not been charged with that.
In fact, nobody has said that to me yet."
---Lee Oswald
(1963)
Dale Houstman
You have to realize that - despite the horror of the matter mentioned -
the country was occupied. And the U.S. - without even that excuse - has
killed vastly more people in the pursuit of power and profit. There
simply isn't any comparison worth making between the relatively benign
social democracy of the Netherlands and the brtual "capitalist
experiment" that is now putrifying in the U.S.A. The sheer number of
military and para-military activites that the U.S. has been involved in
since WWII is mind-boggling. To suggest that we can put all our minds to
rest by pointing a finger at a nation which most of our badly educated
students couldn't locate if we threatened to strangle them is ludicrous.
It is not unlike ancient rome blaming all their problems on some small
pig farm in far Gaul.
dmh
Uncle Sam
On 2004-07-19 Martijn Blunders wrote:
> Uncle Sam wrote:
>
> > Martijn Blunders wrote:
> >
> > > Well, the whole world agrees on the banana republic thing. There
> > > are basically two rogue states in the world at the moment: the US
> > > and Israel. Both have an active racist policy that involves having
> > > secret service beating people to death all over the world in the
> > > name of 'freedom'...
> >
> > That's right, Blunders. And since the U.S. is the strongest and
> > most powerful country in the world, you'd better GET USED TO IT.
>
> Let's get one thing straight: there is nothing 'strong' about
> facing an enemy from behind a computer screen or from a high
> altitude bomber.
Of course there is. The U.S. has the tools, the technology and
the strategies necessary to WIN. And winning is the name of the
game, Blunders.
But, being a Dutchman, you can't understand that.
> From the perspective of the art of warfare the US are cowards.
> They've always been that, see WWII were they waited for the
> russians to do the real work.
That wasn't cowardly; that was intelligent. We didn't like the
communist Rooskies any better than we liked the Nazis. We simply
allowed those two trash cultures to kill each other. It saved us
a lot of ammunition.
> The only thing you guys are good at is bombing wedding parties. And
> beating people to death in the name of freedom.
Damn right! And we do it VERY well. You'd better learn something
from this example, Marty. Because if you don't, YOU are next!
> Now there's something to be proud of.
Heh. This is hilarious, considering Nederland's history in war.
The Dutch surrender even faster than the French.
The Islamo-Fascists have already taken over your country, without
firing a single shot. You INVITED THEM IN, and built their mosques
for them. How stupid is THAT?
Try to understand, Blunders: Nederland is an ugly, worthless stain
on the face of the earth.
Nederland is a fifth-rate, inconsequential dungheap; a cesspoll of
amorality; a gang of lazy, socialistic, drug-using, fetus-aborting,
prostitute-f*cking, Islam-loving morons.
When the dikes crumble, Marty, Nederland will be nothing more than a
shallow, salty puddle.
And the U.S.A. will still be here to spread seaweed on your grave.
That's the way things are. GET USED TO IT.
d'huit
"Uncle Sam" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:40fb...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
>
> Martijn Blunders wrote:
>
> > Well, the whole world agrees on the banana republic thing. There are
> > basically two rogue states in the world at the moment: the US and
> > Israel. Both have an active racist policy that involves having
> > secret service beating people to death all over the world in the
> > name of 'freedom'...
>
> That's right, Blunders. And since the U.S. is the strongest and
> most powerful country in the world, you'd better GET USED TO IT.
>
> Because if you don't, we'll come and beat YOU to death. In the
> name of 'freedom,' of course.
>
> Freedom from mindless, leftist/collectivist wackos like yourself.
>
> Wake up, Blunders. Nederland, and all of Europe, is a flea; a gnat.
> We can squash you anytime we choose.
>
> Your opinion is totally irrelevant. We DON'T CARE what you think.
>
> "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions favoring vege-
> tarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
>
> Understand what this means. Then be VERY afraid.
>
> - Sam
>
geesh, you're just as nutty as benders. he's an idiot from one side of the
argument and you are an idiot from the other side of it. both of your
brains have gone the way of the dodo. somehow, sam, i don't believe you
have the influence required to put all of the u.s.'s might behind punishing
europe or holland for bender's idiocy. therefore, your bullying threat is
vaccuous.
kate
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004
Uncle Sam
On 2004-07-19 d'huit wrote:
> geesh, you're just as nutty as benders. he's an idiot from one
> side of the argument and you are an idiot from the other side of it.
You've almost begun to grasp the concept, Katie.
> both of your brains have gone the way of the dodo. somehow, sam,
> i don't believe you have the influence required to put all of the
> u.s.'s might behind punishing europe or holland for bender's idiocy.
> therefore, your bullying threat is vaccuous.
Thanks, Kate. And, may I say, you're a lady who would
fit me perfectly. Perhaps we could get together one day
soon, and explore each others' vacuosity. I look forward
to it.
Uncle Sam
On 2004-07-19 dm...@citilink.com (Dale Houstman) wrote:
> [ .. snip .. ]
>
> Still, one does have disasters to dilute the dull drone of our
> march toward irrelevancy.
We'll take your word for it, Dale. After all, few others
in this newsgroup have as much experience in irrelevancy
as you do.
Art
> wrote in message news:40FC1C32...@citilink.com...
Oh yes, it was occupied like Vichy France was occupied. Wilhemina was hiding
in London, sure. But meanwhile, back at the ranch, there was Mussert, the
NSB, the Dutch SS, and a dead girl named Frank. The only reason Hitler
insisted on Seyss-Inquart and not Mussert was because Mussert was a
dreamy-eyed statolater and a sycophantic moron.
Not that the Dutch didn't have a courageous and effective underground. They
did.
>And the U.S. - without even that excuse - has
> killed vastly more people in the pursuit of power and profit. There
> simply isn't any comparison worth making between the relatively benign
> social democracy of the Netherlands and the brtual "capitalist
> experiment" that is now putrifying in the U.S.A. The sheer number of
> military and para-military activites that the U.S. has been involved in
> since WWII is mind-boggling.
Mind boggling, yes, since the idiots in DC have only been able to turn all
that military effort into two measly fuken stars on the flag. (US textile
lobbies were pushing hard for OP: IF but were disappointed yet again June
28)
Dale--better an insidious Cold War filled with lies and spies and state
sponsored coups than leaving it to The United States Space Command to
'defend' our liberty.
Sure we've evolved passed Cold Wars and now have Temperate Wars. It's ALL
better than having a LAST war.
> To suggest that we can put all our minds to
> rest by pointing a finger at a nation which most of our badly educated
> students couldn't locate if we threatened to strangle them is ludicrous.
> It is not unlike ancient rome blaming all their problems on some small
> pig farm in far Gaul.
Snowball, Napoleon and Vercingetorix?
Dennis M. Hammes
The mouse's voting to bell the cat is vacuous.
Sam's voting to bell the mouse is merely autistic.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
The most essential gift for a good writer is
a built-in, shock-proof, shit detector. -- Hemingway
http://scrawlmark.org
Uncle Sam
On 2004-07-20 Martijn Blunders wrote:
> If you think I'm going to explain warfare ethics to a hysterical
> overweight old winch, you're wrong.
Heh. It would take more than a "winch" to get YOU off the ground,
Blunders.
(For those who are uninitiated, Blunders bends the scale at well
over 300 pounds.)
Calling Kate "overweight" is almost as funny as your politics,
Marty.
You're a Dutch weapon of mass destruction. If we dropped YOU on
Iraq, the war would be over instantly.
Now go eat another brioche, and play with your tulips.
Tom Bishop
"d'huit" <threeced...@comcastspammer.net> wrote in message news:vsidnWLuhZI...@comcast.com...
>
> "Uncle Sam" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:40fb...@post.usenet.com...
> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> >
> >
> >
> > Martijn Blunders wrote:
> >
> > > Well, the whole world agrees on the banana republic thing. There are
> > > basically two rogue states in the world at the moment: the US and
> > > Israel. Both have an active racist policy that involves having
> > > secret service beating people to death all over the world in the
> > > name of 'freedom'...
> >
> > That's right, Blunders. And since the U.S. is the strongest and
> > most powerful country in the world, you'd better GET USED TO IT.
> >
> > Because if you don't, we'll come and beat YOU to death. In the
> > name of 'freedom,' of course.
> >
> > Freedom from mindless, leftist/collectivist wackos like yourself.
> >
> > Wake up, Blunders. Nederland, and all of Europe, is a flea; a gnat.
> > We can squash you anytime we choose.
> >
> > Your opinion is totally irrelevant. We DON'T CARE what you think.
> >
> > "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions favoring vege-
> > tarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
> >
> > Understand what this means. Then be VERY afraid.
> >
> > - Sam
> >
>
> geesh, you're just as nutty as benders. he's an idiot from one side of the
> argument and you are an idiot from the other side of it.
And you are an idiot of the middle side?
d'huit
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote in message
news:40FCDCD6...@arvig.net...
LOL! i dunno, dennis. a couple of more years of MHB's squeaking salvos
and i might be thinking sam's voting to bell the mouse is altruistic. ôżô
kate
> --
> -------(m+
> ~/:o)_|
> The most essential gift for a good writer is
> a built-in, shock-proof, shit detector. -- Hemingway
> http://scrawlmark.org
Chandra P. Das
Nee, McNut, het is jij die keer op keer de Amerikaanse interventie
tijdens WWII op de tafel van hedendaags politiek zet. Laat het
verre verleden maar eens rusten, man -- het heeft niets te maken met hoe
we zouden moeten aanpakken de tegenwoordige problemen van werldpolitiek.
Benders heeft gedeeltelijk gelijk, vooral wat het momentele, nogal
agressieve beleid van de Amerikaan en Israeli regeringen betreft. De
goede-en-misdaden van verleden van of tegen bepaalde mensen/landen
zouden moeten niet worden toegelaten om te schrappen of teniet te doen
de goede-en-misdaden van die mensen/landen vandaag. En bovendien, net
omdat er zijn vreselijke dingen op inderdaad grote schaal begaan geweest
door vele en afwisselende partijen in het verleden, moeten we niet
vandaag met onze konten op onze handen zouden zitten kijken op het
weergeven van delen uit de geschiedenis alsof ze onschadelijke televisie
programma's waren. Maar als ik omheen kijk, lijkt me wel als dit is
precies hoe meeste Amerikaans zich bezig houden. Erg druk bezig zitten
met zijn konten op zijn handen en lullen als visvrouwen. Simpelweg
afschuwelijk, vind ik, eerlijk gezegd.
Dennis M. Hammes
Hmm. You remind me that we useta bell lepers, so I may hafta
apologise to Sam as I'm certain there's a parallel in the case if
only I cared to look hard enough...
You hear the bell, you got time to take your pijes in off the
windowsills?
Art
Look, if I understand you correctly, let me just say that he was the one
who evoked WWII, and claimed the C.C.C.P. was the nation who had "done
the heavy work; not the VS."
Meant as a criticism of the VS, it falls far short of the mark, coming
as it does from someone who refuses to renounce his citizenship in a
country which largely collaborated with the German Nazis (far more so
than Vichy). This country also continued its colonialism into the late
1950's after having been generously reinstated by the Allies after the
armistice--and it took UN and VS "aggressive" actions to extricate it
from its slave holdings in Indonesia. Look it up.
I don't equate this with contemporary politics--though most all of what
is happening in world politics today, especially in the Middle East, is
what it is because of the dynamics of WWII and its aftermath. How could
it be otherwise?
He brought it up. Again.
> Laat het
> verre verleden maar eens rusten, man -- het heeft niets te maken met hoe
> we zouden moeten aanpakken de tegenwoordige problemen van werldpolitiek.
But it's all part of "The Forever War," is it not? As stated above, it
all relates. Three years after Hitler swallowed his revolver, the State
of Israel had become a reality. 5 years after Hitler's wedding day,
Israeli farmers were moving their tractors into the DMZ. This set a
chain of events into motion that would lead to the quadruple attacks of
9/11/01. Like the "Butterfly Effect," change any of these conditions and
/everything/ changes. Change any of the conditions of today, and the
same will be true for our future.
> Benders heeft gedeeltelijk gelijk,
No he's not. What he is is /more/ than 'partially' a dreamy eyed
statolater and a hypocrite. Which is fine with me, until he throws down
the gauntlet.
> vooral wat het momentele, nogal
> agressieve beleid van de Amerikaan en Israeli regeringen betreft.
For some people, aggression is inherently wrong. Ergo the VS is
inherently wrong.
Because the Cold War fell the way it did, it seems many people today are
pretending that everything that is mankind was not on the line during
those dark years. NBD; that's an inevitable consequence of success.
Look, America stepped up to the plate when it counted and, while never
hitting one out of the park, it did what it had to do in order to win
the game. Played well enough that She had a comfortable lead in the last
few innings.
Well, the schedule is far from over, and now we're just playing in a
different park. But it's still the same game; and the game carries much
the same stakes.
> De
> goede-en-misdaden van verleden van of tegen bepaalde mensen/landen
> zouden moeten niet worden toegelaten om te schrappen of teniet te doen
> de goede-en-misdaden van die mensen/landen vandaag.
Given that the Syrians had kept the Soviets out, given that the players
were what they pretended to be, maybe.
Sudat, Mubarak, Pahlavi and the House of Saud are all that has kept the
Middle East from being a client sword of Russia, and now, post 1989,
from rising up on its own to become a unified Theocratic Neo-Fascist State.
Israel has always been the excuse. It was the VS's excuse to intervene,
it has been Islam's excuse to rally under Nasser's and Bin Laden's ambitions.
> En bovendien, net
> omdat er zijn vreselijke dingen op inderdaad grote schaal begaan geweest
> door vele en afwisselende partijen in het verleden, moeten we niet
> vandaag met onze konten op onze handen zouden zitten kijken op het
> weergeven van delen uit de geschiedenis alsof ze onschadelijke televisie
> programma's waren.
Yes, this /is/ the Remote Control Generation, is it not? Wars are dinner
time fare. Usenet discussions. Water Cooler Talk. When Berg's screams or
the Allah Akbars get too boring we can go out and mow our lawns.
> Maar als ik omheen kijk, lijkt me wel als dit is
> precies hoe meeste Amerikaans zich bezig houden. Erg druk bezig zitten
> met zijn konten op zijn handen en lullen als visvrouwen. Simpelweg
> afschuwelijk, vind ik, eerlijk gezegd.
Bullshit? Sure. Sitting on our hands--yeah, you and me. That's why our
opinions don't count.
Uncle Sam
On 2004-07-21 scraw...@arvig.net said:
> d'huit wrote:
>
> > i dunno, dennis. a couple of more years of MHB's
> > squeaking salvos and i might be thinking sam's
> > voting to bell the mouse is altruistic.
>
> Hmm. You remind me that we useta bell lepers, so I may hafta
> apologise to Sam as I'm certain there's a parallel in the case
> if only I cared to look hard enough...
Hammy, you're nuttier than an Alabama pecan pie.
- Sam
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Dennis M. Hammes
"WWI," and the partition of the former Ottoman Empire, 1919 /et
seq/.
>
> He brought it up. Again.
Yeah, that happens when you eajt too much pije at once.
>
> > Laat het
> > verre verleden maar eens rusten, man -- het heeft niets te maken met hoe
> > we zouden moeten aanpakken de tegenwoordige problemen van werldpolitiek.
>
> But it's all part of "The Forever War," is it not?
Historians find 37 years in which somebody wasn't fighting somebody
in Europe or the New World, fewer than 100 years in which the ruckus
didn't involve three or more "sides."
Since the putative Birth of JEEzuss.
Add Africa or the Far East, the Peace of God evaporates
completely.
> As stated above, it
> all relates. Three years after Hitler swallowed his revolver,
Issue precursor of the Mauser HsC, 7.65mm (.32 ACP), right temple,
as he bit on his Black Capsule. Evidently it was the only thing he
ever cared actually to get right the first time.
> the State
> of Israel had become a reality. 5 years after Hitler's wedding day,
> Israeli farmers were moving their tractors into the DMZ. This set a
> chain of events into motion that would lead to the quadruple attacks of
> 9/11/01. Like the "Butterfly Effect," change any of these conditions and
> /everything/ changes. Change any of the conditions of today, and the
> same will be true for our future.
>
> > Benders heeft gedeeltelijk gelijk,
If you mean his brain.
(He has only a "partial right," you know. There was a horrible
accident involving stepping on his rake while trying to pick up a
found half-Euro.)
>
> No he's not. What he is is /more/ than 'partially' a dreamy eyed
> statolater and a hypocrite. Which is fine with me, until he throws down
> the gauntlet.
Oh, come on. Let him.
He's not yet managed to do anything with it but bruise his big
toe.
>
> > vooral wat het momentele, nogal
> > agressieve beleid van de Amerikaan en Israeli regeringen betreft.
>
> For some people, aggression is inherently wrong. Ergo the VS is
> inherently wrong.
For most "people," shooting /back/ is inherently wrong; it tends to
cost them the hands they have in other people's pijes.
My jury is still out on Iraq and may remain so forever (it's not
that fuken important, Babies), but I guarantee that whatever the
Bush Baby Wanted, the Joint Chiefs would not have gone in if they
thought the "World Court" by any definition could spat them for it
(/we/ /established/ the sumbitch at Nurnberg, dammit, and it remains
a goodly chunk of War College and JAG training). I.e., all the data
on balance said "go" even if there were /no/ WMDs in the other pan,
as evidence already suggested there weren't well before we "jumped
off."
Cryin' Charlies do /not/ constitute any sort of Court under any
circumstances.
They do not ordinarily constitute any sort of /plaintiff/.
>
> Because the Cold War fell the way it did, it seems many people today are
> pretending that everything that is mankind was not on the line during
> those dark years. NBD; that's an inevitable consequence of success.
It's something of a bone that the VFW (the U.S. "Veterans of Foreign
Wars" society) will not admit American Legion (veterans generally)
members for service in "The Cold War" "because nobody got shot at"
(90% of the VFW didn't, either).
Mencius insists that the ultimate strategy is to get the enemy to
capitulate without firing a shot.
And, yes, Babies, /we were that fuken good/ at /holding parades/.
It's why, when we see Hussein's or Kim Jong Il's or Dujtch
parades, we fall out of our La-Z-Boys laughing. Since we're already
"up," as it were, we get another beer.
>
> Look, America stepped up to the plate when it counted and, while never
> hitting one out of the park, it did what it had to do in order to win
> the game. Played well enough that She had a comfortable lead in the last
> few innings.
>
> Well, the schedule is far from over, and now we're just playing in a
> different park. But it's still the same game; and the game carries much
> the same stakes.
Keith Park? Soong Dong Park? Gorky Park? Prndl Park? Let's Park?
Kid, last I looked, Santa could see all the way to the South Pole.
It's a fuken small park.
In fact, it's 37% smaller than Euclid Elf maps the edge of the
Petri dish from Santa's observations.
>
> > De
> > goede-en-misdaden van verleden van of tegen bepaalde mensen/landen
> > zouden moeten niet worden toegelaten om te schrappen of teniet te doen
> > de goede-en-misdaden van die mensen/landen vandaag.
>
> Given that the Syrians had kept the Soviets out, given that the players
> were what they pretended to be, maybe.
>
> Sudat, Mubarak, Pahlavi and the House of Saud are all that has kept the
> Middle East from being a client sword of Russia, and now, post 1989,
> from rising up on its own to become a unified Theocratic Neo-Fascist State.
The enemy of my enemy is almost /never/ my friend, but by god, as
long as he happens to be facing that way, /anyway/...
>
> Israel has always been the excuse. It was the VS's excuse to intervene,
> it has been Islam's excuse to rally under Nasser's and Bin Laden's ambitions.
>
> > En bovendien, net
> > omdat er zijn vreselijke dingen op inderdaad grote schaal begaan geweest
> > door vele en afwisselende partijen in het verleden, moeten we niet
> > vandaag met onze konten op onze handen zouden zitten kijken op het
> > weergeven van delen uit de geschiedenis alsof ze onschadelijke televisie
> > programma's waren.
>
> Yes, this /is/ the Remote Control Generation, is it not? Wars are dinner
> time fare. Usenet discussions. Water Cooler Talk. When Berg's screams or
> the Allah Akbars get too boring we can go out and mow our lawns.
It's the illiterate generation.
The TV pitchers mean /nothing/ unless you know the balance of a
rifle with and without bayonet, how hard you can welt something with
the butt without breaking it (the butt), the twitch of a sword to
each finger, the range and drop of a 178-grain, six-caliber .30"
slug /et sim/, the range and drop of a 125-grain, four-caliber .30"
slug, the pressure at which a trigger breaks, how much TNT will blow
a 12" tree or 5" I-beam with and without tamping, the bursting
radius of a Mills Bomb, why an uncollared horse stands in a T-plow
hitch off behind the smiling field reporter, why there's a two-year
old chunk out of a Main-Street gutter, why pushcarts are made from
automobile differentials, why a collapsed building has at least
three years' weeds growing in the rubble, why Fearless Leader's
Smiling Face is plastered on the windows of the three empty
businesses between the two whose shelves are 80% empty, why an ass
and a camel are plowing dry gravel 100 miles upstream from the
Euphrates salt swamp, why the "Federal troops" are wearing altar-boy
dresses instead of Federal uniform, why fully-covered women cringe
away from young local men even after months of "Coalition"
occupation, why there are only five registered Jews in the entirety
of Iraq (three living in other people's closets), why Italy is
pulling /all fifty-one/ of its "Coalition" troops out of Iraq...
They can punch the remote until their thumbs turn blue, they will
/always/ settle on the McHappy Burp brought to you by the letter
"B."
They have /experienced/ the letter "B."
>
> > Maar als ik omheen kijk, lijkt me wel als dit is
> > precies hoe meeste Amerikaans zich bezig houden. Erg druk bezig zitten
> > met zijn konten op zijn handen en lullen als visvrouwen. Simpelweg
> > afschuwelijk, vind ik, eerlijk gezegd.
>
> Bullshit? Sure. Sitting on our hands--yeah, you and me. That's why our
> opinions don't count.
It's not that you're sitting on your hands.
It's that you're not sitting on your hands to hide the size of
your noif or your trigger calluses.
That's why your opinions don't count; you don't in fact /have/
any. You're just parrotting noises you heard on the Goddamnoisybox.
When you're through, you get to scurry down your holes with the
rest of the Teletubbies.
Art
Oh sure. Bring THAT up. Btw: /American/ history doesn't even begin until 1933.
> >
> > He brought it up. Again.
>
> Yeah, that happens when you eajt too much pije at once.
> >
> > > Laat het
> > > verre verleden maar eens rusten, man -- het heeft niets te maken met hoe
> > > we zouden moeten aanpakken de tegenwoordige problemen van werldpolitiek.
> >
> > But it's all part of "The Forever War," is it not?
>
> Historians find 37 years in which somebody wasn't fighting somebody
> in Europe or the New World, fewer than 100 years in which the ruckus
> didn't involve three or more "sides."
> Since the putative Birth of JEEzuss.
> Add Africa or the Far East, the Peace of God evaporates
> completely.
"If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave
B. -- why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that
he may enslave A?"
--A. Lincoln, 7/1/1854
>
> > As stated above, it
> > all relates. Three years after Hitler swallowed his revolver,
>
> Issue precursor of the Mauser HsC, 7.65mm (.32 ACP), right temple,
> as he bit on his Black Capsule. Evidently it was the only thing he
> ever cared actually to get right the first time.
No revolver, and he swallowed something else. Like I didn't know that.
Some day I'll take the exam for my poetic license.
>
> > the State
> > of Israel had become a reality. 5 years after Hitler's wedding day,
> > Israeli farmers were moving their tractors into the DMZ. This set a
> > chain of events into motion that would lead to the quadruple attacks of
> > 9/11/01. Like the "Butterfly Effect," change any of these conditions and
> > /everything/ changes. Change any of the conditions of today, and the
> > same will be true for our future.
> >
> > > Benders heeft gedeeltelijk gelijk,
>
> If you mean his brain.
> (He has only a "partial right," you know. There was a horrible
> accident involving stepping on his rake while trying to pick up a
> found half-Euro.)
And here I'd always thought it was a Marijuana Ration Card he'd spied
while working in the park.
> >
> > No he's not. What he is is /more/ than 'partially' a dreamy eyed
> > statolater and a hypocrite. Which is fine with me, until he throws down
> > the gauntlet.
>
> Oh, come on. Let him.
> He's not yet managed to do anything with it but bruise his big
> toe.
> >
> > > vooral wat het momentele, nogal
> > > agressieve beleid van de Amerikaan en Israeli regeringen betreft.
> >
> > For some people, aggression is inherently wrong. Ergo the VS is
> > inherently wrong.
>
> For most "people," shooting /back/ is inherently wrong; it tends to
> cost them the hands they have in other people's pijes.
> My jury is still out on Iraq and may remain so forever (it's not
> that fuken important, Babies), but I guarantee that whatever the
> Bush Baby Wanted, the Joint Chiefs would not have gone in if they
> thought the "World Court" by any definition could spat them for it
> (/we/ /established/ the sumbitch at Nurnberg, dammit, and it remains
> a goodly chunk of War College and JAG training). I.e., all the data
> on balance said "go" even if there were /no/ WMDs in the other pan,
> as evidence already suggested there weren't well before we "jumped
> off."
Let's say you're the planner. Maybe you're Rice's Boy Friday, maybe
you're the Joint Chief's Golden Boy, or maybe you're a Preschool Born
Again Christian Kennebunkport Cowboy sitting in the Oval Office picking
your nose while you watch a pretty intern bring in a stack of papers
Cheney has told you to sign.
Wherever you are in the organization, /you're/ THE planner.
Got it?
Now, it's Summer 2002. The Taliban are toasted. Central Al Qaeda high
command and what used to be known as the Muslim Brotherhood have
scattered to Iran and the Hindu Kush frontier and parts both near and
far away. Regrouping, they'll make a comeback whenever they're damn well
/ready/ to--just like Frank Sinatra.
Rainbow Six will attempt to find a few of them here and there, kill
them, freeze their bank accounts, etc., but that's pretty much it. Game
over. The Injuns are out there in those hills watchin' ya, but ya can't
jes' go in there and gitim, 'cause, in reality, ya don't know exactly
'there' is.
Afghanistan is /hardly/ a good Fort Apache, and truth be known, Fort
Apache never defeated Cochise in the first place.
Your biggest problem in annihilating the muthafukahs (which is your
task), is the fact that you have this peerless military. Nobody (not
even that "no-body" Odysseus) in their right mind is EVER gonna attempt
to go toe to toe witchya. Certainly not Apaches that have the internet
and VCR's with still-fresh tapes of the Kosovo magic and light show.
Okay. So they're there and you're here, and ya gotta wait until they're
ready to come out and fall on your sword. And you know that your
counterpart over there in the Chiracahua Hills, the Injun planner, ain't
gonna come out 'til your back is turned.
Given this--whatchya gonna do?
You're gonna draw them out into open battle, that's what you're gonna do.
But how? They're scattered--they're a shadowy organization to begin
with--they have sanctuary and supplies--they won't chose to commit
unless they WANNA commit. And they won't WANNA, unless they're going up
against defenseless buildings filled with defenseless secretaries and stockbrokers.
The 'how' is: you're gonna gather up a crusade with swords and shields
with crosses painted on 'em and land it right in the middle of their
muthafuken front yard. That's how.
You see, you KNOW a crusade will flush them out. Why do you know this?
Because the /real/ name of "al Qaeda" is "The World Islamic Front for
Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders." ("Al Qaeda" is just a computer file
and an old abandoned guest house) In point of fact--ONLY a crusade would
EVER flush them out.
You send in a crusade, and they will /have no choice/ but to come out of
the wood work and throw themselves on your sword. You see--the Injuns
started war dances and raids when ya only had a /base/ or two in Arabie:
they'd go absolutely ape shit if ya sent in King Richard with his
knights of old. Even Geronimo couldn't stop the war dances /then/. He'd
jes' have to go along and lead the suicide charge.
But where ya gonna send in this crusade? The "World Court" won't let you
jes' go in there and start blastin' away--Mrs. Grundy would be on the
phone in a Hague minute demanding the court "put a stop to this madness
immediately!"
Well, ya got this un-served warrant sitting on your desk dated "1998."
You may not get a "World Court" judge to sign it, but you know he won't
really stand in your way if all ya did was go in THERE to serve it.
Now you're cookin'--except you still have the prime problem: how ya
gonna encourage 'em to come outa them thar hills for Black Hawk target
practice? Ya ain't--not 'less'n you show 'em your "drunken monkey" style
of Kung Fu; Your best "Beleaguered Outpost" pantomime. 'Cept it CAN'T BE
a pantomime--it has to be /real/ since these Injuns are pretty damn
smart when they wanna be.
As the planner, let's take a look at your assets and how you're gonna
use them:
1) You make quick work of the invasion. Take the Feyadeen Saddam as well
as all the regulars and, when they surrender, merely send them home
without their rifles and RPG's. No need to process them and track them
later--they need to feel free to join the counter-revolution so that
there /will be/ a viable counter-revolution.
Ergo: the terrorist honey-pot is set out in the open on a hot July morning.
2) Your domestic press corps will /undoubtedly/ help your plans for the
pantomime any way they can--they LIVE for Vietnam Armchair Second
Guessing: They may even have a Cronkite or two declare that pacification
of the insurgents no longer seems possible. They'll gleefully point out
all of your "mistakes" and "misjudgments" to the world--often and
loudly. They'll blare the number of coalition casualties from the
highest hills; and they'll shove mikes in the faces of all politicos who
will yell the same things. Note to self: DO NOT let the DOD release
estimates of enemy combatant casualties UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!
Heh--if the press squawks claim it all goes back to the "body count"
fiascoes in VN (even though you know well that the so-called body counts
were extremely accurate back then).
Ergo: Your enemy will only hear of YOUR casualties and mistakes; not his
own--and being several different bands of Injuns--he'll never really
have reliable info on his own losses.
3) You know, going in, that France and Germany and prolly Russia--and
MOST CERTAINLY CHINA, will fight you tooth and claw goin in, and disdain
you for staying in. This will make you seem vulnerable and alone.
Ergo: Who the fuk cares?--ya weren't counting on them /anyway/. And it
all helps to encourage the enemy into thinking they're on HIS
side--which they ain't, of course.
4) You have Kamel's secret 1995 testimony, and the discovery of all
those documents on his Chicken Farm which shows both A) That Bios and
Chems were further advanced and weaponized than previously believed and
B) That they have all been destroyed and the programs dismantled or
discarded. UNSCOM tracks down the remaining odds and ends and blows them
up with dynamite--and then UNSCOM promptly gets tossed out on its ear.
Ergo: Of all the firm reasons for serving that overdue warrant, WMD's is
the most shaky. SO YOU MAKE THIS YOUR PRIMARY REASON. You give your
field officers explicit instructions to search furiously for any signs
of WMD's as they enter Injun territory. This, along with the adversarial
embedded press tagging along, will /certainly/ turn up several
embarrassing wild goose chases (even if, lo and behold, there actually
ARE some left). Why, you'll look like a complete fuken idiot! /Perfect/!
5) Take DOD estimates for needed troop strengths for the occupation and
make sure the in-country troop strength is about 33% less than the
recommended number.
Ergo: the enemy have the opportunity, and will certainly take it, to
come out of the woodwork, throw himself on your sword, and all the while
he's bleeding, he'll think he's winning. Even though he'd normally know better.
+++
Recipe for success? Not as far as the spotlight is concerned, of course.
The faith of men like Garner would be an inevitable casualty. The Shrub
would jeopardize his reelection bid by using such a strategy.
But, yes, a recipe for success. /Undoubtedly/.
Who cares if Kerry presides over the cremation of an already dead Al
Qeada? And, of course, the miraculous birth of freedom in Babylon?
Not me, certainly.
[snip]
> >
> > Bullshit? Sure. Sitting on our hands--yeah, you and me. That's why our
> > opinions don't count.
>
> It's not that you're sitting on your hands.
> It's that you're not sitting on your hands to hide the size of
> your noif or your trigger calluses.
> That's why your opinions don't count; you don't in fact /have/
> any. You're just parrotting noises you heard on the Goddamnoisybox.
> When you're through, you get to scurry down your holes with the
> rest of the Teletubbies.
Well, not my first choice, but true nevertheless.
Chandra P. Das
Speaking of 'B,' Hammes, did you know that the wealthier people in
Nigeria -- or maybe it's Kenya, I can't remember exactly -- go to the
Barber's once a week? Once a week, imagine! How often do you go to the
barber's, Hammes? Not more often than once a month I'd think if you're a
normal guy. As great a chatter my barber is, I can go up to three months
without visiting him. Old-fashioned Italian fella. Cracks me up when I
get him going about his exeriences with women. Back to Nigeria, or Kenya
-- see, going to the barber's is a status symbol thing there. If you're
not circulating around the society with freshly-cut hair at least once a
week then people will think your finances are rotting. I kid you not--
they're very particular about their hair. Well, now you know. And if
you're ever feeling ambitious, Hammes, you can go become a barber in
Nigeria** and make a quick bundle using state of the art American
barbering technology.
** Or Kenya. Make sure you look it up before you go. Hate ta see ya end
up in the wrong place doing the wrong thing, ya know?
Chandra P. Das
MacNutt, when is it going to seep through your thick skull that there's
no such thing as 'heavy work' in war? All fun-n-games, cowboy. You've
been following Hammes around for years now without having learned a damn
thing about life it seems.
Wakker worden, jonge!
Art
"Chandra P. Das" <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JNXLc.39362$F8....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Art wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > Look, if I understand you correctly, let me just say that he was the one
> > who evoked WWII, and claimed the C.C.C.P. was the nation who had "done
> > the heavy work; not the VS."
> >
>
> MacNutt, when is it going to seep through your thick skull that there's
> no such thing as 'heavy work' in war?
Wha'th'fuk conversation are /you/ in, Sweety? Not the one I'm participating
in, evidently.
Benders, repeat Benders said that, not me. Look for the carrots next time.
FYI, it's /Mc/Nutt. Originally, it was MacNaughtin.
Pronounced MahkNaght'nn; I suppose my great-great-great granddaddy wearied
of having to repeat his name over and over to the hicks who pronounced it
Mick-Nut, being unable to hear or repeat the "n" sound without a pronounced
vowel in front of it. That's hicks for ya.
"Auk! Hav't yure owaan fuk'n wee, Lads. Frume now 'n, Ah'm sim'lee 'McNutt.'
Eel e'n wri' it tha' way, ya fuk'n puur eegnert bistard orphan sunes of dem
bistard Hanglish sons hab'tches."
> All fun-n-games, cowboy.
Tsk. Redneck--yes; Hick--okay, but not: "Cowboy."
> You've
> been following Hammes around for years now without having learned a damn
> thing about life it seems.
That ain't nothin': I've been following LIFE around for years, and /still/
haven't learned a damn thing about it.
I ain't dead yet, so I suppose there's still hope.
---
Art
Uncle Sam
On 2004-07-22 d'huit said:
> it would be pretty to watch all of them jettisoned, but it also
> might have undesired repercussions in how it would affect things
> out there, like the asteroid belt.<smile> i'd rather imagine a
> time when diversities, of all kinds, are not just tolerated but are
> valued and honored. i'd rather imagine a time when individuals
> didn't feel the need to stir up discord and antipathy towards any
> single person or any group of people. i'd rather imagine a time
> when words like exploitation, coercion, torture, abuse, war,
> double-speak, spin, criminal, and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
> other such words were no longer necessary in the world's
> lexicographies of languages. i'd rather imagine a time when
> everybody in the world can adopt a live and let live, without fear,
> mentality. john lennon said it better than i ever could.
You disappoint me, Kate.
Sorry to see you turn out to be just another platitude-spouting
liberal. And at your age, too. Tsk.
In spite of the left's fervent desire to repeal human nature, it
hasn't yet succeeded in doing so. Nor will it ever.
As I've said numerous times, "It is useless for the sheep to pass
resolutions favoring vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a
different opinion."
- Sam
Chandra P. Das
> "Chandra P. Das" <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:JNXLc.39362$F8....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>
>>Art wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>Look, if I understand you correctly, let me just say that he was the one
>>>who evoked WWII, and claimed the C.C.C.P. was the nation who had "done
>>>the heavy work; not the VS."
>>>
>>
>>MacNutt, when is it going to seep through your thick skull that there's
>>no such thing as 'heavy work' in war?
>
>
> Wha'th'fuk conversation are /you/ in, Sweety? Not the one I'm participating
> in, evidently.
>
> Benders, repeat Benders said that, not me. Look for the carrots next time.
>
> FYI, it's /Mc/Nutt.
Shagly you couldn't be tripping so far out of your mind, /Mc/Nutt, to
think that I'd waste any time doing something as almost-important as a
'conversation' with an inconsequential Zionist pawn like yourself?
> Originally, it was MacNaughtin.
>
> Pronounced MahkNaght'nn; I suppose my great-great-great granddaddy wearied
> of having to repeat his name over and over to the hicks who pronounced it
> Mick-Nut, being unable to hear or repeat the "n" sound without a pronounced
> vowel in front of it. That's hicks for ya.
>
> "Auk! Hav't yure owaan fuk'n wee, Lads. Frume now 'n, Ah'm sim'lee 'McNutt.'
> Eel e'n wri' it tha' way, ya fuk'n puur eegnert bistard orphan sunes of dem
> bistard Hanglish sons hab'tches."
>
>
>>All fun-n-games, cowboy.
>
>
> Tsk. Redneck--yes; Hick--okay, but not: "Cowboy."
>
'Cowboy' is a perfectly appropriate lable for somebody who thinks there
are 'injuns' out there. You want me to give you a google link-list of
the number of times/situations you've used the word 'injun' in this
newsgroup, cowboy? Do you think that the Native Americans -- the few
that are still alive today after your ancestors invaded their land and
systematically butchered and raped them -- like to be referred to in
this grossly dehumanizing and cartoonishly flippant way? Fuck you!
Neither do you have any respect for life nor do you have a conscience.
And if you had any brains or sensitivity at all, you'd be happy at the
prospect and opportunity of being permanently dismissed from the records
of civilization by something as light as the label of 'Stupid Clueless
Cowboy'.
>>You've
>>been following Hammes around for years now without having learned a damn
>>thing about life it seems.
>
>
> That ain't nothin': I've been following LIFE around for years, and /still/
> haven't learned a damn thing about it.
Try *leading* your life for once, /Mc/Nutt, and you might actually end
up some place from where you could send us an interesting postcard once
in a while.
Art
"Chandra P. Das" wrote:
[snip]
> >
> >
> > Tsk. Redneck--yes; Hick--okay, but not: "Cowboy."
> >
>
> 'Cowboy' is a perfectly appropriate lable for somebody who thinks there
> are 'injuns' out there. You want me to give you a google link-list of
> the number of times/situations you've used the word 'injun' in this
> newsgroup, cowboy? Do you think that the Native Americans -- the few
> that are still alive today after your ancestors invaded their land and
> systematically butchered and raped them -- like to be referred to in
> this grossly dehumanizing and cartoonishly flippant way?
A) My wife's an Oneida, you fuken moron (you should hear the 'rez' jokes
/she/ tells). B) "Native American" is non sequitur. You must mean
"American Indians" or "Amerinds." C) What do /you/ care who my ancestors
systematically butchered?
> Fuck you!
Yes, she agrees, evidently. We have two sons.
> Neither do you have any respect for life nor do you have a conscience.
You gathered this from my unacceptable use of 'Holy Words'? Dennis'
hypothesis must be even more correct than I imagined.
> And if you had any brains or sensitivity at all, you'd be happy at the
> prospect and opportunity of being permanently dismissed from the records
> of civilization by something as light as the label of 'Stupid Clueless
> Cowboy'.
Oh, I didn't say I minded the epitaph. I just meant it's more correct to
say "Clueless Redneck." I'm North, not West.
Dennis M. Hammes
It was for the benefit of those who arrived late.
And you knew that, too.
>
> Some day I'll take the exam for my poetic license.
Well, you'll have to take it from St. Peter, because I'm Not
Authorised.
(No, the other St. Peter. The British one.)
> >
> > > the State
> > > of Israel had become a reality. 5 years after Hitler's wedding day,
> > > Israeli farmers were moving their tractors into the DMZ. This set a
> > > chain of events into motion that would lead to the quadruple attacks of
> > > 9/11/01. Like the "Butterfly Effect," change any of these conditions and
> > > /everything/ changes. Change any of the conditions of today, and the
> > > same will be true for our future.
> > >
> > > > Benders heeft gedeeltelijk gelijk,
> >
> > If you mean his brain.
> > (He has only a "partial right," you know. There was a horrible
> > accident involving stepping on his rake while trying to pick up a
> > found half-Euro.)
>
> And here I'd always thought it was a Marijuana Ration Card he'd spied
> while working in the park.
Oh, no, no. Marty knows /real/ money when he sees it.
> > >
> > > No he's not. What he is is /more/ than 'partially' a dreamy eyed
> > > statolater and a hypocrite. Which is fine with me, until he throws down
> > > the gauntlet.
> >
> > Oh, come on. Let him.
> > He's not yet managed to do anything with it but bruise his big
> > toe.
> > >
> > > > vooral wat het momentele, nogal
> > > > agressieve beleid van de Amerikaan en Israeli regeringen betreft.
> > >
> > > For some people, aggression is inherently wrong. Ergo the VS is
> > > inherently wrong.
> >
> > For most "people," shooting /back/ is inherently wrong; it tends to
> > cost them the hands they have in other people's pijes.
> > My jury is still out on Iraq and may remain so forever (it's not
> > that fuken important, Babies), but I guarantee that whatever the
> > Bush Baby Wanted, the Joint Chiefs would not have gone in if they
> > thought the "World Court" by any definition could spat them for it
> > (/we/ /established/ the sumbitch at Nurnberg, dammit, and it remains
> > a goodly chunk of War College and JAG training). I.e., all the data
> > on balance said "go" even if there were /no/ WMDs in the other pan,
> > as evidence already suggested there weren't well before we "jumped
> > off."
>
> Let's say you're the planner.
RIIIIIIIIght. What's a "planner"?
> Maybe you're Rice's Boy Friday, maybe
> you're the Joint Chief's Golden Boy, or maybe you're a Preschool Born
> Again Christian Kennebunkport Cowboy sitting in the Oval Office picking
> your nose while you watch a pretty intern bring in a stack of papers
> Cheney has told you to sign.
RIIIIIIIIIght. Baht vy vood /I/ pe dooing ANYsingk foah soaze
/gaaly-boyss/?
Se /hoal PROAB-lum/ wiss EVERAHsingk is soaze /gaaly-boyss/!
>
> Wherever you are in the organization, /you're/ THE planner.
>
> Got it?
I always have.
And I wouldn't have gone.
Which you may recall my saying for over a year.
Until we went.
Unt daan I sayt to /kickingk/ soaze gaaly-boysses /assess/ oontil
say vass /terminated/. Becaass eff you iss goingk to /talk/,
/talk/, but eff you iss goingk to /shoot/, senn se LAAST MAAN
STANDINGK, VIINSS.
Ont eff /anysingk/ singks it iss /fonny/ to poppingk op ont saying
"boo" or hangingk onto mine swoad ahm, I vill be changingk heess
mindt -- into PIJE!
>
> Now, it's Summer 2002. The Taliban are toasted.
And there's the whole trouble. Too many, even on these froups, are
toasting them with Chardonnay.
> Central Al Qaeda high
> command and what used to be known as the Muslim Brotherhood have
> scattered to Iran and the Hindu Kush frontier and parts both near and
> far away. Regrouping, they'll make a comeback whenever they're damn well
> /ready/ to--just like Frank Sinatra.
>
> Rainbow Six will attempt to find a few of them here and there, kill
> them, freeze their bank accounts, etc., but that's pretty much it. Game
> over. The Injuns are out there in those hills watchin' ya, but ya can't
> jes' go in there and gitim, 'cause, in reality, ya don't know exactly
> 'there' is.
>
> Afghanistan is /hardly/ a good Fort Apache, and truth be known, Fort
> Apache never defeated Cochise in the first place.
Remember, very carefully, that you said that last part.
>
> Your biggest problem in annihilating the muthafukahs (which is your
> task),
Hold it there, Jack. You said /I/ was in charge.
And it no part of my scenario to waste my life, my money, or my
poetry- or tit-time "annihilating the muthafukahs."
It is sufficient to keep their girly-boi asses out of my living
room and their faggot religions out of my law.
/They/ may then sit in the nearest convenient public ditch or
mountain cave and make bets with themselves whether they freeze or
starve first.
And barking of the game they dare not bite.
> is the fact that you have this peerless military. Nobody (not
> even that "no-body" Odysseus) in their right mind is EVER gonna attempt
> to go toe to toe witchya. Certainly not Apaches that have the internet
> and VCR's with still-fresh tapes of the Kosovo magic and light show.
"Kaboom," no?
(The Dujtch spelling is "Kabul.")
>
> Okay. So they're there and you're here, and ya gotta wait until they're
> ready to come out and fall on your sword. And you know that your
> counterpart over there in the Chiracahua Hills, the Injun planner, ain't
> gonna come out 'til your back is turned.
>
> Given this--whatchya gonna do?
Rebuild the Temple of Trade with one hand on the trowel and the
sword rather loose in the scabbard.
And if some little No-Protestant-Left-Behind girly-boi from the
Home Land Security Blanket seZ I'm Not Authorised to wear the sword,
I'll split him from his guggle to his zatch.
He lives under /my/ Constitution (he doesn't have one).
He's /my/ servant.
My name is "Yes, Sir," or his name is "Pig Food."
You will remember /exactly how/ 19 raghead niggers (sic) took over
four 35,000 gallon Molotov cocktails from 288 U.S. Citizens, each of
whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"I'm /sorry/, "Sir," You're Not Authorised To Wear That. I'll
/have to/ /take/ that from you. Well, /He Said/."
You will recall that three of us /took back/ one Molotov /anyway/.
>
> You're gonna draw them out into open battle, that's what you're gonna do.
Piffle. Especially as that's patently /not/ what happened in Kaboom
or is happening in Iraq.
I'm gonna leave the Injun Planner in his fuken Spider Hole.
Having no mobility, HIS GUERRILLA WAR IS OVER.
Half his war was the capture of supplies that now hafta move /to
him/. I'll spot that, and whack 'em.
I don't even hafta do it every time, maybe even only once or
twice, because he's on the thin edge of starvation and no ammo
already.
If I /really/ feel like exhibiting him a week before a crucial
Election, not that such a scenario could /ever/ arise in /my/
country, I'll have his supplies triangulated and followed, and pick
up his sorry ass when I want it.
But you Said /I/ was in charge.
And you Said he would /never come out until my back is turned/.
Can you not hear the grasshopper at your feet?
I'M GONNA TURN MY BACK.
Wearing little mirrors in the corners of my glasses and my braids
in the back.
And my sword rather loose in the scabbard.
The mirrors require occasional momentary attention.
The rest requires essentially none at all.
>
> But how? They're scattered--they're a shadowy organization to begin
> with--they have sanctuary and supplies--they won't chose to commit
> unless they WANNA commit. And they won't WANNA, unless they're going up
> against defenseless buildings filled with defenseless secretaries and
> stockbrokers.
>
> The 'how' is: you're gonna gather up a crusade with swords and shields
> with crosses painted on 'em and land it right in the middle of their
> muthafuken front yard. That's how.
If you're Clausewitz. If you're Urban I. If you're Hitler in 1940,
facing West, or in 1941, facing East.
Lee read Clausewitz.
So did that British schmuck who landed right in the middle of
Isandlwana.
So did that British schmuck who landed right in the middle of
Gallipoli.
Lee was doing /crackerjack/, fighting like Marion, fighting like
Cochise, fading to the High Ground at Manassas, the Wilderness,
Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg, and making the Enemy come to him.
And then De Lawd Tol' Him that he /must/ carry the war to the
Enemy, he Must hit them while they ah heah, he Must land it right in
the middle of their muthafuken front yard.
He even had Articles of Surrender already drawn up for Meade to
deliver to Washington.
Right after Longstreet had landed right in the middle of
Gettysburg.
"They ah /weak/ raaht in the middle, thaht little group ah trees
thah in the middle. You /will/ take yoah Coah, and land it raaht in
the middle of theyah muthafuken front yaahd."
>
> You see, you KNOW a crusade will flush them out. Why do you know this?
> Because the /real/ name of "al Qaeda" is "The World Islamic Front for
> Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders." ("Al Qaeda" is just a computer file
> and an old abandoned guest house) In point of fact--ONLY a crusade would
> EVER flush them out.
Hunger will flush them out.
Cold will flush them out.
Loneliness will flush them out.
Horniness will flush them out.
Above all, that gnawing feeling of NOT ACHIEVING A FUKEN THING
will flush them out.
And if none of that works, we will drop John Tesh recordings.
/Nothing/ drove Charlie into the open in 1968 like 600 watts of
"Wooly-Bully."
>
> You send in a crusade, and they will /have no choice/ but to come out of
> the wood work and throw themselves on your sword. You see--the Injuns
> started war dances and raids when ya only had a /base/ or two in Arabie:
> they'd go absolutely ape shit if ya sent in King Richard with his
> knights of old. Even Geronimo couldn't stop the war dances /then/. He'd
> jes' have to go along and lead the suicide charge.
Actually, it was Sitting Bull and the Ghost Shirt Society.
But the Bush Baby just ain't Richard Plantagenet.
And Lynndie of Lockup (Abu Grabass) just ain't Robin of Locksley.
But thass okay.
Tom Ridge just ain't the Sherf o' Nothingham, either.
>
> But where ya gonna send in this crusade? The "World Court" won't let you
> jes' go in there and start blastin' away--Mrs. Grundy would be on the
> phone in a Hague minute demanding the court "put a stop to this madness
> immediately!"
"Certainly, Modom.
*blam* *blam* *blam*
Will that be all, Modom?
Modom?
Modom?"
>
> Well, ya got this un-served warrant sitting on your desk dated "1998."
> You may not get a "World Court" judge to sign it, but you know he won't
> really stand in your way if all ya did was go in THERE to serve it.
>
> Now you're cookin'--except you still have the prime problem: how ya
> gonna encourage 'em to come outa them thar hills for Black Hawk target
> practice? Ya ain't--not 'less'n you show 'em your "drunken monkey" style
> of Kung Fu; Your best "Beleaguered Outpost" pantomime. 'Cept it CAN'T BE
> a pantomime--it has to be /real/ since these Injuns are pretty damn
> smart when they wanna be.
So I'll let 'em see that two of the soldiers manning the walls look
like drunken monkeys because they are already dead.
You may note we've got that part covered already.
(If, by contrast, I am, for some utterly unforseeable,
unpredictable, unfathomable, and certainly
impossible-in-/my/-country reason, utterly alone in Fort Girly-Boy,
I shall make random rounds of the walls, shifting rifles, turning
heads, having a smoke with a friendly corpse, draping jackets,
changing helmets and caps, tooting the bugle, slamming the Doors,
reciting Sonnets To Nobody, and playing the Florian Shimeliewski
tapes to the accompaniment of the occasional smashing bottle and
shouts of "Hoo-Hoo-Hoo-Hoo!")
>
> As the planner, let's take a look at your assets and how you're gonna
> use them:
>
> 1) You make quick work of the invasion. Take the Feyadeen Saddam as well
> as all the regulars and, when they surrender, merely send them home
> without their rifles and RPG's. No need to process them and track them
> later--they need to feel free to join the counter-revolution so that
> there /will be/ a viable counter-revolution.
>
> Ergo: the terrorist honey-pot is set out in the open on a hot July morning.
>
> 2) Your domestic press corps will /undoubtedly/ help your plans for the
> pantomime any way they can--they LIVE for Vietnam Armchair Second
> Guessing: They may even have a Cronkite or two declare that pacification
> of the insurgents no longer seems possible. They'll gleefully point out
> all of your "mistakes" and "misjudgments" to the world--often and
> loudly. They'll blare the number of coalition casualties from the
> highest hills; and they'll shove mikes in the faces of all politicos who
> will yell the same things. Note to self: DO NOT let the DOD release
> estimates of enemy combatant casualties UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!
Funky call, Grasshopper; Ted Koppel did a whole /NightLine/ in which
he did /nothing/ but recite the names, ranks, and home-towns of the
dead.
See under "let them see two drunken monkeys," above.
> Heh--if the press squawks claim it all goes back to the "body count"
> fiascoes in VN (even though you know well that the so-called body counts
> were extremely accurate back then).
>
> Ergo: Your enemy will only hear of YOUR casualties and mistakes; not his
> own--and being several different bands of Injuns--he'll never really
> have reliable info on his own losses.
<tee-hee>. By George, I believe you're getting it.
>
> 3) You know, going in, that France and Germany and prolly Russia--and
> MOST CERTAINLY CHINA, will fight you tooth and claw goin in, and disdain
> you for staying in. This will make you seem vulnerable and alone.
Good heavens, no. The Italians will send /fifty-one troops/ and the
Spanish will send /one hundred twelve/.
The Japanese will send only nine, but they are /samurai/, and
/that/ takes only /seven/.
>
> Ergo: Who the fuk cares?--ya weren't counting on them /anyway/. And it
> all helps to encourage the enemy into thinking they're on HIS
> side--which they ain't, of course.
>
> 4) You have Kamel's secret 1995 testimony, and the discovery of all
> those documents on his Chicken Farm which shows both A) That Bios and
> Chems were further advanced and weaponized than previously believed and
> B) That they have all been destroyed and the programs dismantled or
> discarded. UNSCOM tracks down the remaining odds and ends and blows them
> up with dynamite--and then UNSCOM promptly gets tossed out on its ear.
>
> Ergo: Of all the firm reasons for serving that overdue warrant, WMD's is
> the most shaky. SO YOU MAKE THIS YOUR PRIMARY REASON. You give your
> field officers explicit instructions to search furiously for any signs
> of WMD's as they enter Injun territory.
"As of this morning, nine days into the War, only six hundred fifty
possible sites have actually been examined."
> This, along with the adversarial
> embedded press tagging along, will /certainly/ turn up several
> embarrassing wild goose chases (even if, lo and behold, there actually
> ARE some left). Why, you'll look like a complete fuken idiot! /Perfect/!
>
> 5) Take DOD estimates for needed troop strengths for the occupation and
> make sure the in-country troop strength is about 33% less than the
> recommended number.
>
> Ergo: the enemy have the opportunity, and will certainly take it, to
> come out of the woodwork, throw himself on your sword, and all the while
> he's bleeding, he'll think he's winning. Even though he'd normally know better.
>
> +++
>
> Recipe for success? Not as far as the spotlight is concerned, of course.
No, the spotlight will focus on Wounded Knee and the Trail of Tears.
And Huggy-Huggy Thanksgiving.
There will be not one fuken pitcher of slaughtered cattle, burned
cabins, and scalped daughters.d
> The faith of men like Garner would be an inevitable casualty. The Shrub
> would jeopardize his reelection bid by using such a strategy.
>
> But, yes, a recipe for success. /Undoubtedly/.
>
> Who cares if Kerry presides over the cremation of an already dead Al
> Qeada? And, of course, the miraculous birth of freedom in Babylon?
>
> Not me, certainly.
But will he preside over the cremation of the Home Land Security
/Geheim Staats Polizei/ and their jihad against the 1st (Patriot
Act) and 2nd (groping your wife for her nail file) Amendments?
Because if he doesn't, we'll hafta.
d'huit
"Uncle Sam" <uncl...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:4100...@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
> On 2004-07-22 d'huit said:
>
> > it would be pretty to watch all of them jettisoned, but it also
> > might have undesired repercussions in how it would affect things
> > out there, like the asteroid belt.<smile> i'd rather imagine a
> > time when diversities, of all kinds, are not just tolerated but are
> > valued and honored. i'd rather imagine a time when individuals
> > didn't feel the need to stir up discord and antipathy towards any
> > single person or any group of people. i'd rather imagine a time
> > when words like exploitation, coercion, torture, abuse, war,
> > double-speak, spin, criminal, and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
> > other such words were no longer necessary in the world's
> > lexicographies of languages. i'd rather imagine a time when
> > everybody in the world can adopt a live and let live, without fear,
> > mentality. john lennon said it better than i ever could.
>
> You disappoint me, Kate.
i do not exist to fullfill your desires or expectations.
>
> Sorry to see you turn out to be just another platitude-spouting
> liberal. And at your age, too. Tsk.
so say you.
>
> In spite of the left's fervent desire to repeal human nature, it
> hasn't yet succeeded in doing so. Nor will it ever.
>
> As I've said numerous times, "It is useless for the sheep to pass
> resolutions favoring vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a
> different opinion."
there exists the concepts of past, present and future. the past is what
was; the present, what is. the future doesn't yet exist, but if it cannot
be perceived with hope, then what is the point of struggle in the present?
should we then just lie down with the wolf, accept the present, as is, and
change nothing? you don't disappoint me, sam. i expect nothing from you.
kate
>
> - Sam
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
>
Stuart Leichter
7/23/04 9:01 AM:
Epithet, Art, hopefully (instead of, say, "Here lies the beloved redneck
Zionist pawn husband of a carrot-top wife").
--
Stuart
Art
"Stuart Leichter" <leic...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BD26C5A5.10BE1%leic...@bellsouth.net...
"clueless" part--ever.
I prefer to think of myself as a Zionist Knight, thanks again.
And, yes, she's a redhead, but race/ethnic origin unknown (adopted with
sealed records). Adopted Oneida, actually. Though Injun's a state of mind
more'n a genetic thingy.
---
Art
Stuart Leichter
on 7/23/04 2:50 PM:
Red hair happens. Its gene is neither dominant nor recessive, merely
evidence of Viking love, like the gene for digesting cow's milk.
>
> ---
> Art
>
>
>
>
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "Chandra P. Das" wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > >
> > >
> > > Tsk. Redneck--yes; Hick--okay, but not: "Cowboy."
> > >
> >
> > 'Cowboy' is a perfectly appropriate lable for somebody who thinks there
> > are 'injuns' out there. You want me to give you a google link-list of
> > the number of times/situations you've used the word 'injun' in this
> > newsgroup, cowboy? Do you think that the Native Americans -- the few
> > that are still alive today after your ancestors invaded their land and
> > systematically butchered and raped them --
Now here we have a more interesting species distinction than that
between cowboys and injuns, since /normal/ immigrants systematically
rape and butcher the native populations, where Chandra indicates by
the parrotting of a linguistic habit that /his/ people
"/systematically/ butchered and raped them" (italics mine).
Evidently he can't even rape something unless it's been cut up for
him first, which establishes a direct Kulchural connection between
New Delhi and Jacksonville, where certain immigrants "rape your
mother's intestines."
> > like to be referred to in
> > this grossly dehumanizing and cartoonishly flippant way?
>
> A) My wife's an Oneida, you fuken moron (you should hear the 'rez' jokes
> /she/ tells). B) "Native American" is non sequitur. You must mean
> "American Indians" or "Amerinds."
I'm a "Native American," you're a "Native American," and I don't
know what /he/ is, because he's TOO STUPID to recognise that /he's/
a "Native American." (Unless he really is an "Indian," but that
would be "Immigrant Indian.")
Must be a Lesser Protestant Parrot-Monkey, too stupid even to pick
his own nits. Thus, his Mommy hasta come running to fondle his
Manhood every time his mouth flies open, a condition he observes
(with his Science Degree from CalTech) as "cause and effect."
We can /not/ refer to Amerinds by /"their" own/ collective names
for themselves, since every one of them translates as "The People,"
which is unfortunately the same thing my own Constitution calls
/me/, and "they" claim specific exemption from it.
> C) What do /you/ care who my ancestors
> systematically butchered?
Maybe your ancestors butchered "Amerinds," I dunno, and, as you
note, don't care.
But it was /Petey's/ ancestors who butchered Chandra's ancestors.
Mine butchered Norwegians and Pollacks, which is where we get all
the jokes.
Tragedy is Petey's throwing a Mills bomb at Chandra in the Punjab.
Comedy is Chandra's pulling the pin and throwing it back --
No.
That'd be a fuken /miracle/.
>
> > Fuck you!
>
> Yes, she agrees, evidently. We have two sons.
Still raping the Native Americans, are we.
<tsk>
>
> > Neither do you have any respect for life nor do you have a conscience.
>
> You gathered this from my unacceptable use of 'Holy Words'? Dennis'
> hypothesis must be even more correct than I imagined.
No, he gathered it from the fact that a cow is so "Holy" he can't
drink the milk without severe punishment (lactose-allergic reaction,
possibly fatal) from Kali or Shiva or somebody with blue skin to
poison him and lotsa arms to spank him or stick goat-grass up his
ass and maggots in his nose. Whatever.
It makes him a cowboy, not only somebody who builds his life
around cows, yea even unto worship and writing /songs/ about them,
it makes him in his own words "somebody who thinks there's 'injuns'
out there."
But while it gives him a far-more-than-is-healthy respect for the
/cow/, it doesn't actually give him any respect for life. And
/this/ accrues to the fact that his Gods have /absolutely no respect
for his/.
The "Christian" (Mithraic) God apparently does nothing but have a
*feeling* at you, which is a direct reflection of the fact that the
True Protestant does nothing but sit around having *feelings* at
everything.
A Greek God, and "the god itself" (/od/, /homos/, /aether/,
/theos/), by contrast, come to a dead halt when you draw a line in
the Earth in the right place, and indeed does your fetching and
carrying when you've drawn enough lines. I.e., the Greek Gods are
/sensuous/ before they are anything else: "Sensuous up, gimme a
beer." Why they make such good poultry.
>
> > And if you had any brains or sensitivity at all, you'd be happy at the
> > prospect and opportunity of being permanently dismissed from the records
> > of civilization by something as light as the label of 'Stupid Clueless
> > Cowboy'.
>
> Oh, I didn't say I minded the epitaph. I just meant it's more correct to
> say "Clueless Redneck." I'm North, not West.
"...epithet." Of course, if you insist, I'll call the mason. Hell,
I could even be persuaded to carve it myself; it's /funny/.
>
> ---
> Art
Actually, he intends that /all/ the records of civilisation, not
just yours, be permanently dismissed by burning them to heat the
Baby's bathwater.
Because that will finally make him Equal.
By then, most of his kind will be "accidentally" overheating the
bathwater with the Baby in it (Oh, The Humanity!) because they've
burned all the oil /and/ all the pictures of Yeast-Growth Curves,
and worship the rats for shitting in the granary (for Having The
Power To Break The Rules).
Hell, his thesis and his Police have already burned two towering
records of civilisation that useta could be read halfway across
Manhattan.
(/God damn it/, I hate resurrecting Isaiah. Too gloomy.)
Chandra P. Das
> Art wrote:
>
>>"Chandra P. Das" wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>
>>>>Tsk. Redneck--yes; Hick--okay, but not: "Cowboy."
>>>>
>>>
>>>'Cowboy' is a perfectly appropriate lable for somebody who thinks there
>>>are 'injuns' out there. You want me to give you a google link-list of
>>>the number of times/situations you've used the word 'injun' in this
>>>newsgroup, cowboy? Do you think that the Native Americans -- the few
>>>that are still alive today after your ancestors invaded their land and
>>>systematically butchered and raped them --
>
>
> Now here we have a more interesting species distinction than that
> between cowboys and injuns, since /normal/ immigrants systematically
> rape and butcher the native populations, where Chandra indicates by
> the parrotting of a linguistic habit that /his/ people
I left slavery out. But that I suppose is just a normal labor policy to
you, right? Hey, when you need some dirty work done, ya tie some Negros
up and haul 'em over. Shipfuls of 'em. But ok, it's all of the past and
we move on, etc, etc . . ..
Yea, of course -- you move right on into Iraq and steal their oil, start
a prison-rape camp, blow up a few weddings and what not.
[...]
> (with his Science Degree from CalTech) as "cause and effect."
What's a degreeless quack like you doing wondering about my degrees? And
it's *two* science degrees from Caltech. Two more post-grad degrees
from Carnegie-Mellon. Do try to keep up with my CV, my little fanboi.
> We can /not/ refer to Amerinds by /"their" own/ collective names
> for themselves, since every one of them translates as "The People,"
> which is unfortunately the same thing my own Constitution calls
> /me/, and "they" claim specific exemption from it.
>
>
>>C) What do /you/ care who my ancestors
>>systematically butchered?
>
>
> Maybe your ancestors butchered "Amerinds," I dunno, and, as you
> note, don't care.
> But it was /Petey's/ ancestors who butchered Chandra's ancestors.
The Brits conquered India by butchering Indians? Where the hell do you
get your history lessons from, Hammes-quack? The Brits were invited to
stay and allowed to practice and grow their businesses in India. They
were clever, greedy, master-manipulators and dividers who pretty much
ruled the country *through* the locals [where do you think the American
CEO and corporationism comes from?]. Makes me laugh to think how they
conquered the whole country almost legally. Great history reading
material thereabouts, Hammes, if you're ever inclined to shut your
babble-hole for long enough to actually acquire some knowledge.
> No, he gathered it from the fact that a cow is so "Holy" he can't
A cow is only holy if it's cut and cooked right. I'm probably not the
target-Indian for your stereotypes so either save it or shove it.
[...]
>
> Actually, he intends that /all/ the records of civilisation, not
> just yours, be permanently dismissed by burning them to heat the
> Baby's bathwater.
Exactly the opposite. I think all the records of all civilisations ought
to be not only meticulously preserved but also frequently circulated.
But for different reasons than you have though, no doubt. My idea is to
implement changes in the present by studying the failures of the past.
Your idea seems to be to justify the failures of the present on the
grounds that there have been precedents of failures in the past.
> Because that will finally make him Equal.
Equal to what -- you? I can't imagine ever losing so much functionality,
consciousness or aim so as not to not be able to slit my throat on the
way to any such fall in life.
Chandra P. Das
>
> "Chandra P. Das" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>>Tsk. Redneck--yes; Hick--okay, but not: "Cowboy."
>>>
>>
>>'Cowboy' is a perfectly appropriate lable for somebody who thinks there
>>are 'injuns' out there. You want me to give you a google link-list of
>>the number of times/situations you've used the word 'injun' in this
>>newsgroup, cowboy? Do you think that the Native Americans -- the few
>>that are still alive today after your ancestors invaded their land and
>>systematically butchered and raped them -- like to be referred to in
>>this grossly dehumanizing and cartoonishly flippant way?
>
>
> A) My wife's an Oneida,
Trying to camouflage yourself with an ethnic wife, you racist bastard?
> /she/ tells). B) "Native American" is non sequitur. You must mean
> "American Indians" or "Amerinds."
Try to understand this clearly, McNutt: The pre-European inhabitants of
the Americas were not Indians. Now, you can either use your own little
brains to research and figure out why this is so or you can ask me to
explain it to you. But know this though that if I have to explain it to
you then I'm going to damn well make sure that I rip a good portion of
the red off your neck while doing so. Duidelijk?
> C) What do /you/ care who my ancestors
> systematically butchered?
It's a thing -- a *crime against humanity*, to be more precise-- of the
distant past, sure, and I wouldn't bring it up except that there's a
large group of people like you buzzing about today who are trying to
re-enact the savageries of our ancestors. Go back to your cave and I
promise not to give a fuck who you are or what you do.
-hi-
>Date: 7/25/2004 1:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <PkHMc.4416$Lb4.3137@trndny04>
> My idea is to implement changes in the present by studying the >failures of
the past.
That was your idea, huh? Your idea has been run through the mill, hon.
What exactly are the parameters of -this- proposed Past Failure Study, and how
much will -this- one cost? How much of the present do you propose to spend on
the past before implementing change now for the future ... again?
>Your idea seems to be to justify the failures of the present on the
>grounds that there have been precedents of failures in the past.
Oh, that wasn't his idea. That's just Company Policy.
-hi-
Art
"Dennis M. Hammes" wrote:
[snip a dozen "heh's"]
> > Wherever you are in the organization, /you're/ THE planner.
> >
> > Got it?
>
> I always have.
> And I wouldn't have gone.
> Which you may recall my saying for over a year.
> Until we went.
> Unt daan I sayt to /kickingk/ soaze gaaly-boysses /assess/ oontil
> say vass /terminated/. Becaass eff you iss goingk to /talk/,
> /talk/, but eff you iss goingk to /shoot/, senn se LAAST MAAN
> STANDINGK, VIINSS.
> Ont eff /anysingk/ singks it iss /fonny/ to poppingk op ont saying
> "boo" or hangingk onto mine swoad ahm, I vill be changingk heess
> mindt -- into PIJE!
Yup.
> >
> > Now, it's Summer 2002. The Taliban are toasted.
>
> And there's the whole trouble. Too many, even on these froups, are
> toasting them with Chardonnay.
Ain't it the trute!
>
> > Central Al Qaeda high
> > command and what used to be known as the Muslim Brotherhood have
> > scattered to Iran and the Hindu Kush frontier and parts both near and
> > far away. Regrouping, they'll make a comeback whenever they're damn well
> > /ready/ to--just like Frank Sinatra.
> >
> > Rainbow Six will attempt to find a few of them here and there, kill
> > them, freeze their bank accounts, etc., but that's pretty much it. Game
> > over. The Injuns are out there in those hills watchin' ya, but ya can't
> > jes' go in there and gitim, 'cause, in reality, ya don't know exactly
> > 'there' is.
> >
> > Afghanistan is /hardly/ a good Fort Apache, and truth be known, Fort
> > Apache never defeated Cochise in the first place.
>
> Remember, very carefully, that you said that last part.
> >
> > Your biggest problem in annihilating the muthafukahs (which is your
> > task),
>
> Hold it there, Jack. You said /I/ was in charge.
> And it no part of my scenario to waste my life, my money, or my
> poetry- or tit-time "annihilating the muthafukahs."
> It is sufficient to keep their girly-boi asses out of my living
> room and their faggot religions out of my law.
> /They/ may then sit in the nearest convenient public ditch or
> mountain cave and make bets with themselves whether they freeze or
> starve first.
> And barking of the game they dare not bite.
What's good for Moorhead's good for Liberty Street in Manhattan, no
doubt.
However, you /must/ sell this to those who hired you (constituents) and
those who must carry it out (DOD)...because when the administration
changes hands, you'll be out on the street and they'll have to carry on
w/o you.
Remember: you're not thinking tactical--you're thinking strategic.
If ya /don't/ sell it, you'll have a Johnson fuking up a Kennedy
strategy. He'll panic and call for guns & butter. He'll only draw one
card for his inside straight, not knowing that you were gonna trade four
ovum for a quite possible pair (Kennedy having memorized what had been
turned up in the deck so far--Johnson, a mediocre player, coming in cold
in the middle)
And they ain't exactly sitting in mountain caves--Bin Laden isn't
important, and he's more'n likely dead or losing his dialysis battle
/anyway/. When Binny's gone, the International Jihad won't stop. Binny
didn't get that $250 mill from Daddy after all--he's had to get by on
just one mill a year which has mostly dried up anyway--him being the
Black Sheep and
promising to assassinate the Sauds and all--not good for a family-run
Government Construction biz.
The World Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders gets funded
from hither and yon; a sheik here and an emir there; here a buck--there
a buck, everywhere a buck-buck. Old Bin Laden had Jihad; Hey! He'll I.O.U.
Still viable, still funded, still motivated. As much as 17,000 soldiers
and officers world wide. Guess where most of them are headed these days?
Al-Sadr made half a dozen trips to Tehran during and after OP: IF.
Wonder where his funding's comin' from?
Zarqawi has set up camp in Iraq--and he's the #1 Al Qaeda Guy running a
Neo-Mujahadeen outfit called Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad right now.
Think I like wasteful tactics like putting the Best of America's
Flowering Manhood out on point to trip their fuken IED's? No, I don't.
But ya gotta eat what's put before ya. And those boys don't expect ya to
tell 'em the whole story anyway. They're too willing either way--so ya
damn well better make it count.
And the invisible body counts tell the story to those who're listening.
>
> > is the fact that you have this peerless military. Nobody (not
> > even that "no-body" Odysseus) in their right mind is EVER gonna attempt
> > to go toe to toe witchya. Certainly not Apaches that have the internet
> > and VCR's with still-fresh tapes of the Kosovo magic and light show.
>
> "Kaboom," no?
> (The Dujtch spelling is "Kabul.")
> >
> > Okay. So they're there and you're here, and ya gotta wait until they're
> > ready to c ome out and fall on your sword. And you know that your
> > counterpart over there in the Chiracahua Hills, the Injun planner, ain't
> > gonna come out 'til your back is turned.
> >
> > Given this--whatchya gonna do?
>
> Rebuild the Temple of Trade with one hand on the trowel and the
> sword rather loose in the scabbard.
> And if some little No-Protestant-Left-Behind girly-boi from the
> Home Land Security Blanket seZ I'm Not Authorised to wear the sword,
> I'll split him from his guggle to his zatch.
> He lives under /my/ Constitution (he doesn't have one).
> He's /my/ servant.
> My name is "Yes, Sir," or his name is "Pig Food."
> You will remember /exactly how/ 19 raghead niggers (sic) took over
> four 35,000 gallon Molotov cocktails from 288 U.S. Citizens, each of
> whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> "I'm /sorry/, "Sir," You're Not Authorised To Wear That. I'll
> /have to/ /take/ that from you. Well, /He Said/."
> You will recall that three of us /took back/ one Molotov /anyway/.
Okay, there's lots of ways of addressing the enemy's ability to wage
Jihad. Opinions vary on who's the enemy, and /that's/ a prob. Hell,
that's THE prob. For us.
But not for the planner. He knows exactly who the enemy is--he has the
reports on his desk.
> >
> > You're gonna draw them out into open battle, that's what you're gonna do.
>
> Piffle. Especially as that's patently /not/ what happened in Kaboom
> or is happening in Iraq.
But it IS what's happening in Iraq. The DOD hints that they're dying by
the bushel basket Over There, Over There--but will confirm /nothing/.
The only body counts it will release are for official operations. And it
releases them in an unconvincing manner.
DOD press conference:
"Mr. Secretary!"
"Yes. Okay, you, Al."
"Al Jazeera from The Washington Post. Mr. Secretary, let me get this
straight; you're saying that after the fire fight last night the
coalition troops had only three wounded and an enemy body count of /127/?"
"Well...uuuummmm...yeah. Yeah. That's the ticket! Maybe I /should/ have
said 254!"
"Riiiiiight. And has this been confirmed?"
"Well, ya know--we just kinda asked the LT to fill out a report
afterwards. He SAID 127, so we should prolly believe him. He's bucking
for promotion, sure, but I wouldn't say that would affect the count any."
(Think they've read Dad's "best ways to lie" theorem?)
"Can you give us totals to date, Mr. Secretary?"
"Absolutely not, Al. You know how you boys used to make fun of our body
counts back in 'Nam. Now shove it. No strategic level body counts; only
tactical ones."
('Cause the enemy /already/ knows his own tactical losses)
> I'm gonna leave the Injun Planner in his fuken Spider Hole.
> Having no mobility, HIS GUERRILLA WAR IS OVER.
Fedayeen Saddam is the honeypot that drew the terrorists into the fray.
The FS were all trained at Salman Pak by the Mukhabarat--the same place
they had that decommissioned commercial airliner for terrorists to train
on so as to be able to turn 'em into Molotovs (possibly identified as a
Boeing 707, but more likely it was a decommissioned Russian built
Tupolev 154 airliner). The FS was trained in /general/ sabotage of
another species; only "non-Iraqis" trained on the airliner (by a man
known only as "The Ghost.").
Would Machiavelli be proud of them for presenting the charges in
reversed order on the warrant?
> Half his war was the capture of supplies that now hafta move /to
> him/. I'll spot that, and whack 'em.
> I don't even hafta do it every time, maybe even only once or
> twice, because he's on the thin edge of starvation and no ammo
> already.
> If I /really/ feel like exhibiting him a week before a crucial
> Election, not that such a scenario could /ever/ arise in /my/
> country, I'll have his supplies triangulated and followed, and pick
> up his sorry ass when I want it.
>
> But you Said /I/ was in charge.
> And you Said he would /never come out until my back is turned/.
> Can you not hear the grasshopper at your feet?
> I'M GONNA TURN MY BACK.
> Wearing little mirrors in the corners of my glasses and my braids
> in the back.
> And my sword rather loose in the scabbard.
> The mirrors require occasional momentary attention.
> The rest requires essentially none at all.
No doubt, but I forgot to mention that you are charged with keeping
American landmarks in tact. That's why we're erecting new "picket
fences" of marble. So's Mrs. Grundy can sleep at night and keep her
skyline safe so it doesn't change before she wakes up in the morning.
And so's she can cheer when Gore and Kennedy and Moore shout on the City
Square that Bin Laden was a Bush Sock Puppet.
Show your weakness. Demonstrate your weakness. He'll forget about that
big stick.
Otherwise, under your plan, I could get off my ass and volunteer for the
2am shift with the stinger battery atop the Sears Tower. Since /I'm/ the
one who should be doing it /anyway/.
I like your plan better, but the Gestapo doesn't.
> >
> > But how? They're scattered--they're a shadowy organization to begin
> > with--they have sanctuary and supplies--they won't chose to commit
> > unless they WANNA commit. And they won't WANNA, unless they're going up
> > against defenseless buildings filled with defenseless secretaries and
> > stockbrokers.
> >
> > The 'how' is: you're gonna gather up a crusade with swords and shields
> > with crosses painted on 'em and land it right in the middle of their
> > muthafuken front yard. That's how.
>
> If you're Clausewitz. If you're Urban I. If you're Hitler in 1940,
> facing West, or in 1941, facing East.
Or Eisenhower looking out South East from the cliffs of Dover.
"You are about to embark on a Great Crusade..."
> Lee read Clausewitz.
> So did that British schmuck who landed right in the middle of
> Isandlwana.
> So did that British schmuck who landed right in the middle of
> Gallipoli.
> Lee was doing /crackerjack/, fighting like Marion, fighting like
> Cochise, fading to the High Ground at Manassas, the Wilderness,
> Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg, and making the Enemy come to him.
> And then De Lawd Tol' Him that he /must/ carry the war to the
> Enemy, he Must hit them while they ah heah, he Must land it right in
> the middle of their muthafuken front yard.
> He even had Articles of Surrender already drawn up for Meade to
> deliver to Washington.
> Right after Longstreet had landed right in the middle of
> Gettysburg.
> "They ah /weak/ raaht in the middle, thaht little group ah trees
> thah in the middle. You /will/ take yoah Coah, and land it raaht in
> the middle of theyah muthafuken front yaahd."
Which is why we are taking Meade's approach: Occupy the ridge, then wait
for the Jihadists to start off across the open ground with their hats
stuck through the end of their swords. "Black Hawks to the left of them,
Black Hawks to the right of them; into Valley of Paradise strode the 600."
"Black Hawk down my lilly white ass."
A Pickett Fence Over There, Over There--instead of one Over Here, Over Here.
>
> >
> > You see, you KNOW a crusade will flush them out. Why do you know this?
> > Because the /real/ name of "al Qaeda" is "The World Islamic Front for
> > Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders." ("Al Qaeda" is just a computer file
> > and an old abandoned guest house) In point of fact--ONLY a crusade would
> > EVER flush them out.
>
> Hunger will flush them out.
> Cold will flush them out.
> Loneliness will flush them out.
> Horniness will flush them out.
> Above all, that gnawing feeling of NOT ACHIEVING A FUKEN THING
> will flush them out.
> And if none of that works, we will drop John Tesh recordings.
> /Nothing/ drove Charlie into the open in 1968 like 600 watts of
> "Wooly-Bully."
Two words: Slim Whitman.
> >
> > You send in a crusade, and they will /have no choice/ but to come out of
> > the wood work and throw themselves on your sword. You see--the Injuns
> > started war dances and raids when ya only had a /base/ or two in Arabie:
> > they'd go absolutely ape shit if ya sent in King Richard with his
> > knights of old. Even Geronimo couldn't stop the war dances /then/. He'd
> > jes' have to go along and lead the suicide charge.
>
> Actually, it was Sitting Bull and the Ghost Shirt Society.
> But the Bush Baby just ain't Richard Plantagenet.
> And Lynndie of Lockup (Abu Grabass) just ain't Robin of Locksley.
> But thass okay.
> Tom Ridge just ain't the Sherf o' Nothingham, either.
Was thinking South West, not the Plains. Still, both Vercingetorix and
Sitting Bull had a hard time surviving their success.
> >
> > But where ya gonna send in this crusade? The "World Court" won't let you
> > jes' go in there and start blastin' away--Mrs. Grundy would be on the
> > phone in a Hague minute demanding the court "put a stop to this madness
> > immediately!"
>
> "Certainly, Modom.
> *blam* *blam* *blam*
> Will that be all, Modom?
> Modom?
> Modom?"
Heh. The only way to shut Grundy up.
> >
> > Well, ya got this un-served warrant sitting on your desk dated "1998."
> > You may not get a "World Court" judge to sign it, but you know he won't
> > really stand in your way if all ya did was go in THERE to serve it.
> >
> > Now you're cookin'--except you still have the prime problem: how ya
> > gonna encourage 'em to come outa them thar hills for Black Hawk target
> > practice? Ya ain't--not 'less'n you show 'em your "drunken monkey" style
> > of Kung Fu; Your best "Beleaguered Outpost" pantomime. 'Cept it CAN'T BE
> > a pantomime--it has to be /real/ since these Injuns are pretty damn
> > smart when they wanna be.
>
> So I'll let 'em see that two of the soldiers manning the walls look
> like drunken monkeys because they are already dead.
> You may note we've got that part covered already.
> (If, by contrast, I am, for some utterly unforseeable,
> unpredictable, unfathomable, and certainly
> impossible-in-/my/-country reason, utterly alone in Fort Girly-Boy,
> I shall make random rounds of the walls, shifting rifles, turning
> heads, having a smoke with a friendly corpse, draping jackets,
> changing helmets and caps, tooting the bugle, slamming the Doors,
> reciting Sonnets To Nobody, and playing the Florian Shimeliewski
> tapes to the accompaniment of the occasional smashing bottle and
> shouts of "Hoo-Hoo-Hoo-Hoo!")
Fort Zinderneuf ain't exactly the same thing. Not much better'n Fort Apache.
>
> >
> > As the planner, let's take a look at your assets and how you're gonna
> > use them:
> >
> > 1) You make quick work of the invasion. Take the Feyadeen Saddam as well
> > as all the regulars and, when they surrender, merely send them home
> > without their rifles and RPG's. No need to process them and track them
> > later--they need to feel free to join the counter-revolution so that
> > there /will be/ a viable counter-revolution.
> >
> > Ergo: the terrorist honey-pot is set out in the open on a hot July morning.
> >
> > 2) Your domestic press corps will /undoubtedly/ help your plans for the
> > pantomime any way they can--they LIVE for Vietnam Armchair Second
> > Guessing: They may even have a Cronkite or two declare that pacification
> > of the insurgents no longer seems possible. They'll gleefully point out
> > all of your "mistakes" and "misjudgments" to the world--often and
> > loudly. They'll blare the number of coalition casualties from the
> > highest hills; and they'll shove mikes in the faces of all politicos who
> > will yell the same things. Note to self: DO NOT let the DOD release
> > estimates of enemy combatant casualties UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!
>
> Funky call, Grasshopper; Ted Koppel did a whole /NightLine/ in which
> he did /nothing/ but recite the names, ranks, and home-towns of the
> dead.
> See under "let them see two drunken monkeys," above.
Could have been predicted 10 years ago. And /was/. Farther back, even.
Seems they factored them in for a change. Embedded them right up there
with the front-line troops. Might as well put the jackals to work for US
for a change.
Show your weakness. Demonstrate your weakness.
> > This, along with the dversarial
> > embedded press tagging along, will /certainly/ turn up several
> > embarrassing wild goose chases (even if, lo and behold, there actually
> > ARE some left). Why, you'll look like a complete fuken idiot! /Perfect/!
> >
> > 5) Take DOD estimates for needed troop strengths for the occupation and
> > make sure the in-country troop strength is about 33% less than the
> > recommended number.
> >
> > Ergo: the enemy have the opportunity, and will certainly take it, to
> > come out of the woodwork, throw himself on your sword, and all the while
> > he's bleeding, he'll think he's winning. Even though he'd normally know better.
> >
> > +++
> >
> > Recipe for success? Not as far as the spotlight is concerned, of course.
>
> No, the spotlight will focus on Wounded Knee and the Trail of Tears.
> And Huggy-Huggy Thanksgiving.
> There will be not one fuken pitcher of slaughtered cattle, burned
> cabins, and scalped daughters.d
Heh. Damn straight.
>
> > The faith of men like Garner would be an inevitable casualty. The Shrub
> > would jeopardize his reelection bid by using such a strategy.
> >
> > But, yes, a recipe for success. /Undoubtedly/.
> >
> > Who cares if Kerry presides over the cremation of an already dead Al
> > Qeada? And, of course, the miraculous birth of freedom in Babylon?
> >
> > Not me, certainly.
>
> But will he preside over the cremation of the Home Land Security
> /Geheim Staats Polizei/ and their jihad against the 1st (Patriot
> Act) and 2nd (groping your wife for her nail file) Amendments?
> Because if he doesn't, we'll hafta.
No, the Geheim Staats Polizei was established to please Kerry's party,
and, of course, the statolaters in the Gop party. They've erected a 1984
in Boston for today's shindig, and have already said they'll keep it
around after the last drunken delegate goes home. Once ya give a Gamma
with a shiny badge a new toy, ya can't take it back without a fight.
The fact of the matter is: we'll hafta.
Art
"Chandra P. Das" wrote:
>
> Art wrote:
> >
> > "Chandra P. Das" wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>>
> >>>Tsk. Redneck--yes; Hick--okay, but not: "Cowboy."
> >>>
> >>
> >>'Cowboy' is a perfectly appropriate lable for somebody who thinks there
> >>are 'injuns' out there. You want me to give you a google link-list of
> >>the number of times/situations you've used the word 'injun' in this
> >>newsgroup, cowboy? Do you think that the Native Americans -- the few
> >>that are still alive today after your ancestors invaded their land and
> >>systematically butchered and raped them -- like to be referred to in
> >>this grossly dehumanizing and cartoonishly flippant way?
> >
> >
> > A) My wife's an Oneida,
>
> Trying to camouflage yourself with an ethnic wife, you racist bastard?
Camouflage myself? As what?
>
> > /she/ tells). B) "Native American" is non sequitur. You must mean
> > "American Indians" or "Amerinds."
>
> Try to understand this clearly, McNutt: The pre-European inhabitants of
> the Americas were not Indians. Now, you can either use your own little
> brains to research and figure out why this is so or you can ask me to
> explain it to you. But know this though that if I have to explain it to
> you then I'm going to damn well make sure that I rip a good portion of
> the red off your neck while doing so. Duidelijk?
Not my fault Chris thought he'd landed in India, is it? Okay, ya wanna
change the name, make it /logical/ at least. "Native" isn't even as
accurate as the "Of Origin" which the Australians mistakenly call those
who beat 'em there. In fact, "native" is more confusing to the facts
than "Amerind." Amerinds were /at least/ the second invasion which
displaced the first.
>
> > C) What do /you/ care who my ancestors
> > systematically butchered?
>
> It's a thing -- a *crime against humanity*, to be more precise-- of the
> distant past, sure, and I wouldn't bring it up except that there's a
> large group of people like you buzzing about today who are trying to
> re-enact the savageries of our ancestors. Go back to your cave and I
> promise not to give a fuck who you are or what you do.
What, you think Americans are all Thugs?
Oh wait, Thugs are Indian, aren't they? Indian Indian.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "Dennis M. Hammes" wrote:
>
> [snip a dozen "heh's"]
>
...
Is /that/ a fack? Who's payin' me?
Seems to me Mrs. Grundy paid /somebody else/ to keep the WTC
intact.
Trouble is, she paid yet another bunch of Altar Boys in Dresses to
see to it that "everybody" was "disarmed" so that /her/ Babies could
get away with Just A Few Crimes, Hey, They're Only Kids.
Now. Which landmark is More Important: the WTC or Harvard
University?
What if "Harvard University" was founded by a priest with 3000
volumes of Brit Prot religion and Brit Commonwealth Law?
What if it's the commonwealth psychosis that assaulted the WTC for
/being/ the WTC?
What if it's the commonwealth psychosis that insisted on
"disarming" everybody?
"Psychosis"; it' can't survive being /obeyed/ in the first
approximation or in the long run.
So it doesn't matter if I'm "thinking tactical" or "thinking
strategic."
Besides, Benders proved that a strategic pije is half the size of
a tactical pije.
What if Yale University was founded on the premises of the
Republic as set forth by that communist ant?
> That's why we're erecting new "picket
> fences" of marble. So's Mrs. Grundy can sleep at night and keep her
> skyline safe so it doesn't change before she wakes up in the morning.
> And so's she can cheer when Gore and Kennedy and Moore shout on the City
> Square that Bin Laden was a Bush Sock Puppet.
>
> Show your weakness. Demonstrate your weakness. He'll forget about that
> big stick.
So, Grasshopper, will you. So will Petey. So will Blenders. So
will Dale.
What a motherfuken /waste/ of ever having lived or writ.
And why, really, should /I/ show weakness?
So that the cheerleaders will fuck the rest of the Team for
wearing the Colored Shirt? Most of my "fencers" signed up for that
reason; most left in less than weeks (no loss; they weren't payin'
me, either).
And there's your whole parenthetic clue.
Babies pay priests to tell 'em they're Big Little Boys Now -- and
if they ain't, well, Cochise was just Too Dam' Big To Take, Anyway.
So I'm to pretend weakness -- so that my own kids and students
will gather round the little boy who's Sucking The Biggest Prijck?
>
> Otherwise, under your plan, I could get off my ass and volunteer for the
> 2am shift with the stinger battery atop the Sears Tower. Since /I'm/ the
> one who should be doing it /anyway/.
>
> I like your plan better, but the Gestapo doesn't.
Shitya. It doesn't give them /anything to do/.
They do /not/ stay awake at the 'scope; they hole up somewhere
"safe" to suck each other over Krispy Kremes.
They put a /lock/ on the front door of my command hq so that they
can fondle each other all day in perfect safety from walk-in
inspections.
Know what a "night watch" is?
It's somebody without language or saleable skills.
He needed Permission and Backup to play with a ball at public
expense in a special playpen inside the regular playpen, and a
Colored Shirt with a Holy Number on it to tell him who he is --
BECAUSE HE DOESN'T SEE ANYBODY WHEN HE LOOKS IN A MIRROR. And
because, in that entire K-12 scenario, he never built anybody to
see, HE STILL DOESN'T (threatened the playground for a little bit of
other men's lives, fortunes, and honors, so the only thing he sees
now is a little pile of Other People's Stuff heapething coals of
fire upon his forehead).
His /function/ is to make enough noise while he's being killed, to
wake up somebody like me.
It's the single most worthless -- and the single most necessary --
job on the planet.
And /he/ won't do it.
Because /he/ needs the entire student body lined up at gunpoint
for an hour every Friday afternoon before he'll even play with the
fuken /ball/ in like toedull safety, with a squad of special priests
to tell him each way to hold the ball each five minutes, and a squad
of special judges who will interrupt the Pushing And Shoving every
ten seconds to argue over what he actually managed to do with the
ball.
And the only fuken thing your "school" taught you was that you had
to line up every Friday afternoon to praise his parade.
"Or Is Aromaric Frunk."
> > >
> > > But how? They're scattered--they're a shadowy organization to begin
> > > with--they have sanctuary and supplies--they won't chose to commit
> > > unless they WANNA commit. And they won't WANNA, unless they're going up
> > > against defenseless buildings filled with defenseless secretaries and
> > > stockbrokers.
> > >
> > > The 'how' is: you're gonna gather up a crusade with swords and shields
> > > with crosses painted on 'em and land it right in the middle of their
> > > muthafuken front yard. That's how.
> >
> > If you're Clausewitz. If you're Urban I. If you're Hitler in 1940,
> > facing West, or in 1941, facing East.
>
> Or Eisenhower looking out South East from the cliffs of Dover.
>
> "You are about to embark on a Great Crusade..."
The speech was for commanders who had read Clausewitz.
The actual assault was, tactically and strategically, pure Marion.
That it was "large" doesn't alter the fact that it was pure Marion
tactics; the /target/ was "large."
If Marion ran up against a wall he couldn't go around ("Fortress
Europe"), he went over it or under it. Ike did both (it was a /big/
wall).
>
> > Lee read Clausewitz.
> > So did that British schmuck who landed right in the middle of
> > Isandlwana.
> > So did that British schmuck who landed right in the middle of
> > Gallipoli.
> > Lee was doing /crackerjack/, fighting like Marion, fighting like
> > Cochise, fading to the High Ground at Manassas, the Wilderness,
> > Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg, and making the Enemy come to him.
> > And then De Lawd Tol' Him that he /must/ carry the war to the
> > Enemy, he Must hit them while they ah heah, he Must land it right in
> > the middle of their muthafuken front yard.
> > He even had Articles of Surrender already drawn up for Meade to
> > deliver to Washington.
> > Right after Longstreet had landed right in the middle of
> > Gettysburg.
> > "They ah /weak/ raaht in the middle, thaht little group ah trees
> > thah in the middle. You /will/ take yoah Coah, and land it raaht in
> > the middle of theyah muthafuken front yaahd."
>
> Which is why we are taking Meade's approach: Occupy the ridge, then wait
> for the Jihadists to start off across the open ground with their hats
> stuck through the end of their swords.
Heh. But you're talking about somebody who /went/.
And in whatever clothing he could pick up or sew himself.
Mrs. Grundy's Holy little Police Boy has a /Colored Shirt/.
> "Black Hawks to the left of them,
> Black Hawks to the right of them; into Valley of Paradise strode the 600."
>
> "Black Hawk down my lilly white ass."
>
> A Pickett Fence Over There, Over There--instead of one Over Here, Over Here.
Nice yard if you can get it.
But we ran out of Indians in 1920.
And out of oil in 1939.
Oh.
That was Over There.
/We/ can still feed our Colored Shirts every time they ask to See
Our Peppiss to find out if we're /Licensed/ to Have That Nickel.
What makes you think I /don't/ let the little Prick into my house
on demand?
And "Look Weak"?
It's called the "Pearl Harbor Maneuver of Games Theory."
And besides, he's so goddamned /yellow/ I can't get any data out
of him /any other way/.
> >
> > >
> > > You see, you KNOW a crusade will flush them out. Why do you know this?
> > > Because the /real/ name of "al Qaeda" is "The World Islamic Front for
> > > Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders." ("Al Qaeda" is just a computer file
> > > and an old abandoned guest house) In point of fact--ONLY a crusade would
> > > EVER flush them out.
> >
> > Hunger will flush them out.
> > Cold will flush them out.
> > Loneliness will flush them out.
> > Horniness will flush them out.
> > Above all, that gnawing feeling of NOT ACHIEVING A FUKEN THING
> > will flush them out.
> > And if none of that works, we will drop John Tesh recordings.
> > /Nothing/ drove Charlie into the open in 1968 like 600 watts of
> > "Wooly-Bully."
>
> Two words: Slim Whitman.
Yabut you gotta draw the line between driving Charlie Jazeera nuts
and driving your own people nuts, too. Nome sane?
*boom* "I'll Kiww The Waaaaabbit," *blooie* "Kiww The
Waaaaabbit..." *foon*
Your propaganda muzak has to make the whole thing seem a /lark/
for /you/.
"Wooly-Bully."
One of the single most potheaded, Bubble-Gum Valley pieces of crap
ever published.
> > >
> > > You send in a crusade, and they will /have no choice/ but to come out of
> > > the wood work and throw themselves on your sword. You see--the Injuns
> > > started war dances and raids when ya only had a /base/ or two in Arabie:
> > > they'd go absolutely ape shit if ya sent in King Richard with his
> > > knights of old. Even Geronimo couldn't stop the war dances /then/. He'd
> > > jes' have to go along and lead the suicide charge.
> >
> > Actually, it was Sitting Bull and the Ghost Shirt Society.
> > But the Bush Baby just ain't Richard Plantagenet.
> > And Lynndie of Lockup (Abu Grabass) just ain't Robin of Locksley.
> > But thass okay.
> > Tom Ridge just ain't the Sherf o' Nothingham, either.
>
> Was thinking South West, not the Plains. Still, both Vercingetorix and
> Sitting Bull had a hard time surviving their success.
Because they thot only about boshing the /other guy's/ university
(church, whatever), and not a damn to seeing to the succession of
their own.
Nome sane?
Why Democrat and Republican universities see to turning out Police
/first/.
"Yea, TEAM!"
"Loved the Parade."
Fort Apache had a squad, or a platoon, or a company, or a regiment
or something, no?
What I got /here/?
I got a very, very few willing even to type, fewer to spell, and
the only two that rhyme can't manage to put any /Rocks/ between the
fuken /rhymes/.
So I proppee rhymee, and smokee tokee, and changee Shirtee as
often as I can legitimately manage (I got /my/ curriculum to
maintain), and tradee swordee for gunnee, and talkee talkee with a
lot a fuken DEAD PEOPLE, nome sane?
Dad got one thing crucially wrong (in /Stranger/).
Mrs. Grundy /expects/ me to pass the hat, remember?
"Or the marks won't listen," remember?
That fuken /hat/ is the watershed of natural selection, and Dad
wrote on the wrong side of it.
And if the grumbles from the grave are any indication, he had even
/less/ fun being paid than I have cavorting /pro bono/.
Let 'em think it's "free." Two lessons, and they'll find out it's
not.
Let 'em go down the street and watch a puppet show for their
nickel.
Human being is /work/. Not nearly as much as they "think,"
either.
And once I'm rid of /them/, I can put my time to /real/ students.
Not babysitting Mrs. Grundy's brats.
Petey brags how I've got no Licensed, Registered Trophies (that he
can issue, see, or knows how to find). I rather designed it that
way.
/My students/ have all the trophies.
And whether Scouts, fencers, artists, scientists, they've got
pretty much /all/ the metal offered on their "contest" circuit in
the relevant period.
If Petey wants me to mount my students' heads on my wall (as any
general, President, priest, or other dictator is /perfectly willing/
to do just to Prove to Petey that he's a whatever), then Petey can
just go fuck himself (but he's not much good at that, either).
What Petey might be managing to understand, finally, is that he's
not even competent to be my /customer/, since he railed about /that/
in one of his last posts, too.
As to my being alone in Fort Poultry, the /purpose/ of any
professional is to /put himself out of a job/. The purpose of a
grandmaster is to send his students /away/, of a shaman is to /cure
his customer base/.
Only yer fuken /priest/ keeps 'em sufficiently poisoned that they
hafta keep /coming back/.
Hey, it's what they crow about /best/, innit?
It's the Seinfeld Theory of "Comedy." Let 'em see you're shit,
and they'll Pay For The Brotherness, the We, the mammon.
/Friends/ was a paler copy, and /Will and Grace/ has got /way/ too
high a Dennis Miller Factor.
(/CSI/, etc., are the Great Smiley over the Playpen.)
> Heh. Damn straight.
> >
> > > The faith of men like Garner would be an inevitable casualty. The Shrub
> > > would jeopardize his reelection bid by using such a strategy.
> > >
> > > But, yes, a recipe for success. /Undoubtedly/.
> > >
> > > Who cares if Kerry presides over the cremation of an already dead Al
> > > Qeada? And, of course, the miraculous birth of freedom in Babylon?
> > >
> > > Not me, certainly.
> >
> > But will he preside over the cremation of the Home Land Security
> > /Geheim Staats Polizei/ and their jihad against the 1st (Patriot
> > Act) and 2nd (groping your wife for her nail file) Amendments?
> > Because if he doesn't, we'll hafta.
>
> No, the Geheim Staats Polizei was established to please Kerry's party,
It was a Rhett Buttorical Question.
> and, of course, the statolaters in the Gop party. They've erected a 1984
> in Boston for today's shindig, and have already said they'll keep it
> around after the last drunken delegate goes home. Once ya give a Gamma
> with a shiny badge a new toy, ya can't take it back without a fight.
How do ya measure a "fight" with a Boredom Meter?
(And that was /their own estimate/.)
You can't hold a modern kid's attention with Red Rectangles
bouncing around on a screen no matter how large.
Not since you showed 'em Red Airliners bouncing into Shiny
Rectangles every fuken day for a month.
He's got /Final Fantasy XI/, and it is /not/ Your Grandma's
"Pong."
It isn't even your Daddy's SuperMario.
They /fucked/ themselves, Cochise.
You buy a kid with cotton candy, whaddaya gonna do for an encore?
"Booooo-ring!" Saw it right on these froups in so many words.
"Whatever." Saw it right on these froups in so many words.
"Yatta-yatta-blah-blah." Saw it right here, too.
>
> The fact of the matter is: we'll hafta.
Takes two weeks to train a sword arm to stand off a schtuup.
Takes three years to train a sword arm to win an argument.
>
> ---
> Art
>
> "No; I have not been charged with that.
> In fact, nobody has said that to me yet."
> ---Lee Oswald
> (1963)
Dennis M. Hammes
"Indian Indian" before the old geography prof retired and they
became Pakistani Indian.
But this is Hokay, because both Indian Indian /and/ Pakistani
Indian got Nukeyoular Boom-Boom and insist on making sure everybody
knows it.
This is part of the Plan, though.
The British Peter Principle.
You keep Challenging the thuggees to Prove they got Boom-Boom,
pretty soon they use up all Boom-Boom Proving they Got Boom-Boom.
Meanwhile, /you/ changed the Issue Cartridge to something that
won't fit in the Old Stolen Rifles.
(Except that Peter hasn't /got/ an Issue Cartridge, he's got a
Meow Meow Army.)
Thing we should really have a care about is that these twerps
don't run us out of Boom-Boom by waving Somalias, Bosnias, Kosovos,
Afghanistans, Iraqs, or Doctoral Challenges in our faces.
Which is okay; I didn't accept Master Challenges from walkins (not
even members of the Olympic Team, once), and I don't accept Doctoral
Challenges from dropouts.
Turned 'em over to my students.
Who whupped 'em.
Hey, Cochise, one a these days I ain't gonna be here to whup em
anyway.
Guess who gotta whup 'em?
My only job is to put myself out of a job.
I got a much simpler, cheaper method.
I let 'em think they picked up my sword.
They Wavee-Wavee at each other, get Heap Scared.
Think they can Scare me.
'Cos, see, /they/ got my sword now.
Not /need/ invent better Boom-Boom.
Too bad /I/ taught my students to take out the sword with a pencil
or the bare hand.
'Cos "That's no' a sword."
That's a peculiarly misshapen piece of scrap metal.
Chandra P. Das
>
> "Indian Indian" before the old geography prof retired and they
> became Pakistani Indian.
> But this is Hokay, because both Indian Indian /and/ Pakistani
> Indian got Nukeyoular Boom-Boom and insist on making sure everybody
> knows it.
They could nuke each other for all I care.
[...]
> I got a much simpler, cheaper method.
> I let 'em think they picked up my sword.
> They Wavee-Wavee at each other, get Heap Scared.
> Think they can Scare me.
> 'Cos, see, /they/ got my sword now.
> Not /need/ invent better Boom-Boom.
> Too bad /I/ taught my students to take out the sword with a pencil
> or the bare hand.
> 'Cos "That's no' a sword."
> That's a peculiarly misshapen piece of scrap metal.
I might get pissed at you here and there, Hammes, but there's no denying
that you're a genius with comedy. Two crits perhaps: 1)You post a lot so
there's the unavoidable repetition factor. The above-quoted bit seems
like new material, and it's pretty damn funny. However, your "protestant
parrot monkey" skits-- while they were hilarious initially-- are
unfortunately just about worn to death now. You might wanna reinvent
that with some new language. 2)Regarding the general manner of delivery:
an expert comedian keeps a straight face on stage, no doubt, but
sometimes your textual equivalent of that straight face is a bit too
straight -- too serious, I mean to say. Loosen up a bit, eh, or some
people are gonna take your jokes too literally.
Chandra P. Das
> Not my fault Chris thought he'd landed in India, is it? Okay, ya wanna
> change the name, make it /logical/ at least.
To tell you the truth, most of the times I just call them Americans.
> "Native" isn't even as
> accurate as the "Of Origin" which the Australians mistakenly call those
> who beat 'em there. In fact, "native" is more confusing to the facts
> than "Amerind." Amerinds were /at least/ the second invasion which
> displaced the first.
>
>
>>>C) What do /you/ care who my ancestors
>>>systematically butchered?
>>
>>It's a thing -- a *crime against humanity*, to be more precise-- of the
>>distant past, sure, and I wouldn't bring it up except that there's a
>>large group of people like you buzzing about today who are trying to
>>re-enact the savageries of our ancestors. Go back to your cave and I
>>promise not to give a fuck who you are or what you do.
>
>
> What, you think Americans are all Thugs?
Nah, just a handful of the most powerful ones. Probably a friendlier
people than the Americans couldn't be found anywhere. Living in the US,
you can never know when you'll have the laugh of your life. Everyone is
a comedian here. Comedy is the way of life. And where comedy is the way
of life, life's pretty good mostly. Except if you're a poor guy. But
I've noticed that even poor, dirt poor guys just joke it off. Could be
some drug they put in those cheap beers, I don't know. Or maybe all
things considered it's still not too bad a place to live in.
Art
"Chandra P. Das" wrote:
>
> Art wrote:
>
> > Not my fault Chris thought he'd landed in India, is it? Okay, ya wanna
> > change the name, make it /logical/ at least.
>
> To tell you the truth, most of the times I just call them Americans.
A subset of humanity located mostly on an roughly hourglass-shaped super continent.
>
> > "Native" isn't even as
> > accurate as the "Of Origin" which the Australians mistakenly call those
> > who beat 'em there. In fact, "native" is more confusing to the facts
> > than "Amerind." Amerinds were /at least/ the second invasion which
> > displaced the first.
> >
> >
> >>>C) What do /you/ care who my ancestors
> >>>systematically butchered?
> >>
> >>It's a thing -- a *crime against humanity*, to be more precise-- of the
> >>distant past, sure, and I wouldn't bring it up except that there's a
> >>large group of people like you buzzing about today who are trying to
> >>re-enact the savageries of our ancestors. Go back to your cave and I
> >>promise not to give a fuck who you are or what you do.
> >
> >
> > What, you think Americans are all Thugs?
>
> Nah, just a handful of the most powerful ones.
The Silverbacks. Betas and Gammas have loathed them for millions of
years. With good reason--they get all the chicks.
> Probably a friendlier
> people than the Americans couldn't be found anywhere.
Never been to Chicago, then?
> Living in the US,
> you can never know when you'll have the laugh of your life. Everyone is
> a comedian here. Comedy is the way of life. And where comedy is the way
> of life, life's pretty good mostly. Except if you're a poor guy. But
> I've noticed that even poor, dirt poor guys just joke it off.
Will Rogers.
Lot's of Eastern Europeans came over here after the wall came a-tumblin'
down. Many reported how shockingly noisy, dirty and chaotic life is here
in the States.
"You get up every morning
From your 'larm clock's warning
Take the 8:15 into the city
There's a whistle up above
And people pushin', people shovin'
And the girls who try to look pretty"
Some couldn't take it and went back home. 'Can't blame them.
Sure, in Tokyo they have big burly ex-Sumos whose job it is to stuff the
stragglers inside the 8:15 so they can close the doors, but at least
they say "Ohhhh--so solly. Scuse prease." and bow alot.
In the States, they don't say "Scuse prease" in cities with over 1
million population. Instead, it's usually "Wha's /your/ fuken problem,
dickwad? Get outa my fuken face."
It's a well known and oft ignored fact that pain is funny.
No pain, no funny.
There's the story of the guys who were detailed to do the burying at
Gettysburg. They dug for days and days and wandered all over the place
picking up blood-soaked bodies that stunk as only bodies lying in a wet
July sun can.
10's of thousands. Dawn to dusk. Handkerchiefs over the mouth. Picking
up and moving these rigid and broken statues that embody the expression
of all the horror on earth. Tossing them in a ditch and moving on to the
next more horrible statue.
A detail had just finished filling in such a ditch when they noticed
that a cadaver's hand had accidentally not been covered over and was
protruding above the dirt.
Just one more gruesome picture they'd never fully get out of their minds
until they died.
One of the guys walked over to the hand and shook it, as if it were a
cadaver offering congratulations on a hard job well done.
The entire detail erupted in laughter.
They laughed. And laughed. And laughed. Minutes turned into hours. They
laughed until they couldn't breath. Until they couldn't stand. The
officer in charge couldn't get a lick of work out of them for the rest
of the day.
It was funny. And no one on earth, at that moment, needed a good laugh
more than they did.
"We are who we choose to be, Spiderman..."
The choice, of course, is you either laugh or you cry. Heroes laugh.
> Could be
> some drug they put in those cheap beers, I don't know. Or maybe all
> things considered it's still not too bad a place to live in.
US household TV penetration is effectively 100%. VCR penetration is 93%.
DVD's will get there in a few years. Obesity is a problem in the ghettos
just like everywhere else over here. Not so bad. Not so bad. All things considered.
"We are who we choose to be, Spiderman. Now choose!"
Peter J Ross
> I might get pissed at you here and there, Hammes, but there's no
> denying that you're a genius with comedy.
Indisputably. I'm happy to stipulate that, although Hammy is a liar
about his academic credentials (as well as a kind of hybrid between an
autodidact and an opsimath that didn't quite turn out as hoped), he's
nevertheless very, very funny at his best.
Unfortunately, his best used to happen about ten times a week, and
now it's down to about once a month.
I'd add to your helpful suggestions:
1. Never use the word "sword" again. It's a clichéd metaphor for a
penis, Hammy, and its use makes you look like a dick-waving hick.
2. Avoid the /forward slash/ and *asterisk* keys until your
temptation to use them *all* /the/ *fucking* /time/ has been
completely overcome.
3. Flame only those who are less skilful than you, and when flaming
in a way that depends on verifiable facts, try to get your facts
*right*. E.g., no more of this "Mark's Gospel was originally written
in Coptic and you're a /True/ *Protestant* if you think otherwise"
crap.
Always happy to help.
[soc.veterans snecked. Hammy, for all his faults, is "one of us" in
much the way that retarded kid brothers are, and we probably ought to
hide his shame from Usenet at large.]
--
PJR :-)
alt.usenet.kooks award-winners and FAQs:
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/
(Remove NOSPAM to reply.)
Rick McGee
On 2004-07-27 "Chandra P. Das" said:
> I might get pissed at you here and there, Hammes, but there's no
> denying that you're a genius with comedy. Two crits perhaps: 1)You
> post a lot so there's the unavoidable repetition factor. The
> above-quoted bit seems like new material, and it's pretty damn
> funny. However, your "protestant parrot monkey" skits-- while they
> were hilarious initially-- are unfortunately just about worn to
> death now. You might wanna reinvent that with some new language.
This is like trying to convince a fundamentalist Islamo-Fascist
that there really /aren't/ 72 virgins waiting for him on the
other side.
> 2)Regarding the general manner of delivery: an expert comedian
> keeps a straight face on stage, no doubt, but sometimes your
> textual equivalent of that straight face is a bit too straight --
> too serious, I mean to say. Loosen up a bit, eh, or some people are
> gonna take your jokes too literally.
Ah, but Hammy loves it when that happens.
While he's fond of putting on a mask of education and culture,
he's fundamentally just the same ol' odd-ball nerd that he was
in high school.
Ask anyone who knows/knew him.
- Rick
Rick McGee
On 2004-07-27 gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org (PeeJay Ross) said:
> Indisputably. I'm happy to stipulate that, although Hammy is a liar
> about his academic credentials (as well as a kind of hybrid between
> an autodidact and an opsimath that didn't quite turn out as hoped),
> he's nevertheless very, very funny at his best.
>
> Unfortunately, his best used to happen about ten times a week, and
> now it's down to about once a month.
If we're lucky.
> I'd add to your helpful suggestions:
>
> 1. Never use the word "sword" again. It's a clichéd metaphor for a
> penis, Hammy, and its use makes you look like a dick-waving hick.
If the shoe fits...
> 2. Avoid the /forward slash/ and *asterisk* keys until your
> temptation to use them *all* /the/ *fucking* /time/ has been
> completely overcome.
That's like asking an addict to voluntarily give up his poison.
It ain't gonna happen.
> 3. Flame only those who are less skilful than you, and when flaming
> in a way that depends on verifiable facts, try to get your facts
> *right*. E.g., no more of this "Mark's Gospel was originally written
> in Coptic and you're a /True/ *Protestant* if you think otherwise"
> crap.
Hammy /doesn't *know*/ his facts are wrong. He actually thinks
he's correct. Of course, he also believes in Atlantis, but that's
another story...
> Always happy to help.
> [soc.veterans snecked. Hammy, for all his faults, is "one of us" in
> much the way that retarded kid brothers are, and we probably ought
> to hide his shame from Usenet at large.]
Nah! No sense being selfish. Let's let'em in on the fun.
- Rick
Art
Too true. However, it is a particularly long range strategy to become a
traitor in order to save your kingdom. Only /you/ will know the truth.
Sometimes only you is enough.
> What if Yale University was founded on the premises of the
> Republic as set forth by that communist ant?
Then you climb up the stairs of the School Book Depository and /do/
something about it.
>
> > That's why we're erecting new "picket
> > fences" of marble. So's Mrs. Grundy can sleep at night and keep her
> > skyline safe so it doesn't change before she wakes up in the morning.
> > And so's she can cheer when Gore and Kennedy and Moore shout on the City
> > Square that Bin Laden was a Bush Sock Puppet.
> >
> > Show your weakness. Demonstrate your weakness. He'll forget about that
> > big stick.
>
> So, Grasshopper, will you. So will Petey. So will Blenders. So
> will Dale.
That's the danger, innit?
> What a motherfuken /waste/ of ever having lived or writ.
> And why, really, should /I/ show weakness?
Because you're not fighting strength; you're fighting cowardice.
> So that the cheerleaders will fuck the rest of the Team for
> wearing the Colored Shirt? Most of my "fencers" signed up for that
> reason; most left in less than weeks (no loss; they weren't payin'
> me, either).
> And there's your whole parenthetic clue.
> Babies pay priests to tell 'em they're Big Little Boys Now -- and
> if they ain't, well, Cochise was just Too Dam' Big To Take, Anyway.
> So I'm to pretend weakness -- so that my own kids and students
> will gather round the little boy who's Sucking The Biggest Prijck?
That's what The Shrub's students are doing this minute. That's where
Garner wandered off to. In a huff.
However, you'll never break a coward's neck by showing strength. Not
with an /expert/ coward, you won't. Cowards aren't generally a threat to
anyone--these particular cowards, however, are.
Heh.
> > > >
> > > > But how? They're scattered--they're a shadowy organization to begin
> > > > with--they have sanctuary and supplies--they won't chose to commit
> > > > unless they WANNA commit. And they won't WANNA, unless they're going up
> > > > against defenseless buildings filled with defenseless secretaries and
> > > > stockbrokers.
> > > >
> > > > The 'how' is: you're gonna gather up a crusade with swords and shields
> > > > with crosses painted on 'em and land it right in the middle of their
> > > > muthafuken front yard. That's how.
> > >
> > > If you're Clausewitz. If you're Urban I. If you're Hitler in 1940,
> > > facing West, or in 1941, facing East.
> >
> > Or Eisenhower looking out South East from the cliffs of Dover.
> >
> > "You are about to embark on a Great Crusade..."
>
> The speech was for commanders who had read Clausewitz.
> The actual assault was, tactically and strategically, pure Marion.
> That it was "large" doesn't alter the fact that it was pure Marion
> tactics; the /target/ was "large."
> If Marion ran up against a wall he couldn't go around ("Fortress
> Europe"), he went over it or under it. Ike did both (it was a /big/
> wall).
Swamp Fox solved problems in an unexpected manner. The definition of
creativity. And humor, of course.
By George, I think you've got it!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You see, you KNOW a crusade will flush them out. Why do you know this?
> > > > Because the /real/ name of "al Qaeda" is "The World Islamic Front for
> > > > Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders." ("Al Qaeda" is just a computer file
> > > > and an old abandoned guest house) In point of fact--ONLY a crusade would
> > > > EVER flush them out.
> > >
> > > Hunger will flush them out.
> > > Cold will flush them out.
> > > Loneliness will flush them out.
> > > Horniness will flush them out.
> > > Above all, that gnawing feeling of NOT ACHIEVING A FUKEN THING
> > > will flush them out.
> > > And if none of that works, we will drop John Tesh recordings.
> > > /Nothing/ drove Charlie into the open in 1968 like 600 watts of
> > > "Wooly-Bully."
> >
> > Two words: Slim Whitman.
>
> Yabut you gotta draw the line between driving Charlie Jazeera nuts
> and driving your own people nuts, too. Nome sane?
> *boom* "I'll Kiww The Waaaaabbit," *blooie* "Kiww The
> Waaaaabbit..." *foon*
> Your propaganda muzak has to make the whole thing seem a /lark/
> for /you/.
> "Wooly-Bully."
> One of the single most potheaded, Bubble-Gum Valley pieces of crap
> ever published.
What it now! Watch it!
Obviously this was for the latecomers, since I was already on that page.
But, since you're reviewing...
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petronius_Arbiter :
"He spent his days in sleep, his nights in attending to his official
duties or in amusement, by his dissolute life he had become as famous as
other men by a life of energy, and he was regarded as no ordinary
profligate, but as an accomplished voluptuary. His reckless freedom of
speech, being regarded as frankness, procured him popularity. Yet during
his provincial governorship, and later when he held the office of
consul, he had shown vigour and capacity for affairs. Afterwards
returning to his life of vicious indulgence, he became one of the chosen
circle of Nero's intimates, and was looked upon as an absolute authority
on questions of taste (arbiter eleganliae) in connexion with the science
of luxurious living"
Why the hell do you think Dan kept him in the gym bag?
Because: "We are who we choose to be, Spiderman."
In one of my many former lives, I found myself in a conversation with 2
millionaires and a hundreds of thousands-aire. Why /I/ was in this
intimate conversation ain't important. But the conversation was mainly
about how important it is to have an elegant coffee table. Important to
/life/, mind you.
Now, being a graphic designer, I can hold up my end of a conversation
about the importance of aesthetics. However, more important than
external aesthetics is having the /internal/ one. The internal aesthetic
which can allow you to enjoy Mozart through a tinny, scratchy am radio
with a blown speaker.
They don't teach that.
You're aware that Kung Fu means Work + Time. You're aware of where the
Martial Arts' colored belt system comes from: you wash the uniform and
not the belt. All martial arts beginners wear the white belt. Originally
this meant that you could look at a class and tell both who had been
there longer and who had been putting in the effort. The darker the
belt, the deeper the training. A black belt only comes from years and
years of struggle and sweat.
Even this kind of diploma is not a certainty of ability or knowledge. Of course.
But it's the only kind that approaches it. All the rest is just a paper
chase. I won't hire a Graphic Designer because she has a degree innit.
I'd rather hire someone who's had a chance to unlearn what she learned
during the paper chase.
In the Drunken Monkey, you crouch down in impossible positions. You
wobble. Trip. Lurch. You act like an uncoordinated nerd.
"What an idiot," the opponent thinks, "this won't take long..." He
usually has a very shocked expression on his face as his neck
unexpectedly snaps.
Frankly, My Dear...I would have elaborated anyway.
>
> > and, of course, the statolaters in the Gop party. They've erected a 1984
> > in Boston for today's shindig, and have already said they'll keep it
> > around after the last drunken delegate goes home. Once ya give a Gamma
> > with a shiny badge a new toy, ya can't take it back without a fight.
>
> How do ya measure a "fight" with a Boredom Meter?
> (And that was /their own estimate/.)
> You can't hold a modern kid's attention with Red Rectangles
> bouncing around on a screen no matter how large.
> Not since you showed 'em Red Airliners bouncing into Shiny
> Rectangles every fuken day for a month.
> He's got /Final Fantasy XI/, and it is /not/ Your Grandma's
> "Pong."
> It isn't even your Daddy's SuperMario.
> They /fucked/ themselves, Cochise.
> You buy a kid with cotton candy, whaddaya gonna do for an encore?
> "Booooo-ring!" Saw it right on these froups in so many words.
> "Whatever." Saw it right on these froups in so many words.
> "Yatta-yatta-blah-blah." Saw it right here, too.
Nothing a fast wouldn't cure. But they're /afraid/ of fasts.
> >
> > The fact of the matter is: we'll hafta.
>
> Takes two weeks to train a sword arm to stand off a schtuup.
> Takes three years to train a sword arm to win an argument.
> >
Dirty nails is a trophy of sorts. Much better than no longer having to try.
Art
Oh look; a monkey just fell in love with the connoisseur of bromides.
Eh oh ohoh eeeeeh! thump thump thump.
Eeeeeeeh eh eh oh oh eeeeeeeeh! thump thump thump.
Rick McGee
On 2004-07-28 arty_...@yahoo.com (Art McNutt) said:
> Oh look; a monkey just fell in love with the connoisseur of
> bromides.
Heh. Pretty funny, considering your shameless sucking-up to
Hammy (for whatever bizarre reason).
But keep it up, McNutty. Maybe one day, Hammy will show you
his "D. Litt."
- Rick
Dennis M. Hammes
Cowards are never a threat.
Until you turn your back.
This includes Dressing Them Up and going to sleep.
This includes giving them your file copies for public record and
going home to do something else.
This includes contracting with them to do /this/ while you do
/that/. (And /this/ includes contracting with them to redeem their
Federal Reserve Notes.)
Looking weak for an anemone? Yeh. But you gotta look strong for
your fronds /at the same time/.
Now, /there's/ a nautch dance for ya.
You look weak for an enema so that he won't go home and Improve
because he thinks he's already gotcha. (He won't anyway; his Holy
Powower In The Skyway Of City Hall has already gotcha, and he can't
abrogate it by /trying/ to getcha with /his own/ stuff.)
You look strong for a frond so that he'll try to getcha at the
games next week, you betcha, you sonofabitch. "My chest is bigger'n
your chest, and I can pound harder."
No. But Mozart does.
>
> You're aware that Kung Fu means Work + Time. You're aware of where the
> Martial Arts' colored belt system comes from: you wash the uniform and
> not the belt. All martial arts beginners wear the white belt. Originally
> this meant that you could look at a class and tell both who had been
> there longer and who had been putting in the effort. The darker the
> belt, the deeper the training. A black belt only comes from years and
> years of struggle and sweat.
It's a theory, and correct.
The colored colors are from the "Greek" elements, traceable into
the Tao around 1200 BC before being babied down and shifted around
because the Oriental system can't afford Fire (Red Belt), purpose:
you train to spend your life with your nose up a Master's or an
Emperor's ass.
Because of this, the Black is "Void," obviating the conservation
of law for "whatever the people, ah, excuse me, Emperors, want,"
yielding only half the "Belt," the degree. The "substantial
'thought-no-thought' reflex" is quite substantial, but it only works
when /somebody else/ pulls the trigger.
>
> Even this kind of diploma is not a certainty of ability or knowledge. Of course.
No, it is still not a martial art to break boards with your head; it
is a martial art to break boards with a pencil, trysquare, and
crosscut saw.
But if all you've got to break boards with is your head, you
better start using your head.
Yabut we're gonna milk the baby for every last nickel before we snap
him.
Lookit the income from the example cavortings.
Hey. Knowledge isn't everything.
But it's 'way ahead of whatever's in second place.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:35:22 GMT, Chandra P. Das wrote:
>
> > I might get pissed at you here and there, Hammes, but there's no
> > denying that you're a genius with comedy.
>
> Indisputably. I'm happy to stipulate that, although Hammy is a liar
> about his academic credentials (as well as a kind of hybrid between an
> autodidact and an opsimath that didn't quite turn out as hoped), he's
> nevertheless very, very funny at his best.
>
> Unfortunately, his best used to happen about ten times a week, and
> now it's down to about once a month.
>
> I'd add to your helpful suggestions:
>
> 1. Never use the word "sword" again. It's a clichéd metaphor for a
> penis, Hammy, and its use makes you look like a dick-waving hick.
Only to those who can imagine no other sword but their limp dicks.
And have never seen any better than that from their friends.
Or their fathers.
See, the vehicle of a metaphor or symbol /is/ whatever the reader
sees it as.
But see, too, Peepee, there's literature, and there's "Kiddy
Litter."
>
> 2. Avoid the /forward slash/ and *asterisk* keys until your
> temptation to use them *all* /the/ *fucking* /time/ has been
> completely overcome.
>
> 3. Flame only those who are less skilful than you, and when flaming
> in a way that depends on verifiable facts, try to get your facts
> *right*. E.g., no more of this "Mark's Gospel was originally written
> in Coptic and you're a /True/ *Protestant* if you think otherwise"
> crap.
>
> Always happy to help.
>
> [soc.veterans snecked. Hammy, for all his faults, is "one of us" in
> much the way that retarded kid brothers are, and we probably ought to
> hide his shame from Usenet at large.]
> --
> PJR :-)
> alt.usenet.kooks award-winners and FAQs:
> http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/
>
> (Remove NOSPAM to reply.)
Dennis M. Hammes
"...Litt.D."
Rick McGee
On 2004-07-29 dm...@citilink.com (Dale Houstman) said:
> [ ... copious tripe snipped ... ]
>
> The thing is some will have to give up some of their luxuries if ALL
> people are to enjoy a more decent life. It's just the way it is.
> Capitalism provides for those who can add to their profit line. The
> benefits any of us enjoy come at the cost of many not having
> anything: this is true for healthcare, and a host of other things.
> The U.S. eats up most of the world's resources, and so (if one has
> the money) its citizens enjoy a relatively high standard of living.
> It's like the plantation family enjoying fantastic meals and buggy
> rides to Savannah because they have a farm full of workers who have
> much less. Distribute it all equitably, and - yes - the folks in
> Tara will have to eat less, dress less sumptuously and forgo a
> buggy ride or two. Tough shit is what I say.
Fortunately, Dale, "what you say" is irrelevant.
Of course, you're perfectly free to practice, on a personal
level, the collectivist philosophy which you espouse.
But don't try to impose that collectivism on ME, or on anyone
else. The vast majority of U.S. citizens won't tolerate it.
You see, Dale, collectivism is anathema to the foundational
principles of this particular nation.
Perhaps you cut class on the day that lesson was taught.
As long as people differ (and they do) in such areas as talent,
ability, intelligence, taste, preference, etc., there can be no
"equality of outcome."
You can't put a nickel into a soda machine and expect a $1.00
bottle of Pepsi to pop out. Realistically, it just ain't gonna
happen, son.
If you're unhappy with the U.S.'s free market economy -- or if
you simply can't make it under such a system -- please feel free
to pack up your Little Red Book, and relocate to a country that's
more to your philosophical liking.
I'll even make a monetary contribution toward your one-way
plane fare.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> On 2004-07-29 dm...@citilink.com (Dale Houstman) said:
>
> > [ ... copious tripe snipped ... ]
> >
> > The thing is some will have to give up some of their luxuries if ALL
> > people are to enjoy a more decent life. It's just the way it is.
> > Capitalism provides for those who can add to their profit line. The
> > benefits any of us enjoy come at the cost of many not having
> > anything: this is true for healthcare, and a host of other things.
> > The U.S. eats up most of the world's resources, and so (if one has
> > the money) its citizens enjoy a relatively high standard of living.
> > It's like the plantation family enjoying fantastic meals and buggy
> > rides to Savannah because they have a farm full of workers who have
> > much less. Distribute it all equitably, and - yes - the folks in
> > Tara will have to eat less, dress less sumptuously and forgo a
> > buggy ride or two. Tough shit is what I say.
>
> Fortunately, Dale, "what you say" is irrelevant.
>
> Of course, you're perfectly free to practice, on a personal
> level, the collectivist philosophy which you espouse.
>
> But don't try to impose that collectivism on ME, or on anyone
> else. The vast majority of U.S. citizens won't tolerate it.
>
> You see, Dale, collectivism is anathema to the foundational
> principles of this particular nation.
>
> Perhaps you cut class on the day that lesson was taught.
Dat lesson ain't no longah tot, hoss; what dey teach now be Equal
Rats ta othah men's lahvs, fo'chuns, an' honahs.
Dis be rewrit fo' de Chillun in nanteen an' fitty-nine.
"'Who wi' he'p me /eat/ de bread,' ast de Li'l Red, Hen?"
"Ah will!" "Ah will!" "Ah will," sed de Equal Rats.
"'Thah Will be done!' cackle de Hen."
Dat not be no "collectivism," which be /Bad/, hoss, dat be "Equal
Rats," which be /Good/.
>
> As long as people differ (and they do) in such areas as talent,
> ability, intelligence, taste, preference, etc., there can be no
> "equality of outcome."
>
> You can't put a nickel into a soda machine and expect a $1.00
> bottle of Pepsi to pop out. Realistically, it just ain't gonna
> happen, son.
No way, hoss. Taday, you puts a /dollah/ en de Pepsi machine to
make de /nickel/ bottle de Pepsi be poppin' out.
Whats ya gits fo' teachin' de Equal Rats ter de nickel two
gen'rashins ago.
>
> If you're unhappy with the U.S.'s free market economy -- or if
> you simply can't make it under such a system -- please feel free
> to pack up your Little Red Book, and relocate to a country that's
> more to your philosophical liking.
>
> I'll even make a monetary contribution toward your one-way
> plane fare.
>
> - Rick
Ah woan't. I'se gone be /obeyin'/ him.
I'se gone exercise mah Equal Rats ter /his/ lahf by ownin' him fo'
'baht fahv secon's o' tahget practice follow by abaht fahv feet o'
fertiliser.
Hey, ah oney tuk fahv secon's.
He fa' down bah'm se'f.
Aidan Tynan
> > Fortunately, Dale, "what you say" is irrelevant.
> >
> > Of course, you're perfectly free to practice, on a personal
> > level, the collectivist philosophy which you espouse.
> >
> > But don't try to impose that collectivism on ME, or on anyone
> > else. The vast majority of U.S. citizens won't tolerate it.
> >
> > You see, Dale, collectivism is anathema to the foundational
> > principles of this particular nation.
Individualism has been the dominant political philosophy for over two
centuries now (in the form of deontological liberalism), which is strange
since, under capitalism, the individual has *less* a chance of changing
anything than s/he had in prior times. All cultures have contradictions, and
according to the anthropological literature on the subject, "myth" is the
general form in which such contradictions are resolved for a time. Myths of
personality and individuality proliferate; just turn on your TV for five
minutes, John Kerry (who killed over one thousand gooks) being the eyesore
of the month.
-Aidan
Walk with the dead
For fear of death -- Philip Larkin
Dale
And he's incorrect at any rate: the myth of "individualism" as a
founding principle of America is strictly bullshit: from the earliest
settlers up to the "sucking at the public teat" of modern corporations,
people have always turned to the government for support, and the
government - at its best - is simply the collective will and desire of
the entire nation working together.
The myth does live on strongly in the actions of serial killers though;
as they wander alone across the great face of our nation doing their
good works. It pretends to existence in such oxymoronic ad campaigns as
"An Army of One" which appeals precisely to this myth while really
offering you slaavery, albeit one with food and nifty uniforms, and
visions of slaughter for the public good. Grand stuff that, although not
quite what Jefferson desired. But what did that slave-fucking idiot know?
but our erstwhile political debater simply doesn't know what the
founding fathers meant when they said such stupid things as "We, the
People." Jefferson himself had a vision of an agrarian collective, and -
like most of the thinkers of the time - dwelt upon the now estranged
notion that working as a rowdy but "envisioned" collective, and
disavowing the "top down" ideals of the Old World, the American people -
as a whole - could move forward.
Capitalism - of course - despises such ideas, especially as manifested
in the collectivist dreams of unions. They want us lonely, and
neurotically purchasing, in hopes that the very next toaster or
automobile will finally fill that empty vacuum known as "The American
Dream."
So, dream on... there's blood in them thar hills.
dmh
Rick McGee
On 2004-07-30 dm...@citilink.com (Dale Houstman) said:
> Aidan Tynan wrote:
>
> > Individualism has been the dominant political philosophy for over
> > two centuries now (in the form of deontological liberalism),
> > which is strange since, under capitalism, the individual has
> > *less* a chance of changing anything than s/he had in prior times.
> >
> > All cultures have contradictions, and according to the
> > anthropological literature on the subject, "myth" is the general
> > form in which such contradictions are resolved for a time. Myths
> > of personality and individuality proliferate; just turn on your
> > TV for five minutes, John Kerry (who killed over one thousand
> > gooks) being the eyesore of the month.
>
> And he's incorrect at any rate: the myth of "individualism" as a
> founding principle of America is strictly bullshit: from the
> earliest settlers up to the "sucking at the public teat" of modern
> corporations, people have always turned to the government for
> support...
You certainly have a strange perception of U.S. history,
Houstman. Where'd you get such a skewed notion -- from
'The Daily Worker?'
The concept of Americans turning "...to the government for
support" is pretty generally credited to Frankie Roosevelt,
who first succeeded in bringing the idea into U.S. public
consciousness in a big way in the 1930s.
Of course, one might mention such concepts as tax-supported
"common schools," but that doesn't fall directly into the
category of "support." Besides, that was a local/state-level
implementation; the national government wasn't involved.
In any case, the word "individualism" never appeared in my
original message. It was first introduced by Tynan, above;
the silly Mick.
> Jefferson himself had a vision of an agrarian collective, and -
> like most of the thinkers of the time - dwelt upon the now
> estranged notion that working as a rowdy but "envisioned"
> collective, and disavowing the "top down" ideals of the Old World,
> the American people - as a whole - could move forward...
Heh. Talk about revisionist history. Dale, you're nearly as
nutty as an NYU or a Columbia grad. Or as Dennis Hammes.
> So, dream on... there's blood in them thar hills.
Bullsh*t. While it might make you feel good to feel BAD
about perceived "injustices," it's not possible to repeal
human nature.
de Tocqueville was right: "The American Republic will endure
until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their
own money."
When the republic collapses, the "blood in them thar hills" will
have been shed by YOU, Dale, and those of your collectivist ilk.
The infidels are not only at our gates, they've already entered
and are living among us -- collecting welfare.
Horatio
"Rick McGee" <ri...@mcgee.net> wrote in message
news:410a...@post.newsfeed.com...
Do you feel at all embarrassed to be consistently trounced and humiliated in
a debate when your opponent is only casually making fun of you?
Just curious.
-H
Rick McGee
On 2004-07-31 qwer...@hotmail.com ("Horatio") said:
> Do you feel at all embarrassed to be consistently trounced and
> humiliated in a debate when your opponent is only casually making
> fun of you?
>
> Just curious.
Do you feel at all embarrassed to be consistently posting the
doggerel you call "poetry" to a public newsgroup?
Just wondering,
- Rick
Horatio
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
> On 2004-07-31 qwer...@hotmail.com ("Horatio") said:
>
> > Do you feel at all embarrassed to be consistently trounced and
> > humiliated in a debate when your opponent is only casually making
> > fun of you?
> >
> > Just curious.
>
> Do you feel at all embarrassed to be consistently posting the
> doggerel you call "poetry" to a public newsgroup?
>
> Just wondering,
>
> - Rick
Well, since I don't post poetry to any public newsgroups, we will have to
take this as a "Yes, but I am helpless to resist making a fool of myself"
from you.
Nice job, the first step is acceptance. The second is to realise you don't
have a single valid statement about anything and the third is to just shut
up.
HTH
-H
-hi-
>Date: 7/31/2004 8:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <0HMOc.1775$yQ5....@news01.roc.ny>
>>"Rick McGee" <ri...@mcgee.net> wrote in message
>>news:410b...@post.newsfeed.com...
>> Do you feel at all embarrassed to be consistently posting the
>> doggerel you call "poetry" to a public newsgroup?
>> Just wondering,
>> - Rick
>Well, since I don't post poetry to any public newsgroups, we will have
>to take this as a "Yes, but I am helpless to resist making a fool of
>myself" from you.
Rick may well have been talking about me. I'm kind of known for posting what
some people call doggerel poetry to public newsgroups, and I can see where
someone who wasn't paying particularly attention to detail might have confused
the names Horatio with Hieronymous. However, on closer inspection of the two
in immediate juxtaposition of one another it appears quite obvious that I'm
-hi-, and you're not. You're just ... well, -H.
>Nice job, the first step is acceptance.
There are certain things one simply must accept and understand if one wants to
get -hi- here. Of course, nobody has to do anything they don't want to, and if
you, Rick, or anyone simply doesn't care to get -hi- here with the rest of us,
that's fine. As far as I can tell, we're not about or into that kind of peer
pressure around here. Nobody here has to get -hi- if they don't want to, and
nobody can make you get -hi- here if you don't want to.
>The second is to realise you don't have a single valid statement
>about anything
This is just for those of you, whoever you are, who for whatever reason might
want or like to get -hi- safely. Here, like me. I'm -hi- here. I mean, when
I'm here, I'm -hi-, and I recognize the vice in that. I mean, I know that I am
a vice, and a popular vice at that, but as vices go (and everybody has their
vices), getting -hi- here is safe just so long as you are careful what you say.
For example:
>and the third is to just shut up.
From now on, you can say that you get -hi- here, but nobody but me can say that
they are -hi- here. I'm the only one who is actually allowed to be -hi- here,
because I'm the only one here who is both certified and qualified in that
regard. Of course, that's because the whole business was rigged in the first
place, and I just happened to be the only real rigger around. Coincidence?
You decide.
>HTH
By the way, I am not a Jerry-rigger, although I've certainly rigged with Jerry
and learned a lot from the experience. Jerry is a good rigger too.
>-H
-hi-
...
See the difference?
Horatio
"-hi-" <hierony...@aol.commintsrok> wrote in message
news:20040731092252...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >From: "Horatio" qwer...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 7/31/2004 8:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <0HMOc.1775$yQ5....@news01.roc.ny>
>
> >>"Rick McGee" <ri...@mcgee.net> wrote in message
> >>news:410b...@post.newsfeed.com...
>
> >> Do you feel at all embarrassed to be consistently posting the
> >> doggerel you call "poetry" to a public newsgroup?
>
> >> Just wondering,
>
> >> - Rick
>
> >Well, since I don't post poetry to any public newsgroups, we will have
> >to take this as a "Yes, but I am helpless to resist making a fool of
> >myself" from you.
>
> Rick may well have been talking about me. I'm kind of known for posting
what
> some people call doggerel poetry to public newsgroups, and I can see where
> someone who wasn't paying particularly attention to detail might have
confused
> the names Horatio with Hieronymous. However, on closer inspection of the
two
> in immediate juxtaposition of one another it appears quite obvious that
I'm
> -hi-, and you're not. You're just ... well, -H.
Of course the fact that he can't follow a simple ng well enough to form an
adequate non sequiter response should come as no surprise but it is an
interesting testimony to his incompetene.
>
> >Nice job, the first step is acceptance.
>
> There are certain things one simply must accept and understand if one
wants to
> get -hi- here. Of course, nobody has to do anything they don't want to,
and if
> you, Rick, or anyone simply doesn't care to get -hi- here with the rest of
us,
> that's fine. As far as I can tell, we're not about or into that kind of
peer
> pressure around here. Nobody here has to get -hi- if they don't want to,
and
> nobody can make you get -hi- here if you don't want to.
Who is this mysterious "we"? As far as I knew, I was part of the peer
group.
I am pretty aware of the difference. I used to bother typing out "Horatio"
at the end of every response but the investment started outweighg the
return.
-H
>
>
Hieronymous707
>Date: 7/31/2004 9:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ukNOc.1781$gR5....@news01.roc.ny>
>it is an interesting testimony to his incompetene.
Misteaks happen.
>Who is this mysterious "we"? As far as I knew,
>I was part of the peer group.
There's nothing particularly mysterious about us.
If you were really one of us, you'd know it.
You certainly wouldn't have to ask.
>the investment started outweighg the return.
Like I said ... basically: Shnit happens.
-hi-
Horatio
"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@aol.commenting> wrote in message
news:20040731095629...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >From: "Horatio" qwer...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 7/31/2004 9:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <ukNOc.1781$gR5....@news01.roc.ny>
>
> >it is an interesting testimony to his incompetene.
>
> Misteaks happen.
>
> >Who is this mysterious "we"? As far as I knew,
> >I was part of the peer group.
>
> There's nothing particularly mysterious about us.
> If you were really one of us, you'd know it.
> You certainly wouldn't have to ask.
Well, it has occurred to me that I am one of us and you are not. So, sorry,
maybe in time.
>
> >the investment started outweighg the return.
>
> Like I said ... basically: Shnit happens.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C40F330F8
>
> -hi-
There is a difference between misspellings and ommissions.
-H
>
>
Dale
Horatio wrote:
>
> Well, it has occurred to me that I am one of us and you are not. So, sorry,
> maybe in time.
>
>
I figured out - just in time - that I am one of me, but then me decided
they needed a scapegoat and I was the logical choice. I'm not bitter -
it was after all the only available goat - but it does get lonely out
here, and if it weren't for the highly articulate fireflies who talk to
me of the Grand Possibilities and the price of tea in china (so much
tasttier than tea in paperbags)I would - frankly and ruthlessly - go
quite barmy.
dmh
Horatio
"Dale" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:410BCE1...@citilink.com...
Dale, it is my unpleasant duty to inform you that it was not a "scapegoat"
we needed but a "scrapegoat". I understand that this lack of communication
is bound to cause some . . . uh . . . discomfort for you and that it may
have been a typo on my part but you /did/ volunteer after all and we are
going to need that scrapegoat.
-H
Hieronymous707
>Date: 7/31/2004 12:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <rTPOc.1463$XS....@news02.roc.ny>
>Well, it has occurred to me that I am one of us and you are not.
If it occurrs to you again let me know, because if you think for one minute
that you're one of us and I'm not, and there's only us here, then you obviously
haven't a clue who the heck you're talking to.
>There is a difference between misspellings and ommissions.
Thanks for clearing that up, -H.
-hi-
Joy Yourcenar
wrote:
***
***"Dale" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
***news:410BCE1...@citilink.com...
***>
***>
***> Horatio wrote:
***>
***> >
***> > Well, it has occurred to me that I am one of us and you are
not. So,
***sorry,
***> > maybe in time.
***> >
***> >
***>
***> I figured out - just in time - that I am one of me, but then me
decided
***> they needed a scapegoat and I was the logical choice. I'm not
bitter -
***> it was after all the only available goat - but it does get lonely
out
***> here, and if it weren't for the highly articulate fireflies who
talk to
***> me of the Grand Possibilities and the price of tea in china (so
much
***> tasttier than tea in paperbags)I would - frankly and ruthlessly -
go
***> quite barmy.
***>
***> dmh
***>
***
***Dale, it is my unpleasant duty to inform you that it was not a
"scapegoat"
***we needed but a "scrapegoat". I understand that this lack of
communication
***is bound to cause some . . . uh . . . discomfort for you and that
it may
***have been a typo on my part but you /did/ volunteer after all and
we are
***going to need that scrapegoat.
***
***-H
***
***
I have some nominees for sacrificial goat.
Joy
Joy Yourcenar
Mythologies www.evolvingbeauty.com/myth
icon/graphy www.evolvingbeauty.com/icon
"I am the Milk Man of Human Kindness
so leave an extra pint."
~Billy Bragg~
Horatio
"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@aol.commenting> wrote in message
> >From: "Horatio" qwer...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 7/31/2004 12:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <rTPOc.1463$XS....@news02.roc.ny>
>
> >Well, it has occurred to me that I am one of us and you are not.
>
> If it occurrs to you again let me know, because if you think for one
minute
> that you're one of us and I'm not, and there's only us here, then you
obviously
> haven't a clue who the heck you're talking to.
I have no idea who the heck I am talking to other than the very firm idea
that he (your) is (are) definitely /not/ one of us. Oh, you may manage to
slip by others who have no idea who you are but not me.
IOW, yes on all three counts: I have no idea who the heck I'm talking to, I
am one of us /and/ you, sir, are most definitely not one of us.
>
> >There is a difference between misspellings and ommissions.
>
> Thanks for clearing that up, -H.
Always happpy to be of serrvice.
-H
>
> -hi-
>
>
Hieronymous707
>Date: 7/31/2004 6:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <onVOc.1478$V41...@news02.roc.ny>
>I have no idea who the heck I am talking to other than the very firm idea
>that he (your) is (are) definitely /not/ one of us.
No idea other than the very firm idea, huh? Have you ever considered the very
supple idea? I hear they come ... well, -hi-ly recommended.
>Oh, you may manage to slip by others who have no idea who you are
>but not me.
Yes, well, that was the whole point, wasn't it?
>IOW, yes on all three counts: I have no idea who the heck I'm talking to, I
>am one of us /and/ you, sir, are most definitely not one of us.
Okay ... I'm with you so far.
>Always happpy to be of serrvice.
And what fiine serrvice it is too.
-hi-
Horatio
"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@aol.commenting> wrote in message
> >From: "Horatio" qwer...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 7/31/2004 6:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <onVOc.1478$V41...@news02.roc.ny>
>
> >I have no idea who the heck I am talking to other than the very firm idea
> >that he (your) is (are) definitely /not/ one of us.
>
> No idea other than the very firm idea, huh? Have you ever considered the
very
> supple idea? I hear they come ... well, -hi-ly recommended.
No idea who I'm talking to other than . . . etc. Many other ideas, of
course.
BTW, firm and supple are not antonyms and something can be both, rather like
a piece of oil-clay.
No, I think the word you're looking for is "limp" and, no, I don't often
entertain ideas of that particular variety, although I have recently been
having some conversatons that could be accurately described as such.
>
> >Oh, you may manage to slip by others who have no idea who you are
> >but not me.
>
> Yes, well, that was the whole point, wasn't it?
If it was it was rather inelegantly approached, broached, breeched and
somewhat mishandled though I suppose that is the somewhat excusable nature
of points, no?
>
> >IOW, yes on all three counts: I have no idea who the heck I'm talking
to, I
> >am one of us /and/ you, sir, are most definitely not one of us.
>
> Okay ... I'm with you so far.
No, you're not, and that really is the point, now isn't it?
-H
Barbara's Cat
Knowing without doubt that you are an honorable and long standing member
of "us", I felt it dutiful to provide you this warning:
You are being HLSed into Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. Spit now!
Else you'll be asking "Hey, ya got any Excedrin?"
--
Cm~
Horatio
"Barbara's Cat" <c...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b7647e16...@news-60.giganews.com...
Well, Cat, seeing as you are a newly acquainted member you probably do not
recall the episode in which the cabal "acquired" a majority interest in the
ride thereby giving us certain exclusions and benefits and when the honorary
titles and privileges were bestowed upon myself (navigator of the concentric
shrub maze) Mr. Rinier (expert on the poppyfields and liaison to
horticultural affairs) Mr. Hammes (Chief Syzygeticist) and Mr. Houstman
(gets to brush and clean the tapirs).
So, as you can see, the "Enterprise" is strong and our interests are
well-protected and members are continuing to enjoy full membership benefits.
As for those who are not categorized as "one of us", well . . .
-H
Dale
Oh dear, a muckup on the motorway. I will try to be brave about the
flaying, but please excuse me if I flinch while you flench. All I ask is
that you leave me that small hectare of skin upon which I have tattooed
the combination to my underwater panic room. After all, gaucho, I gotta
have some place to run to when the Buster Brown Squad comes in through
the holes in my esteem-pod.
dmh
Dale
The candidates have to be clean, and the sacrifice isn't really
effective unless the offering will be missed.
dmh
Hieronymous707
>Date: 8/1/2004 12:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Is_Oc.1828$Ai6...@news01.roc.ny>
>No idea who I'm talking to other than . . . etc.
Excuse me. Connor's the name. It seems I've been talking about myself so much
lately that I forgot to pay attention to who was, or wasn't, listening.
>Many other ideas, of course.
Of course. That goes without saying.
>BTW, firm and supple are not antonyms and something can be both, >rather like
a piece of oil-clay.
Yes, absolutely. You made mention of the very firm idea. Very firm ideas are
often quite compatible with very supple ideas. My idea was simply that the
quality of suppleness might make your idea better. Of course, that's not to
suggest that there is anything intrinsically wrong with exclusively firm ideas.
>No, I think the word you're looking for is "limp" and, no, I don't often
>entertain ideas of that particular variety, although I have recently been
>having some conversatons that could be accurately described as such.
If I had been looking for a word like limp, I'd probably have found and used a
word like flaccid, but that's just me ... right now. And you're right, I
thought it was obvious that I definitely do not have a hard-on for you. I
guess some things just need to be said in order to clear the air.
>If it was it was rather inelegantly approached, broached, breeched and
>somewhat mishandled though I suppose that is the somewhat >excusable nature of
points, no?
I'm not really sure what all that means, but okay, sure.
>No, you're not, and that really is the point, now isn't it?
Like I said, I was with you up until that penultimate question. The suggestion
you made about the excusable nature of points and such had me a bit stumped,
but I'm certainly willing to go along with it because you make it sound both
firm and supple.
-hi-
Hieronymous707
>Date: 8/1/2004 1:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <MPG.1b7647e16...@news-60.giganews.com>
>You are being HLSed into Mr. Toad's Wild Ride.
The dog and the pony put on a good show.
Around, and around, and around they did go.
Sometimes they went fast, and sometimes they went slow,
but who pursued whom, and who's really to know?
>Spit now!
I see what you've suggested,
and with such this is involved.
If you knew what was "in jested",
then you'd know what's been resolved:
>Else you'll be asking "Hey, ya got any Excedrin?"
A new day breaks.
My coffee and cakes
substitute for champagne mimosas.
It's easy to follow.
Neither spit, nor a swallow
should suggest a pill popping nervosa.
-hi-
Horatio
"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@aol.commenting> wrote in message
> >From: "Horatio" qwer...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 8/1/2004 12:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <Is_Oc.1828$Ai6...@news01.roc.ny>
>
> >No idea who I'm talking to other than . . . etc.
>
> Excuse me. Connor's the name. It seems I've been talking about myself so
much
> lately that I forgot to pay attention to who was, or wasn't, listening.
Might I suggest a catchy, doggerel-filled .sig-file like:
The name is Conner, happy to meet yer
just another Usenent creature.
Yes, that is suitably horrible, I think.
>
> >Many other ideas, of course.
>
> Of course. That goes without saying.
and with saying, I might add.
>
> >BTW, firm and supple are not antonyms and something can be both, >rather
like
> a piece of oil-clay.
>
> Yes, absolutely. You made mention of the very firm idea. Very firm ideas
are
> often quite compatible with very supple ideas. My idea was simply that
the
> quality of suppleness might make your idea better. Of course, that's not
to
> suggest that there is anything intrinsically wrong with exclusively firm
ideas.
>
> >No, I think the word you're looking for is "limp" and, no, I don't often
> >entertain ideas of that particular variety, although I have recently been
> >having some conversatons that could be accurately described as such.
>
> If I had been looking for a word like limp, I'd probably have found and
used a
> word like flaccid, but that's just me ... right now. And you're right, I
> thought it was obvious that I definitely do not have a hard-on for you. I
> guess some things just need to be said in order to clear the air.
ahh, perhaps the phallacy occurred when you seemed to sugest supple ideas in
contrast to the rather firm ideas I tend to favor.
>
> >If it was it was rather inelegantly approached, broached, breeched and
> >somewhat mishandled though I suppose that is the somewhat >excusable
nature of
> points, no?
>
> I'm not really sure what all that means, but okay, sure.
you suggested that the whole point was to slip by people who have no idea
who you are to which I responded if it was . . .etc.
>
> >No, you're not, and that really is the point, now isn't it?
>
> Like I said, I was with you up until that penultimate question. The
suggestion
> you made about the excusable nature of points and such had me a bit
stumped,
> but I'm certainly willing to go along with it because you make it sound
both
> firm and supple.
You suggested you were "with us so far", but that would make you one of us,
which I am quite sure you are not though if it is indeed your whole point to
slip by those who have no idea who you are, I suppose you are consistent.
-H
>
> -hi-
>
>
Hieronymous707
>Date: 8/1/2004 11:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Bl8Pc.1549$ek....@news02.roc.ny>
>The name is Conner, happy to meet yer
>just another Usenent creature.
>Yes, that is suitably horrible, I think.
If you think that suit fits me, then you might well at least have spelled the
name correctly, or were you going to blame that on your keyboard too?
>ahh, perhaps the phallacy occurred when you seemed to sugest supple
>ideas in contrast to the rather firm ideas I tend to favor.
It sounds like your concept of a firm idea is a phallus ... see?
>you suggested that the whole point was to slip by people who have no >idea who
you are to which I responded if it was . . .etc.
Do you think there is any significant difference between asking a question and
making a suggestion? Can you tell what it is?
>You suggested you were "with us so far",
Rather than suggest, I said quite plainly, "Okay ... I'm with you so far."
For better or worse and for as long as this record stands in testament, we're
in this together, represented textually in conjunctive assimilation. If you
took my representation to mean that I meant I was ... or you were ... then you
are simply mistaken.
>but that would make you one of us,
Fortunately for you, there is only one of me.
>which I am quite sure you are not though
You started just hours ago with a very firm idea, and have progressed all the
way to being quite sure now. At this rate, you'll be damned well convinced
before you know it!
-hi-
Horatio
"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@aol.commenting> wrote in message
> >From: "Horatio" qwer...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 8/1/2004 11:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <Bl8Pc.1549$ek....@news02.roc.ny>
>
> >The name is Conner, happy to meet yer
> >just another Usenent creature.
>
> >Yes, that is suitably horrible, I think.
>
> If you think that suit fits me, then you might well at least have spelled
the
> name correctly, or were you going to blame that on your keyboard too?
The spelling and name are your choice, we don't want any lawsoots, do we?
>
> >ahh, perhaps the phallacy occurred when you seemed to sugest supple
> >ideas in contrast to the rather firm ideas I tend to favor.
>
> It sounds like your concept of a firm idea is a phallus ... see?
No, that was your suggestion. My suggsetion was a qualitative one and since
it was ideologically abstract it avoided that particular miasma you seem
mired in.
>
> >you suggested that the whole point was to slip by people who have no
>idea who
> you are to which I responded if it was . . .etc.
>
> Do you think there is any significant difference between asking a question
and
> making a suggestion? Can you tell what it is?
Most question contain suggestions. Do you believe those little question
marks make your statements syntactically "pure"?
>
> >You suggested you were "with us so far",
>
> Rather than suggest, I said quite plainly, "Okay ... I'm with you so far."
Which suggests that you are with us so far.
>
> For better or worse and for as long as this record stands in testament,
we're
> in this together, represented textually in conjunctive assimilation. If
you
> took my representation to mean that I meant I was ... or you were ... then
you
> are simply mistaken.
>
balderdash! The whole conversation has been an evaluation of the degree to
which you are one of us (which you are not).
> >but that would make you one of us,
>
> Fortunately for you, there is only one of me.
Why is that?
>
> >which I am quite sure you are not though
>
> You started just hours ago with a very firm idea, and have progressed all
the
> way to being quite sure now. At this rate, you'll be damned well
convinced
> before you know it!
A very firm idea and "quite sure" are synonymous.
-H
>
> -hi-
>
>
Hieronymous707
>Date: 8/1/2004 1:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <sq9Pc.1551$oL2...@news02.roc.ny>
>The spelling and name are your choice, we don't want any lawsoots, do we?
The weight of responsibility a bit rough on you these days? To repeat: -IF-
you think that suit fits me, etcetera, etcetera, and so forth.
>My suggsetion was a qualitative one and since it was ideologically
>abstract it avoided that particular miasma you seem mired in.
Your suggsetion was nothing less than fallaciously funny.
>Most question contain suggestions. Do you believe those little >question
marks make your statements syntactically "pure"?
Do you think I was suggesting they do?
>Which suggests that you are with us so far.
I'm glad you agree, finally.
>balderdash!
That's just nonsense.
>The whole conversation has been an evaluation of the
>degree to which you are one of us (which you are not).
An objective evaluation of this whole conversation, or of any constituent part
of this conversation, reveals to even the most casual observer just who's who,
and to what degree they or we are represented therein. Of course, being one of
us makes you virtually incapable of such objectivity.
>Why is that?
If there was more than one of me, then I would be us.
If I were us, then where would that leave you?
>A very firm idea and "quite sure" are synonymous.
If you say so.
-hi-
Horatio
"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@aol.commenting> wrote in message
> >From: "Horatio" qwer...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 8/1/2004 1:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <sq9Pc.1551$oL2...@news02.roc.ny>
>
> >The spelling and name are your choice, we don't want any lawsoots, do we?
>
> The weight of responsibility a bit rough on you these days? To
> you think that suit fits me, etcetera, etcetera, and so forth.
Well then, etcetera etcetera and so forth Conners.
>
> >My suggsetion was a qualitative one and since it was ideologically
> >abstract it avoided that particular miasma you seem mired in.
>
> Your suggsetion was nothing less than fallaciously funny.
My suggestion was brilliantly funny. Any fallaciousness is a result of poor
reading.
>
> >Most question contain suggestions. Do you believe those little >question
> marks make your statements syntactically "pure"?
>
> Do you think I was suggesting they do?
Yes!
>
> >Which suggests that you are with us so far.
>
> I'm glad you agree, finally.
I don't, I was merely reiterating your position. Do you find eading
challenging?
>
> >balderdash!
>
> That's just nonsense.
Exactly!
>
> >The whole conversation has been an evaluation of the
> >degree to which you are one of us (which you are not).
>
> An objective evaluation of this whole conversation, or of any constituent
part
> of this conversation, reveals to even the most casual observer just who's
who,
> and to what degree they or we are represented therein. Of course, being
one of
> us makes you virtually incapable of such objectivity.
What is the sudden interest in casual observers?
>
> >Why is that?
>
> If there was more than one of me, then I would be us.
> If I were us, then where would that leave you?
Exactly where I've always been. While it could be argued that the current
state of any system is dependent not only on the exact materialist
conditions but on the symbiotic relationship to the observer I am a
practitioner of Bhuddist techniques and my mindfullness renders me
impervious to your casual doubling or any cloning or doppelganger effects
you might be so inclined to produce.
And so on . . .
>
> >A very firm idea and "quite sure" are synonymous.
>
> If you say so.
>
You're catching on.
-H
> -hi-
>
>
Hieronymous707
>Date: 8/1/2004 2:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <XIaPc.1880$BR4...@news01.roc.ny>
>Well then, etcetera etcetera and so forth Conners.
Yes, well, I suppose that means me.
>My suggestion was brilliantly funny.
Yes, of course it was. Anybody can see that.
And if they can't ... well, at least you're here to point it out.
>Any fallaciousness is a result of poor reading.
Yes, yes, of course! I'm glad you pointed that out as well.
From now on, we'll know.
>Yes!
If most questions contain suggestions, and if you think I was suggesting that
question marks make my statements syntactically pure, then what do you think
this question is suggesting?
>I don't, I was merely reiterating your position.
Oh ... well ... fine.
>Do you find eading challenging?
Yes, of course I find eading challenging!
That's why I ead so much.
In fact, I find eading you challenging,
and I've enjoyed the eading challenge.
If I forgot to say tanks ... well, tanks.
>What is the sudden interest in casual observers?
Where do you get sudden all of a sudden? The perspective of the casual
observer is simply a perspective you can't afford to share. I really didn't
expect that to come as such an apparently sudden shock to you.
>Exactly where I've always been. While it could be argued that the current
>state of any system is dependent not only on the exact materialist
>conditions but on the symbiotic relationship to the observer I am a
>practitioner of Bhuddist techniques and my mindfullness renders me
>impervious to your casual doubling or any cloning or doppelganger effects
>you might be so inclined to produce.
>And so on . . .
So ... how long have you been doing impressions?
>You're catching on.
My grasp of the obvious is ... well, it's pretty obvious.
-hi-
Horatio
"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@aol.commenting> wrote in message
> >From: "Horatio" qwer...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 8/1/2004 2:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <XIaPc.1880$BR4...@news01.roc.ny>
>
> >Well then, etcetera etcetera and so forth Conners.
>
> Yes, well, I suppose that means me.
>
> >My suggestion was brilliantly funny.
>
> Yes, of course it was. Anybody can see that.
>
> And if they can't ... well, at least you're here to point it out.
Always happy to be of servvice.
>
> >Any fallaciousness is a result of poor reading.
>
> Yes, yes, of course! I'm glad you pointed that out as well.
( . . .)
>
> From now on, we'll know.
>
> >Yes!
>
> If most questions contain suggestions, and if you think I was suggesting
that
> question marks make my statements syntactically pure, then what do you
think
> this question is suggesting?
Why so hypothetical? Even if questions didn't contain suggestions (they do)
and I didn't think that you were suggesting question marks make your
particular questions syntactically pure (I do) my thoughts on what this
question is suggesting wouldn't change.
Fortunately, we never need to consider those particular hypothetical
situations, now do we?
>
> >I don't, I was merely reiterating your position.
>
> Oh ... well ... fine.
>
> >Do you find eading challenging?
>
> Yes, of course I find eading challenging!
> That's why I ead so much.
> In fact, I find eading you challenging,
> and I've enjoyed the eading challenge.
> If I forgot to say tanks ... well, tanks.
any good eading should be challenging, otherwise it's really not worth
eading at all unless, of course you are being paid to do so.
>
> >What is the sudden interest in casual observers?
>
> Where do you get sudden all of a sudden? The perspective of the casual
> observer is simply a perspective you can't afford to share. I really
didn't
> expect that to come as such an apparently sudden shock to you.
Just because I currently choose not to enjoy the benefits of casual
observation doesn't exile me to the realm of either casual or observational
poverty IYKWIM.
>
> >Exactly where I've always been. While it could be argued that the
current
> >state of any system is dependent not only on the exact materialist
> >conditions but on the symbiotic relationship to the observer I am a
> >practitioner of Bhuddist techniques and my mindfullness renders me
> >impervious to your casual doubling or any cloning or doppelganger effects
> >you might be so inclined to produce.
>
> >And so on . . .
>
> So ... how long have you been doing impressions?
It comes and goes. It's the reason I keep so many sock puppets.
>
> >You're catching on.
>
> My grasp of the obvious is ... well, it's pretty obvious.
obviously.
-H
>
> -hi-
>
>
Hieronymous707
>Date: 8/1/2004 3:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bHbPc.1881$sH7...@news01.roc.ny>
>Fortunately, we never need to consider those particular hypothetical
>situations, now do we?
...
What hypothetical situations?
...
Before you answer, forget I asked.
>Just because I currently choose not to enjoy the benefits of casual
>observation doesn't exile me to the realm of either casual or observational
>poverty IYKWIM.
Of course not. I mean, obviously not.
>obviously.
That's what I meant.
Whew. I'm glad that's settled.
So ... anyway, what's this I hear about a republican banana's walk before
breakfast, or some such? I jumped into this thread when it looked like someone
thought they were talking to me about my so called doggerel poetry. I really
haven't the vaguest idea what all else was being discussed up to then.
-hi-
Barbara's Cat
You keep changing the rules every other message
and it gives me a headache.
--
Cm~ (More vagabond than "one of us")
Hieronymous707
>Message-id: <MPG.1b7718bfe...@news-60.giganews.com>
>I don't want to play "Tag! You're It!" with you.
Yes, you do. You so -obviously- do. Ask anybody.
You wouldn't have said what you did if you didn't.
Problem is, you're just a little bit a 'fraidy Cat.
>You keep changing the rules every other message
>and it gives me a headache.
Alright, fine. Blame me. It's all my fault.
I'll take full responsibility.
Show me the rules, tell me what I broke,
and I'll fix or replace to manufacturer's spec.
>Cm~ (More vagabond than "one of us")
You're still one of us.
-hi-
Horatio
"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@aol.commenting> wrote in message
> >From: "Horatio" qwer...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 8/1/2004 3:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <bHbPc.1881$sH7...@news01.roc.ny>
>
> >Fortunately, we never need to consider those particular hypothetical
> >situations, now do we?
>
> ...
>
> What hypothetical situations?
>
> ...
>
> Before you answer, forget I asked.
You seem to suffer from "Trimmer's Desease". The malady coined by Dr. Jason
Trimmer where the infected insists on trimming an unneccessarily large
portion of every message.
>
> >Just because I currently choose not to enjoy the benefits of casual
> >observation doesn't exile me to the realm of either casual or
observational
> >poverty IYKWIM.
>
> Of course not. I mean, obviously not.
>
> >obviously.
>
> That's what I meant.
>
> Whew. I'm glad that's settled.
Yes although it does leave me with this bucket of extra words I.
>
> So ... anyway, what's this I hear about a republican banana's walk before
> breakfast, or some such? I jumped into this thread when it looked like
someone
> thought they were talking to me about my so called doggerel poetry. I
really
> haven't the vaguest idea what all else was being discussed up to then.
Actually, I haven't been following it very closely myslef other than to
notice it seems mostly political.
Dale was discussing politics and supporting personal views with genuine
facts and research and someone (Rusty?) was providing an embarassingly
naive political commentary that amounted to pretty much "I don't like Dale".
No big deal, if the buffoon had at least enough self-restraint to stop after
looking like a fool but the continuing deluge of uniformed monologue proved
quite tedious so I was suggesting perhaps he should consider shutting up.
As always happens when you try to help rabid dogs, the idiot snarled at me
something about doggerel and that pretty much seems to summon you like the
helpless queen of hearts in an act of legerdemain.
Sooo . . . anything else?
-H
>
> -hi-
>
>
Hieronymous707
>Date: 8/1/2004 4:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <nrcPc.1883$MS5....@news01.roc.ny>
>You seem to suffer from "Trimmer's Desease". The malady coined by Dr. Jason
>Trimmer where the infected insists on trimming an unneccessarily large
>portion of every message.
I'm not really suffering, thank you for your concern, and I'm sorry if my
trimming has caused any ill affect. I was probably just trying to get to some
point or other. Who remembers exactly which one now? ... Of course, that's
not a question I really expect you to answer.
>Yes although it does leave me with this bucket of extra words I.
If you're just looking to unload them, I'll be happy to take them off your
hands. No charge.
>Actually, I haven't been following it very closely myslef other than to
>notice it seems mostly political.
Yeah, it figures.
>As always happens when you try to help rabid dogs, the idiot snarled >at me
something about doggerel and that pretty much seems to
>summon you like the helpless queen of hearts in an act of legerdemain.
The summons, as it were, was purely happenstance. I just happened to be
passing through - right place & time, so to speak. More a matter of
coincidence than magic really.
>Sooo . . . anything else?
Nothing in particular, but sure ... I mean, I'm open to suggestions.
-hi-
Barbara's Cat
Hieronymous707 said:
> >From: "Horatio" qwer...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 8/1/2004 3:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <bHbPc.1881$sH7...@news01.roc.ny>
>
> >Fortunately, we never need to consider those particular hypothetical
> >situations, now do we?
>
> ...
>
> What hypothetical situations?
>
> ...
>
> Before you answer, forget I asked.
>
> >Just because I currently choose not to enjoy the benefits of casual
> >observation doesn't exile me to the realm of either casual or observational
> >poverty IYKWIM.
>
> Of course not. I mean, obviously not.
>
> >obviously.
>
> That's what I meant.
>
> Whew. I'm glad that's settled.
Watch. You are about to change the rules.
> So ... anyway, what's this I hear about a republican banana's walk before
> breakfast, or some such? I jumped into this thread when it looked like someone
> thought they were talking to me about my so called doggerel poetry. I really
> haven't the vaguest idea what all else was being discussed up to then.
See? Like I said. You keep changing the rules.
>
> -hi-
--
Cm~
Hieronymous707
>Message-id: <MPG.1b772ff14...@news-60.giganews.com>
>Watch. You are about to change the rules.
Okay, I'm watching.
>See? Like I said. You keep changing the rules.
No, I honestly don't see what is like you said.
What rules were changed?
Be specific.
-hi-
Barbara's Cat
Hieronymous707 said:
You just did it again! You made the rule:
> On 01 Aug 2004 20:51:35 GMT
> Hieronymous707 said:
>
> > You seem to suffer from "Trimmer's Desease".
> > The malady coined by Dr. Jason >Trimmer where
> > the infected insists on trimming an unneccessarily
> > large portion of every message.
and then you changed the rule.
--
Cm~
Horatio
That was actually me who mentioned the honorable Dr. Jason Trimmer. I
pretty much never trim unless it becomes overly tedious while -hi- seems to
trim away pretty much everything.
It's not a rule, just an observation.
-H
> --
> Cm~
Hieronymous707
>Message-id: <MPG.1b77412fa...@news-60.giganews.com>
>You just did it again! You made the rule:
>> On 01 Aug 2004 20:51:35 GMT
>> Hieronymous707 said:
>> > You seem to suffer from "Trimmer's Desease".
>> > The malady coined by Dr. Jason >Trimmer where
>> > the infected insists on trimming an unneccessarily
>> > large portion of every message.
>and then you changed the rule.
Huh?
...
You do know I didn't write that, don't you?
-hi-
Barbara's Cat
My error and I apologize to you, Horatio.
But still, I'll stand by my statements.
--
Cm~
Barbara's Cat
Hieronymous707 said:
Yes. And I have acknowledged it was my error.
Hieronymous707
>Message-id: <MPG.1b774ba0b...@news-60.giganews.com>
>My error and I apologize to you, Horatio.
>But still, I'll stand by my statements.
How very big of you, misdirected apologies notwithstanding.
-hi-
Hieronymous707
>Message-id: <MPG.1b774ecbb...@news-60.giganews.com>
>Yes. And I have acknowledged it was my error.
Yes, I read your apology.
>But still, I'll stand by my statements.
That takes real guts.
-hi-
Barbara's Cat
Hieronymous707 said:
My apology was directed correctly.
--
Cm~
Barbara's Cat
Hieronymous707 said:
Not really -- just a few pixels on a screen.
--
Cm~
Hieronymous707
>Message-id: <MPG.1b77517a5...@news-60.giganews.com>
>My apology was directed correctly.
Yes, of course it was.
My apology for suggesting otherwise.
-hi-
Hieronymous707
>Message-id: <MPG.1b7751d34...@news-60.giganews.com>
>Not really --
Good point. Wish I'd made it.
-hi-