From: kconvery@ioma.com (The Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Fri, Oct 26, 2001 10:25 PM
Here I am trying to get a good group hate going against
the first
people in YEARS who truly deserve it, and all you peace-at-all-costs
people who are masquerading as above-it-all cynics who
just KNOW this
was all a scam by the American government to create
a police state
just take all the FUN out of it!
Daryl Hall once opined that it's just as wrong NOT to
write a
commercial pop song if that's what you want to do, as
it is to write
one when it's not what you want to do. Having an unpopular
opinion
just to be contrarian about it is just as stupid as
having a popular
opinion so you'll be spared the effort of thought, or
so you'll fit in
down at the tavern, or whatever.
I find it difficult to believe, when you consider the
massive damage
this sneak attack has had and will have on the economy
(stupid),
including petroleum sales (air travel is down and so
are vacations in
general, so sales at the pumps are way down too), and
on our daily
lives (picked up your mail today?), and add to that
the gargantuan
expense of cleaning it up (a shitload of unemployment
checks and a
$15-billion bailout do not an Illuminati victory make),
that anyone
would advance the notion that it was conceived by us.
And I also find
it hard to believe that anyone would oppose the military
retaliation
in progress on the grounds that "civilians may
be hurt" (they already
have been, and I'm talking about American casualties,
the kind that
COUNT) or that "we created this guy" (patent
rubbish, he asked for
help and then he turned on us like the rabid dog that
he is) or that
"American servicemen will be hurt" (it's an
all-volunteer service,
which is, by all accounts including my friends in the
military, ready
and eager to fight) or that "there'll just be more
terrorism" (as
opposed to what if we don't respond?) or "then
we'll be just as bad as
they are" (ask any judge if it matters who struck
first in a fight;
they'll tell you it certainly does) or even for "all
war is wrong"
(tell it to the Taliban, sister) or "why don't
YOU go fight then, ya
pussy?" (I was poisoned against the military by
the Viet Nam era, as
were most of us. If this guy had been around when I'd
graduated high
school, it would have been a different story; now I'm
over the age
they'll accept, and when I point this out, I'm called
a liar, as if my
date of birth and military regulations can't be verified
by all you
whiz-bang neato-keen Usenet stalkers). I've been paying
taxes for
twenty years now, I'll demand service from the government
if I WANT
to. Some even say "we can't win this war,"
but if that's so, then why
have the Taliban offered not once, but three times since
the bombs
began falling on them, to turn bin Laden over if the
bombs stop
falling? Hardly the chest-pounding proud Muslim defiance
we'd heard
from them before. And I love this euphemism you're spreading
around so
thinly, "dissent." "There's no room for
dissent, we all have to fall
into lockstep with the war machine, poor us"--it's
funny that this
line comes most often from those who also believe that
Americans are
insular and know little about the world outside America.
It's ironic,
because in many countries, you could be disappeared
for saying, "This
country is intolerant of dissent!" If I've missed
anything, please
point it out to my sheep-like, herd-following ass. I'm
not ranting
here, and thank "Bob" for that, 'cause it
would be a pretty piss-poor
rant. I'm just trying to ascertain if there are any
objections to
current government military activity that are based
on something other
than the growing-very-stale "if America does it,
it must be Satanic."
Does anyone have the wherewithal to further this thread
without the
use of asinine, "you want blood then spill your
own" non-arguments?
All replies that fail to address my points directly
will be considered
concessions, and humiliating ones at that. And no, your
pseudo-snappy
faux-witty one-line reply doesn't change that. If you
feel like
plonking me, PLEASE DO SO, I hate that my words of wisdom
would be
wasted on the unappreciative, so plonking me would be
a favor to me.
This announcement has been paid for by Equal Time for
Warmongers,
copyright 8661.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>
In article <f9a02c0.0110261825.7716e86a@posting.google.com>,
The Bishop
<kconvery@ioma.com> wrote:
Okay, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, 'cause
I don't trust
anybody.
>
> I find it difficult to believe, when you consider
the massive damage
> this sneak attack has had and will have on the
economy (stupid),
> including petroleum sales (air travel is down and
so are vacations in
> general, so sales at the pumps are way down too),
and on our daily
> lives (picked up your mail today?), and add to
that the gargantuan
> expense of cleaning it up (a shitload of unemployment
checks and a
> $15-billion bailout do not an Illuminati victory
make), that anyone
> would advance the notion that it was conceived
by us.
The suspicion is that it was EXPLOITED by people here
(utilizing
dumbasses from There) who wouldn't have to PAY for any
of that, but
would in the long run make money off of it, or rather,
off its long
range repercussions. That may sound paranoid, and maybe
it is, but
there's nothing wrong with the MATH of it, so to speak.
The money they
HAVE actually, it's future power that is at stake.
And I also find
> it hard to believe that anyone would oppose the
military retaliation
> in progress on the grounds that "civilians
may be hurt" (they already
> have been, and I'm talking about American casualties,
the kind that
> COUNT) or that "we created this guy"
(patent rubbish, he asked for
> help and then he turned on us like the rabid dog
that he is) or that
> "American servicemen will be hurt" (it's
an all-volunteer service,
> which is, by all accounts including my friends
in the military, ready
> and eager to fight) or that "there'll just
be more terrorism" (as
> opposed to what if we don't respond?) or "then
we'll be just as bad as
> they are" (ask any judge if it matters who
struck first in a fight;
> they'll tell you it certainly does) or even for
"all war is wrong"
> (tell it to the Taliban, sister) or "why don't
YOU go fight then, ya
> pussy?"
I think the main objection from many people is that
they're afraid the
"War on terrorism" can't possibly be something
that ENDS, that the WTC
attack created a "reason" to do something
They were looking for an
excuse to do anyway -- basically nail down more control
over oil
supplies during the critical last decades before they
dry up and world
FREAKOUT ensues. Notice that it went from "we may
have to give up few
freedoms for a couple of years" to "this will
be a permanent change in
our way of life", in about a week. You'll probably
hear MORE dissent,
and not just from left wing college students. This is
the kind of thing
that also freaks gun owners, for instance.
Some even say "we can't win this war," but
if that's so, then why
> have the Taliban offered not once, but three times
since the bombs
> began falling on them, to turn bin Laden over if
the bombs stop
> falling? Hardly the chest-pounding proud Muslim
defiance we'd heard
> from them before. And I love this euphemism you're
spreading around so
> thinly, "dissent." "There's no room
for dissent, we all have to fall
> into lockstep with the war machine, poor us"
That's an exageration, but from the dissenter's point
of view, it is
frightening -- for the simple reason that dissenters
seem to be
outnumbered by "warmongers" by about 80 to
1. Depends on who you talk
to, though. Most people I talk to are doing a lot of
reading outside
the mass media, and like me are coming up honestly confused.
--it's funny that this
> line comes most often from those who also believe
that Americans are
> insular and know little about the world outside
America.
I can only speak for myself, but I had no INKLING how
insular I had
been until I traveled in other countries long enough
to get a feel for
what was up. China absolutely staggered me. I realized
1) how ignorant
we generally are about everything Asian and 2) how incredibly
much
worse Communism in Northern China was than even our
bleakest anti-Red
propaganda had depicted.
I had the crap shocked out of me coming AND going.
It's ironic,
> because in many countries, you could be disappeared
for saying, "This
> country is intolerant of dissent!" If I've
missed anything, please
> point it out to my sheep-like, herd-following ass.
You are absolutely right, we have enjoyed wonderful
freedom of Gripe
for a long time. We are richer than the richest kings
were during most
of the planet's history, in terms of pure creature comfort
and the
ability to do whatever the fuck we want -- WHEN WE'RE
CLOCKED OUT. Even
the KKK gets to be defended by the ACLU.
But that guy that's President isn't the one that got
the most votes,
and what's even worse is, if the other guy had "won,"
it probably
wouldn't have made hardly a lick of difference in the
long run.
We've seen how swiftly a seemingly rational population
can suddenly
turn. That "McCarthyism" stuff was for real
-- it really worked. Once
those seemingly small "rights" are taken away,
they're REALLY hard to
get back.
And we also don't KNOW how much is REAL any more. We
really don't. We
HAVE to be suspicious.
You'll notice that the right and left fringes are starting
to agree
with each other again... the conservatives are complaining
about this
sudden acceptance of "Martial Law" as much
as the liberals are. And
yet... and yet... somehow none of that burbles up to
the surface of the
6 oclock news or even the Enquirer.
I'm not ranting
> here, and thank "Bob" for that, 'cause
it would be a pretty piss-poor
> rant. I'm just trying to ascertain if there are
any objections to
> current government military activity that are based
on something other
> than the growing-very-stale "if America does
it, it must be Satanic."
It's a very teeny minority of the usual mopey mop-tops
who are that
ignorant of foreign affairs. They haven't learned that
ALL THE OTHER
COUNTRIES SUCK TO, AND MOST OF THEM SUCK WORSE (at least
they would
sure suck worse to THESE kids). You're stereotyping
dissenters. I'm a
flag waving super patriot AND I'm a dissenter, in that
I'm starting to
seriously question, "WHAT THE FUCK??!?"
Don't get me wrong, I want to personally see TORTURED
ON LIVE TV
whoever is responsible for those attacks AND any other
terrorist
attacks.
The problem is, when you pull back and look at what
the primates are
doing from a Patriopsychotic AnarchoMaterialist point
of view, you
start to whiff that There's Something Stinky in Dobbstown.
I'm afraid
SOME of these trails may lead back around to our own
secret dungeons.
SOME. FAR from all, and who knows, maybe it really IS
for our own good.
But it could also be that They're starting to decide
who gets to go IN
the Dome and who stays outside. And I guarantee, you
and me do NOT have
backstage passes to THIS dome.
>
> Does anyone have the wherewithal to further this
thread without the
> use of asinine, "you want blood then spill
your own" non-arguments?
> All replies that fail to address my points directly
will be considered
> concessions, and humiliating ones at that. And
no, your pseudo-snappy
> faux-witty one-line reply doesn't change that.
If you feel like
> plonking me, PLEASE DO SO, I hate that my words
of wisdom would be
> wasted on the unappreciative, so plonking me would
be a favor to me.
>
> This announcement has been paid for by Equal Time
for Warmongers,
> copyright 8661.
I haven't seen that Warmongers were having any trouble
getting air
time.
I find myself saying, "YAY! We're clobbering those
terrorist-harboring
bastards!!" but also thinking, "Funny, I do
belive this is EXACTLY
where BOTH sides of the Conspiracy wanted me -- TRUSTING
one of them."
You kinda HAVE to be partial to one and I'm partial
to der Fatherland,
needless to say. But I do NOT trust it and NOW is the
time to SAY so,
JUST... IN... CASE.
If our worries are groundless, then by god, I fretted
needlessly. I
don't want to hinder our soldiers, but I want to make
sure they have
the same old party atmosphere to return home to, and
not something out
of a Terry Gilliam movie.
Well... too late for that. But beware the savage jaws
of 1984, dude.
That could still happen, and POSSIBLY before 1998.
And AFTER that -- ROAD WARRIOR. Rock and stick could
replace rock and
roll for a THOUSAND YEARS. Let's hope that's one of
the things that's
being PREVENTED and not HASTENED. It's a cinch that
you or me ain't
gonna have much say in the outcome either way.
--
4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath
of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
A subsidiary of:
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc. / P.O. Box 140306, Dallas,
TX 75214
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com PRABOB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: It Isn't the Racism, It's the LACK of It,
That Makes alt.slack Suck
From: König Prüß, GfbAEV <saurkraut@weinerschnitzle.com>
Bravo!
I just read a bit called:
"Has Life Changed in US Forever?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2001Oct26.html
But yeah, the items and issues are very current and
salient.
One funny thing that I read recently was that there
are two kinds of panic
reactions: the fast kind, and the slow, stunned kind.
I am seeing a lot of the
slow, stunned kind. I heard Ashcroft saying that terrorist
will not be allowed
to overstay their visas by even one day! Will somebody
please shoot that
brain-dead bastard!?!? Why are terrorist getting visas
in the first place?
Prez Dubya countered the slap-dash efforts at dealing
with the ongoing
bioterrorism with, "Don't blame us! Blame the terrorists!"
What I _do_ blame
the government for is knowing for years that it was
not a matter of "if" but a
matter of "when"; well, when is NOW motherfucker,
and you've had plenty of
time to GET ready, and you still are NOT ready, and
NOT reacting in a
professional and competent manner.
I had a Somali lady for a while, she had been trained
to fly MiGs by the Cuban
Air Force. She used to have the Somali Defense Attaché
come by the house sometimes.
Remember when the US Army was chasing bin Laden around
in Somalia?
That turned out great, too.
At least I've gotten some training in working with
chemical warfare and am
certified to wear a Class "A" suit. So, if
you ever find any dark green 105 mike-mike
shells with three yellow bands on the base, just remember,
I told you so.
Or put your heads back up your asses and go back to sleep, everything's OK!
But thanks for pointing out that the old shit ain't
relevant at the moment.
The new shit might suit people even less than the old
shit.
"Has Life Changed in US Forever?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2001Oct26.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@home.com>
I think it's wrong to kill people. Actually, I think
it's wrong to kill any
mammal, bird, or fish. Insects I don't care about.
That includes all
crustaceans, but I still wouldn't eat any of them because
they are gross.
As for this here war, the point of it, as far as I understand
it, is to make
sure that nobody gets killed like that again by terrorists.
Now, here's
something I've never understood. We have stuff that
can knock people out,
immobilize them so that they could be captured without
anyone getting
killed. Not just gasses, which they can wear masks
to avoid (though I doubt
they have any, seeing as they're living like it's the
sixth century over
there) but also ultra-low frequency waves, microwaves
they can tune in to
different body parts, all kinds of stuff like that.
We also have that new
ray gun that makes people feel like their skin is burning,
lasers that can
blind people, spores that can make you dog-sick for
72 hours, etc.
We've had that stuff for a long, long time. But whenever
we decide that
somebody needs to be eliminated, we never use that stuff,
we always use the
lethal stuff instead. So all I can conclude is that
the main goal is not
actually to remove dangerous people from the world scene
and bring them to
civilized justice, what we really want to do is use
up a bunch of expensive
equipment, so some people can pay their buddies to make
a lot more of it,
and everyone in that set can line their pockets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
We spend huge amounts of money *trying* to make
incapacitating agents and toys that will disable
without killing, but the truth of the matter is
that 98% of that stuff doesn't work worth a damn.
The trouble is that incapacitation is very, very
close to dead. Tear gas is the best, because it
only takes a little bit. Vomit gas, unfortunately,
is both very carcinogenic *and* kills about 5-10%
of the time. Gases are also very difficult to use
when your opponent is using high explosive, or you
can't get real close. They are most effective
against civilians in the open.
High explosive results in 90% of non-disease combat
casualties. Not bullets or gasses or other stuff,
just good old fashioned HE. Field Artillerymen have
a huge collection of 'alternative' munitions available
to them, but use HE almost exclusively.
And then you have the problem of collecting the bad
guys before the "stuff", whatever it is, wears
off
enough for them to fight. If your people are wearing
masks--aww, geez is it hard to do anything while
wearing a mask.
The bottom line is that it is terribly hard to kill
someone, especially when they fight back, and while
it might be theoretically better to save their life,
doing that is way down the priority list. The US
does try, and yes, the other guys do notice that we
try; but even they accept the idea that in wars
human beings are killed. Que sera.
--
*
"Because you know you've encouraged the racism
here
soley for personal gain ("This'll be GREAT for
the
website and the Stark Fist!"), and you're feeling
the twinges of your long-atrophied conscience."
--Kevan something-or-other
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: It Isn't the Racism, It's the LACK of It,
That Makes alt.slack Suck
From: "Blackout" <blackout@404infomagic.net>
"Ricky Nielsen" wrote
> there wuz a sayin back in my yute "Killing
for peace is like fuckin
for
> chastity">
except I'd much rather wash off the latter type of bodily
fluids after
finishin' up a hard day's work at the pit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: It Isn't the Racism, It's the LACK of It,
That Makes alt.slack Suck
From: "ICEKNIFE" <iceknifeNOSPAM@lanminds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sat, Oct 27, 2001 1:04 AM
Please be nice. It's a small world, after all, and
it takes a
village to raise a child. You've got to give love to
get love, and
tomorrow is another day. Today is the first day of the
rest of your
life, you can't take it with you, and you can't get
there from here.
Open other side, REG.US.PAT.OFF., Let your love-lights
shine. Live
long and prosper. "Bob" bless the child who's
got his gnome. Love is
all you need. Only YOU can prevent forest fires.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: It Isn't the Racism, It's the LACK of It,
That Makes alt.slack Suck
From: "Michael W Crichton" <mwcrichton@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
The Bishop wrote in message ...
>Here I am trying to get a good group hate going
against the first
>people in YEARS who truly deserve it,
You referrin' to Bin Ladin? If so, hate on, more power
to ya. If you're
referring to the poor Afghan civilian schmucks on the
ground, well, they're
just in the wrong place at the wrong time. No good reason
to hate _them_.
>and all you peace-at-all-costs
>people who are masquerading as above-it-all cynics
who just KNOW this
>was all a scam by the American government to create
a police state
>just take all the FUN out of it!
>
Personally, I find the revenge-at-any-cost,
love-the-flag-or-get-the-hell-out-you-raghead-lover-you
newly-minted-pseudo-patriot civilian fuckheads MUCH
more annoying. Where the
hell was their "patriotism" two months ago?
>Daryl Hall once opined that it's just as wrong NOT
to write a
>commercial pop song if that's what you want to do,
as it is to write
>one when it's not what you want to do. Having an
unpopular opinion
>just to be contrarian about it is just as stupid
as having a popular
>opinion so you'll be spared the effort of thought,
or so you'll fit in
>down at the tavern, or whatever.
Well said, sir.
>I find it difficult to believe, when you consider
the massive damage
>this sneak attack has had and will have on the economy
(stupid),
>including petroleum sales (air travel is down and
so are vacations in
>general, so sales at the pumps are way down too),
and on our daily
>lives (picked up your mail today?), and add to that
the gargantuan
>expense of cleaning it up (a shitload of unemployment
checks and a
>$15-billion bailout do not an Illuminati victory
make), that anyone
>would advance the notion that it was conceived by
us.
Well, that's what makes it so _obvious_, man. The CON
is subtle, they are...
:-)
>And I also find
>it hard to believe that anyone would oppose the
military retaliation
>in progress on the grounds that "civilians
may be hurt" (they already
>have been, and I'm talking about American casualties,
the kind that
>COUNT)
Ah, but do two wrongs make a right? Are we to throw
out little things like
the Geneva conventions, because a bunch of weak-ass
civilians, who a few
months ago thought they were invulnerable, now realize
they aren't?
>or that "we created this guy" (patent
rubbish, he asked for
>help and then he turned on us like the rabid dog
that he is)
The second clause of that parenthetical statement doesn't
negate the
un-parentheticized part We DID support Bin Ladin. Without
us, he'd never
have grown to become a threat. What we _should_ have
done was either A)
Given the Afghani's the post-cold war aid we promised
them, in which case
the Taliban wouldn't have come to power, or B) Put a
bullet in Osama's head
when we were through using him.
>or that
>"American servicemen will be hurt" (it's
an all-volunteer service,
>which is, by all accounts including my friends in
the military, ready
>and eager to fight)
Well, I wouldn't exactly say "eager", personally
I hope to avoid it, but I
knew the risks when I signed away my soul in the first
place.
>or that "there'll just be more terrorism"
(as
>opposed to what if we don't respond?)
I think the point is that if we respond with too much
(or with misdirected)
force, then it will generate more terrorists than it
kills. Easy enough to
understand.
>or "then we'll be just as bad as
>they are" (ask any judge if it matters who
struck first in a fight;
>they'll tell you it certainly does)
Ah, but ask any judge if "He hit me first!"
is extenuating circumstances for
you shooting him, burning down his house and raping
his dog, and he'll say
no. There's this thing called "measured response"
which is oh-so-important
in these things. That said, I don't think there's too
much danger that we'll
go seriously overboard here; while there are many bloodthirsty
morons among
the civilian populace, most generals understand reality
well enough to avoid
pointless and stupid bloodbaths.
>or even for "all war is wrong"
>(tell it to the Taliban, sister)
Hey, if they believe war is wrong, they have a moral
duty to say so. Anyone
who stays silent about there beliefs right now is just
as much to blame if
things go wrong as us war-mongers are.
>or "why don't YOU go fight then, ya
>pussy?" (I was poisoned against the military
by the Viet Nam era, as
>were most of us. If this guy had been around when
I'd graduated high
>school, it would have been a different story; now
I'm over the age
>they'll accept, and when I point this out, I'm called
a liar, as if my
>date of birth and military regulations can't be
verified by all you
>whiz-bang neato-keen Usenet stalkers). I've been
paying taxes for
>twenty years now, I'll demand service from the government
if I WANT
>to.
And if other people have other demands, they're free to voice 'em too.
>Some even say "we can't win this war,"
but if that's so, then why
>have the Taliban offered not once, but three times
since the bombs
>began falling on them, to turn bin Laden over if
the bombs stop
>falling?
Ah, but they've also demanded we show them the evidece
against Bin Ladin.
Doing so would compromise any agents we may have in
place, and is thus a BAD
idea from our point of view. Absent that evidence, they
won't hand him over.
So, we have to do this the hard way.
>Hardly the chest-pounding proud Muslim defiance
we'd heard
>from them before.
No, they're saying the exact same things they've said
before. Trust me on
this, I listen to the news in Arabic, so I don't have
to rely on USA Today's
pathetically skewed coverage.
> And I love this euphemism you're spreading around
so
>thinly, "dissent." "There's no room
for dissent, we all have to fall
>into lockstep with the war machine, poor us"--it's
funny that this
>line comes most often from those who also believe
that Americans are
>insular and know little about the world outside
America.
Well, most Americans ARE clueless about international
affairs. That parts
true enough.
>It's ironic,
>because in many countries, you could be disappeared
for saying, "This
>country is intolerant of dissent!"
Beautiful irony, that.
> If I've missed anything, please
>point it out to my sheep-like, herd-following ass.
I'm not ranting
>here, and thank "Bob" for that, 'cause
it would be a pretty piss-poor
>rant. I'm just trying to ascertain if there are
any objections to
>current government military activity that are based
on something other
>than the growing-very-stale "if America does
it, it must be Satanic."
>
I'm annoyed with that sort of stupidity too. Alas, American
left-wingers are
just as stupid and herd-like as their counterparts.
Not meaning you
personally, BTW.
You seem bright enough.
>Does anyone have the wherewithal to further this
thread without the
>use of asinine, "you want blood then spill
your own" non-arguments?
Well, shure, I'd be delighted. Before you respond, please
note that I will
be going back into the Army shortly, as soon as they
get done with my
paperwork, so don't take my playing Peacenik's Advocate
to seriously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org>
In article <3BDA2CE5.846@succeeds.com>, nu-monet
<nothing@succeeds.com>
wrote:
> And then you have the problem of collecting the
bad
> guys before the "stuff", whatever it
is, wears off
> enough for them to fight. If your people are wearing
> masks--aww, geez is it hard to do anything while
> wearing a mask.
>
> The bottom line is that it is terribly hard to
kill
> someone, especially when they fight back, and while
> it might be theoretically better to save their
life,
> doing that is way down the priority list.
It's hard to even *subdue* somebody if they're fighting
back. I used
to have a lovely reactionary article called "Why
Cops Hate You," and in
it the author said that his reaction to people standing
around
declaiming brutality while three cops sat on somebody
and a fourth
tried to cuff him was, "You think you can do this
better, asshole? You
think you can get these cuffs on him without killing
him or breaking
all his arms and legs? Come over here and SHOW ME HOW."
I doubt he ever said it, but it does sum up the problem nicely.
--
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Disciple of Eris
Between .sig's
http://www.templeoferis.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org>
In article <nNpC7.34267$pb4.16791639@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>,
Rev.
Magdalen <magdalen@home.com> wrote:
>
> I think it's wrong to kill people. Actually, I
think it's wrong to kill any
> mammal, bird, or fish. Insects I don't care about.
That includes all
> crustaceans, but I still wouldn't eat any of them
because they are gross.
Reptiles? Sometime you must explain this fascinatingly
arbitrary system
to us.
> As for this here war, the point of it, as far as
I understand it, is to make
> sure that nobody gets killed like that again by
terrorists. Now, here's
> something I've never understood. We have stuff
that can knock people out,
> immobilize them so that they could be captured
without anyone getting
> killed. Not just gasses, which they can wear masks
to avoid (though I doubt
> they have any, seeing as they're living like it's
the sixth century over
> there) but also ultra-low frequency waves, microwaves
they can tune in to
> different body parts, all kinds of stuff like that.
We also have that new
> ray gun that makes people feel like their skin
is burning, lasers that can
> blind people, spores that can make you dog-sick
for 72 hours, etc.
Okay.
One, James Bond movies are not propoganda designed to
ready us for the
future. They are masturbation fantasies for the six
real men and
eighteen real women left in the Western world.
Two, just because you can buy it in the back of Popular
Science doesn't
mean it'll work when you put it together. Been getting
run over much at
the beach lately by people with WORKING HOVERCRAFTS
they assembled with
old vacuum cleaners?
Three, those ladies who write those letters about FBI
agents using
colored rays through modern heating and cooling technology
to influence
their minds? They're not science writers who just can't
get published.
They're *crazy.* Not in the good Las Vegas way.
I will grant you that some of the technologies you mention
do, sorta,
exist. But they're not real practical for using on dug-in
Talibananas.
F'r instance, the Soviets seem to have tried, and succeded
on occasion,
to use lasers to damage the eyesight of our troops when
they were being
observed. But even with a laser produced by a superpower
mounted on a
NUCLEAR SUBMARINE, you didn't go blind right away. It
was just your
retina gradually deteriorating rather boringly over
time. Would have
kept ME off Russki-watching detail.
I don't WANT them using those things, even if they do
have them,
because if they USE them, they'll get BETTER at it,
and then we *might*
have to fear FBI agents using colored lights on us through
our air
conditioners. But right now only SLAK and the Illuminati
have such
things, and the quieter they keep them, the happier
I'll be.
--
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Disciple of Eris
Between .sig's
http://www.templeoferis.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org>
Date: Sat, Oct 27, 2001 10:44 AM
In article <2irC7.98184$My2.53810536@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>,
Michael
W Crichton <mwcrichton@home.com> wrote:
> The second clause of that parenthetical statement
doesn't negate the
> un-parentheticized part We DID support Bin Ladin.
Without us, he'd never
> have grown to become a threat. What we _should_
have done was either A)
> Given the Afghani's the post-cold war aid we promised
them, in which case
> the Taliban wouldn't have come to power, or B)
Put a bullet in Osama's head
> when we were through using him.
Those are good points, but they don't support the proposition
about bin
Laden's not being a threat without us. He's a fanatic.
He's got lots of
other fanatics. And he's got hundreds of millions of
dollars. The
premise that he *needed* us for anything is laughable.
He did USE us -
and we let him, and then we abandoned the Afghans to
the tender mercies
of people like him - but he didn't NEED us and we didn't
"make" him
into anything.
--
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Disciple of Eris
Between .sig's
http://www.templeoferis.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Michael W Crichton" <mwcrichton@home.com>
In hindsight, I should have qualified my statement thusly:
"Without us, it's
_less_likely_ that he would have become _as_big_ a threat."
On the other
hand, maybe there's some alternate timeline where he
would have become even
more of a threat to life, liberty, and kinky sex if
we hadn't helped him.
Which doesn't change the fact that we did, nor does
it change the fact that
we pretty much abandoned our Afghani "freedom fighter"
allies after the cold
war, which generated lots of resentment, which made
it that much easier for
him to recruit.
>He's a fanatic. He's got lots of
>other fanatics. And he's got hundreds of millions
of dollars. The
>premise that he *needed* us for anything is laughable.
He did USE us -
>and we let him, and then we abandoned the Afghans
to the tender mercies
>of people like him - but he didn't NEED us and we
didn't "make" him
>into anything.
Well, that depends how you define the "Make".
We certainly contributed to
his success; whether he could have succeeded without
us is both unknown and
unknowable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: It Isn't the Racism, It's the LACK of It,
That Makes alt.slack Suck
From: "ICEKNIFE" <iceknifeNOSPAM@lanminds.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: It Isn't the Racism, It's the LACK of It,
That Makes alt.slack Suck
From: friday@fridayjones.com (Friday Jones)
It's the LACTATION!
--
"Bunch together a group of people deliberately
chosen for strong
religious feelings, and you have a practical guarantee
of dark
morbidities expressed in crime, perversion, and insanity."
--HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 10/4/30
Original file name: It Isn't the Racism, It's the L - converted on Thursday, 20 December 2001, 03:31
This page was created using TextToHTML. TextToHTML is a free software for Macintosh and is (c) 1995,1996 by Kris Coppieters