Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:23:12 GMT
--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>
>Look Doris! Another Nazi!
>
>Amazing what you find creeping around.
>
>Thanks for spelling it out so clearly for everyone, König.
>
>Now I know why you are not welcome here in the faterland, they drove
>you and your friends out. Now you're America's problem, I pity them.
>
>Anybody else want to out themselves?
>
>It seems like idiot Nazi pride day here in alt.slack.
>
>I guess when you have as little to be thankfull for in life as these
>guys, some hollow feeling of "racial superiority" is all you got.
>
>Now, tell me again what you think should be done with Jews and Blacks?
>
>Anybody else?
>
>If I keep drawing the pinks out of the woodwork like this, I'm sure
>I'll win the SubGenii of the year award and not only will Venture
>Communism be adopted as our official investment strategy, but DOBBS
>HIMSELF will reveal that he is both black, and a jew. Like Madonna.
>Only with a pipe. And better music.
>
Oy, Shlomo! Let's start a kibbutz in your pants!
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:29:36 GMT
--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>König wrote:
>
>> Look, nigger behave badly.
>
>So, why bother to look deeper, just lock them all up, or perhaps you
>would prefer they where all killed?
>
>You might call it the American holocaust, only that already happened
>against the natives, so it would have to be the American Holocaust, the
>sequel: Final Solution to the Slave problem.
>
>> I don't care why. It's not my job to fix it.
>
>Then why participate in this discussion? Just to express racist views
>and then shrug away criticism?
>
>> Jooz, 92% of them live in the world's top five
>> economies, what up wit dat? Like the gelt, do ya?
>
>Could the lack of a genocide against them in those top five economies
>have something to do with it?
>
>Before WWII what percentage of Jews lived in poor countires like Poland
>and the Ukraine?
>
>> Show me da bling-bling!
>
>I'm glad you acknowledge that the african-american culture is the most
>dynamic and influential one on the planet.
>
Where do you get that???
50 million schvartes a year are dying between famine, AIDS, and war,
and that's not fast enough for me! Dynamic? Moron! Where is their
ag and industrial base? They like loud music and bright colors.
They are genetically/culturally primitive.
What, you got a case of "Jungle Fever?"
Fine. OK. Noted.
My sociology text notes that the schvartzes are an underclass.
Not the dominant class. Dynamic? Sheesh! The tail don't wag
the dog. Nigger all goin' off about gettin' shot by the cops; shit!
They yell stop! you stop! or yo' dead nigger! Yo' got a prob wit dat?
Oh, my baby boy was dealin' drugs out of a stolen car and when
the cops said Yo! he tried to run over them so they shot his nappy
Sulphur-8 stinkin' ass! Oh, the humanity! Wo bist the social justice!
It's up yo' LA Joo-boy ass!
Nyuk, nyuk!
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 10 Feb 2005 08:39:04 -0800
--------
Congratulations. You win the creepiest scumbag award!
Yikes. Your life must be really pathetic to harbour so much hate
towards your obvious superiors.
Nazi schweine.
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:41:37 -0500
--------
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:45:21 -0800, Quirk wrote:
> I'm glad you acknowledge that the african-american culture is the most
> dynamic and influential one on the planet.
And a longstanding culture, too.
"32-20 Blues" by Robert Johnson (~1938)
Š(1978) 1990, 1991 Lehsem II, LLC/Claud L. Johnson
Administered by Music & Media International, Inc.
If I send for my baby
and she don't come
If I send for my baby
man, and she don't come
All the doctors in Hot Springs
sure can't help her none
And if she gets unruly
thinks she don't wan do
If she gets unruly
thinks she don't wan do
Take my 32-20 now and
cut her half in two
She got a 38 special but I believe its much too light
She got a 38 special but I believe its much too light
I got a 32-20, got to make the camps alright
If I send for my baby
and she don't come
If I send for my baby
man, and she don't come
All the doctors in Hot Springs
sure can't help her none
I'm gonna shoot my pistol, gonna shoot my Gatlin gun
I'm gonna shoot my pistol, gonna shoot my Gatlin gun
You made me love you
now your man has come
Ah-oh
baby where you stay last night
Ah-ah
baby where you stayed last night
You got your hair all tangled
and you ain't talkin right
Got a 38 special boys, it do very well
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 10 Feb 2005 11:15:48 -0800
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:45:21 -0800, Quirk wrote:
> > I'm glad you acknowledge that the african-american culture is the
most
> > dynamic and influential one on the planet.
> And a longstanding culture, too.
> "32-20 Blues" by Robert Johnson (~1938)
What is it you are trying suggest here Artemia?
Do you believe that Blacks are inherently violent? Sorry, if that's not
what you mean, please spell it out.
I mean, I love senseless SubGenii blathering as much as the next guy.
But sorry, I just don't find racism too funny.
Mississippi Goddam
Nina Simone, 1963
The name of this tune is Mississippi Goddam
And I mean every word of it
Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
Can't you see it
Can't you feel it
It's all in the air
I can't stand the pressure much longer
Somebody say a prayer
Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
This is a show tune
But the show hasn't been written for it, yet
Hound dogs on my trail
School children sitting in jail
Black cat cross my path
I think every day's gonna be my last
Lord have mercy on this land of mine
We all gonna get it in due time
I don't belong here
I don't belong there
I've even stopped believing in prayer
Don't tell me
I tell you
Me and my people just about due
I've been there so I know
They keep on saying "Go slow!"
But that's just the trouble
"do it slow"
Washing the windows
"do it slow"
Picking the cotton
"do it slow"
You're just plain rotten
"do it slow"
You're too damn lazy
"do it slow"
The thinking's crazy
"do it slow"
Where am I going
What am I doing
I don't know
I don't know
Just try to do your very best
Stand up be counted with all the rest
For everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
I made you thought I was kiddin'
Picket lines
School boy cots
They try to say it's a communist plot
All I want is equality
for my sister my brother my people and me
Yes you lied to me all these years
You told me to wash and clean my ears
And talk real fine just like a lady
And you'd stop calling me Sister Sadie
Oh but this whole country is full of lies
You're all gonna die and die like flies
I don't trust you any more
You keep on saying "Go slow!"
"Go slow!"
But that's just the trouble
"do it slow"
Desegregation
"do it slow"
Mass participation
"do it slow"
Reunification
"do it slow"
Do things gradually
"do it slow"
But bring more tragedy
"do it slow"
Why don't you see it
Why don't you feel it
I don't know
I don't know
You don't have to live next to me
Just give me my equality
Everybody knows about Mississippi
Everybody knows about Alabama
Everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
That's it!
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:34:25 GMT
--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>
>Artemia Salina wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:45:21 -0800, Quirk wrote:
>
>> > I'm glad you acknowledge that the african-american culture is the
>most
>> > dynamic and influential one on the planet.
>
>> And a longstanding culture, too.
>
>> "32-20 Blues" by Robert Johnson (~1938)
>
>What is it you are trying suggest here Artemia?
>
>Do you believe that Blacks are inherently violent? Sorry, if that's not
>what you mean, please spell it out.
>
>I mean, I love senseless SubGenii blathering as much as the next guy.
>But sorry, I just don't find racism too funny.
>
>
>
>
>Mississippi Goddam
>Nina Simone, 1963
>
>The name of this tune is Mississippi Goddam
>And I mean every word of it
>
>Alabama's gotten me so upset
>Tennessee made me lose my rest
>And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
>
>Alabama's gotten me so upset
>Tennessee made me lose my rest
>And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
>
>Can't you see it
>Can't you feel it
>It's all in the air
>I can't stand the pressure much longer
>Somebody say a prayer
>
>Alabama's gotten me so upset
>Tennessee made me lose my rest
>And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
>
>This is a show tune
>But the show hasn't been written for it, yet
>
>Hound dogs on my trail
>School children sitting in jail
>Black cat cross my path
>I think every day's gonna be my last
>
>Lord have mercy on this land of mine
>We all gonna get it in due time
>I don't belong here
>I don't belong there
>I've even stopped believing in prayer
>
>Don't tell me
>I tell you
>Me and my people just about due
>I've been there so I know
>They keep on saying "Go slow!"
>
>But that's just the trouble
>"do it slow"
>Washing the windows
>"do it slow"
>Picking the cotton
>"do it slow"
>You're just plain rotten
>"do it slow"
>You're too damn lazy
>"do it slow"
>The thinking's crazy
>"do it slow"
>Where am I going
>What am I doing
>I don't know
>I don't know
>
>Just try to do your very best
>Stand up be counted with all the rest
>For everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
>
>I made you thought I was kiddin'
>
>Picket lines
>School boy cots
>They try to say it's a communist plot
>All I want is equality
>for my sister my brother my people and me
>
>Yes you lied to me all these years
>You told me to wash and clean my ears
>And talk real fine just like a lady
>And you'd stop calling me Sister Sadie
>
>Oh but this whole country is full of lies
>You're all gonna die and die like flies
>I don't trust you any more
>You keep on saying "Go slow!"
>"Go slow!"
>
>But that's just the trouble
>"do it slow"
>Desegregation
>"do it slow"
>Mass participation
>"do it slow"
>Reunification
>"do it slow"
>Do things gradually
>"do it slow"
>But bring more tragedy
>"do it slow"
>Why don't you see it
>Why don't you feel it
>I don't know
>I don't know
>
>You don't have to live next to me
>Just give me my equality
>Everybody knows about Mississippi
>Everybody knows about Alabama
>Everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
>
>That's it!
>
Cut the crap! The onliest gawdam cotton you ever picked
was out of an aspirin bottle.
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:25:18 -0500
--------
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:15:48 -0800, Quirk wrote:
>
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:45:21 -0800, Quirk wrote:
>
>> > I'm glad you acknowledge that the african-american culture is the
> most
>> > dynamic and influential one on the planet.
>
>> And a longstanding culture, too.
>
>> "32-20 Blues" by Robert Johnson (~1938)
>
> What is it you are trying suggest here Artemia?
Anything that'll make your butt hole slam shut with righteous
indignation like a #4 double long spring leg-hold trap, because
I like the funny snapping sound it makes.
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 11 Feb 2005 05:23:25 -0800
--------
Please keep up the posturing, it makes it so obvious how much I've hurt
your poor little feelings by making a fool of you and your beloved
nu-nazi.
You guys are now positively obsessed with me, not an hour goes by with
your some shrill, desperate cry for my attention from one of you. PAY
ATTENTION TO ME QUIRK! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!! Over and over again. It's
like some kind of twisted grade school crush.
Face it, you posted trash, you got embarrassed, now you just keep
throwing every lump of shit you have at the wall hoping something will
stick. It wont. Every comment in our thread can be read by all, it is
painfully obvious neither of you ever had a point and never really
tried to make a point.
I'm sorry you are such a sore sport. Now get over it and move on.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:19:32 GMT
--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>
>Please keep up the posturing, it makes it so obvious how much I've hurt
>your poor little feelings by making a fool of you and your beloved
>nu-nazi.
>
>You guys are now positively obsessed with me, not an hour goes by with
>your some shrill, desperate cry for my attention from one of you. PAY
>ATTENTION TO ME QUIRK! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!! Over and over again. It's
>like some kind of twisted grade school crush.
>
>Face it, you posted trash, you got embarrassed, now you just keep
>throwing every lump of shit you have at the wall hoping something will
>stick. It wont. Every comment in our thread can be read by all, it is
>painfully obvious neither of you ever had a point and never really
>tried to make a point.
>
>I'm sorry you are such a sore sport. Now get over it and move on.
>
Well, today I'm back to believing that most economic theory/philosophy
is a load of crap, some fancy-dancing to obfuscate the issues, and mostly
a reason why you get all of the beans and I don't get any beans.
So, right after we take take W. Shakespeare's sage advice to
"first, kill all of the lawyers," we should then kill all of the economists
and bean-counters.
Then, trade the beans for a cow, preferably a cash cow.
Correspondent:: HdMrs. Salacia the Overseer
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:48:13 -0600
--------
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:19:32 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
wrote:
> Well, today I'm back to believing that most economic theory/philosophy
>is a load of crap, some fancy-dancing to obfuscate the issues, and mostly
>a reason why you get all of the beans and I don't get any beans.
>
> So, right after we take take W. Shakespeare's sage advice to
>"first, kill all of the lawyers," we should then kill all of the economists
>and bean-counters.
>
> Then, trade the beans for a cow, preferably a cash cow.
>
Voodoo Economics rulez
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:08:20 -0500
--------
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:23:25 -0800, Quirk wrote:
>
> Please keep up the posturing, it makes it so obvious how much I've hurt
> your poor little feelings by making a fool of you and your beloved
> nu-nazi.
>
> You guys are now positively obsessed with me, not an hour goes by with
> your some shrill, desperate cry for my attention from one of you. PAY
> ATTENTION TO ME QUIRK! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!! Over and over again. It's
> like some kind of twisted grade school crush.
>
> Face it, you posted trash, you got embarrassed, now you just keep
> throwing every lump of shit you have at the wall hoping something will
> stick. It wont. Every comment in our thread can be read by all, it is
> painfully obvious neither of you ever had a point and never really
> tried to make a point.
>
> I'm sorry you are such a sore sport. Now get over it and move on.
I typically write one or two sentence comments and you typically respond
to them with three or more paragraphs of blather. Seems to me that you
are the one clamoring for attention.
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: royls@telus.net
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:02:17 GMT
--------
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:32:15 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
wrote:
> I'm not going to go into the "why" of it,
Because you don't want to know the "why" of it. Right.
>but here in Virginia, Blacks constitute 20% of the population
>but commit some 60% of the murders. Thus, Blacks are 10x's
>more likely to commit murder than Whites. Who's the bad guy?
Maybe the bad guy are the facts that
1) land ownership is extravagantly subsidized, to the tune of about
20% of GDP (i.e., about as much money is given to landowners for doing
nothing each year as is spent in the entire federal budget),
2) African-Americans were in most jurisdictions forbidden to own land
until after all the good land was made the private property of whites,
so while African-Americans are 12% of the US population, they
currently own only about 1% of the total land value,
3) landowner privilege thus effectively makes black poverty
hereditary,
4) unless a black American male possesses a 1-in-1000 talent in
sports, entertainment, etc., his principal route out of poverty will
be by selling illegal drugs, in which which profession,
5) he will be spending most of his professional effort fighting
violent turf wars with other black drug dealers, which turf wars
account for the great majority of US murders.
-- Roy L
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:19:01 GMT
--------
royls wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:32:15 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not going to go into the "why" of it,
>
>Because you don't want to know the "why" of it. Right.
>
>>but here in Virginia, Blacks constitute 20% of the population
>>but commit some 60% of the murders. Thus, Blacks are 10x's
>>more likely to commit murder than Whites. Who's the bad guy?
>
>Maybe the bad guy are the facts that
>
>1) land ownership is extravagantly subsidized, to the tune of about
>20% of GDP (i.e., about as much money is given to landowners for doing
>nothing each year as is spent in the entire federal budget),
>
>2) African-Americans were in most jurisdictions forbidden to own land
>until after all the good land was made the private property of whites,
>so while African-Americans are 12% of the US population, they
>currently own only about 1% of the total land value,
>
>3) landowner privilege thus effectively makes black poverty
>hereditary,
>
>4) unless a black American male possesses a 1-in-1000 talent in
>sports, entertainment, etc., his principal route out of poverty will
>be by selling illegal drugs, in which which profession,
>
>5) he will be spending most of his professional effort fighting
>violent turf wars with other black drug dealers, which turf wars
>account for the great majority of US murders.
>
>-- Roy L
Yep, 999 out a thousand schvartzes are professional dope dealers.
Even I am not that racist.
Where da White wimmin at? Over at Cosby's house?
Yo, y'all!
Correspondent:: royls@telus.net
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:17:27 GMT
--------
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:19:01 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
wrote:
>royls wrote:
>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:32:15 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not going to go into the "why" of it,
>>
>>Because you don't want to know the "why" of it. Right.
>>
>>>but here in Virginia, Blacks constitute 20% of the population
>>>but commit some 60% of the murders. Thus, Blacks are 10x's
>>>more likely to commit murder than Whites. Who's the bad guy?
>>
>>Maybe the bad guy are the facts that
>>
>>1) land ownership is extravagantly subsidized, to the tune of about
>>20% of GDP (i.e., about as much money is given to landowners for doing
>>nothing each year as is spent in the entire federal budget),
>>
>>2) African-Americans were in most jurisdictions forbidden to own land
>>until after all the good land was made the private property of whites,
>>so while African-Americans are 12% of the US population, they
>>currently own only about 1% of the total land value,
>>
>>3) landowner privilege thus effectively makes black poverty
>>hereditary,
>>
>>4) unless a black American male possesses a 1-in-1000 talent in
>>sports, entertainment, etc., his principal route out of poverty will
>>be by selling illegal drugs, in which which profession,
>>
>>5) he will be spending most of his professional effort fighting
>>violent turf wars with other black drug dealers, which turf wars
>>account for the great majority of US murders.
>>
>>-- Roy L
>
> Yep, 999 out a thousand schvartzes are professional dope dealers.
>
> Even I am not that racist.
Too bad you are that stupid.
-- Roy L
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:34:24 GMT
--------
royls@telus.net wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:19:01 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
> wrote:
>
>>royls wrote:
>>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:32:15 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not going to go into the "why" of it,
>>>
>>>Because you don't want to know the "why" of it. Right.
>>>
>>>>but here in Virginia, Blacks constitute 20% of the population
>>>>but commit some 60% of the murders. Thus, Blacks are 10x's
>>>>more likely to commit murder than Whites. Who's the bad guy?
>>>
>>>Maybe the bad guy are the facts that
>>>
>>>1) land ownership is extravagantly subsidized, to the tune of about
>>>20% of GDP (i.e., about as much money is given to landowners for doing
>>>nothing each year as is spent in the entire federal budget),
>>>
>>>2) African-Americans were in most jurisdictions forbidden to own land
>>>until after all the good land was made the private property of whites,
>>>so while African-Americans are 12% of the US population, they
>>>currently own only about 1% of the total land value,
>>>
>>>3) landowner privilege thus effectively makes black poverty
>>>hereditary,
>>>
>>>4) unless a black American male possesses a 1-in-1000 talent in
>>>sports, entertainment, etc., his principal route out of poverty will
>>>be by selling illegal drugs, in which which profession,
>>>
>>>5) he will be spending most of his professional effort fighting
>>>violent turf wars with other black drug dealers, which turf wars
>>>account for the great majority of US murders.
>>>
>>>-- Roy L
>>
>> Yep, 999 out a thousand schvartzes are professional dope dealers.
>>
>> Even I am not that racist.
>
>Too bad you are that stupid.
>
>-- Roy L
If I was stupid, I'd think that the only choice schvartzes got is to be
sooper-stars or pro-dope dealers. Is a lot of your econ theory based
on drug dealing and pro-sports?
Correspondent:: royls@telus.net
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:25:34 GMT
--------
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:34:24 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
wrote:
>royls@telus.net wrote:
>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:19:01 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
>> wrote:
>>
>>>royls wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:32:15 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not going to go into the "why" of it,
>>>>
>>>>Because you don't want to know the "why" of it. Right.
>>>>
>>>>>but here in Virginia, Blacks constitute 20% of the population
>>>>>but commit some 60% of the murders. Thus, Blacks are 10x's
>>>>>more likely to commit murder than Whites. Who's the bad guy?
>>>>
>>>>Maybe the bad guy are the facts that
>>>>
>>>>1) land ownership is extravagantly subsidized, to the tune of about
>>>>20% of GDP (i.e., about as much money is given to landowners for doing
>>>>nothing each year as is spent in the entire federal budget),
>>>>
>>>>2) African-Americans were in most jurisdictions forbidden to own land
>>>>until after all the good land was made the private property of whites,
>>>>so while African-Americans are 12% of the US population, they
>>>>currently own only about 1% of the total land value,
>>>>
>>>>3) landowner privilege thus effectively makes black poverty
>>>>hereditary,
>>>>
>>>>4) unless a black American male possesses a 1-in-1000 talent in
>>>>sports, entertainment, etc., his principal route out of poverty will
>>>>be by selling illegal drugs, in which which profession,
>>>>
>>>>5) he will be spending most of his professional effort fighting
>>>>violent turf wars with other black drug dealers, which turf wars
>>>>account for the great majority of US murders.
>>>
>>> Yep, 999 out a thousand schvartzes are professional dope dealers.
>>>
>>> Even I am not that racist.
>>
>>Too bad you are that stupid.
>
> If I was stupid, I'd think that the only choice schvartzes got is to be
>sooper-stars or pro-dope dealers.
True. And because you indeed _are_ stupid, you think that someone
reading this might believe your claim that that is what I said.
>Is a lot of your econ theory based
>on drug dealing and pro-sports?
They are certainly part of the economy, and for most young black
American males, they are the principal prospective routes out of
poverty.
-- Roy L
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 22:00:18 GMT
--------
royls wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:34:24 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
> wrote:
>
>>royls@telus.net wrote:
>>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:19:01 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>royls wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:32:15 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not going to go into the "why" of it,
>>>>>
>>>>>Because you don't want to know the "why" of it. Right.
>>>>>
>>>>>>but here in Virginia, Blacks constitute 20% of the population
>>>>>>but commit some 60% of the murders. Thus, Blacks are 10x's
>>>>>>more likely to commit murder than Whites. Who's the bad guy?
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe the bad guy are the facts that
>>>>>
>>>>>1) land ownership is extravagantly subsidized, to the tune of about
>>>>>20% of GDP (i.e., about as much money is given to landowners for doing
>>>>>nothing each year as is spent in the entire federal budget),
>>>>>
>>>>>2) African-Americans were in most jurisdictions forbidden to own land
>>>>>until after all the good land was made the private property of whites,
>>>>>so while African-Americans are 12% of the US population, they
>>>>>currently own only about 1% of the total land value,
>>>>>
>>>>>3) landowner privilege thus effectively makes black poverty
>>>>>hereditary,
>>>>>
>>>>>4) unless a black American male possesses a 1-in-1000 talent in
>>>>>sports, entertainment, etc., his principal route out of poverty will
>>>>>be by selling illegal drugs, in which which profession,
>>>>>
>>>>>5) he will be spending most of his professional effort fighting
>>>>>violent turf wars with other black drug dealers, which turf wars
>>>>>account for the great majority of US murders.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, 999 out a thousand schvartzes are professional dope dealers.
>>>>
>>>> Even I am not that racist.
>>>
>>>Too bad you are that stupid.
>>
>> If I was stupid, I'd think that the only choice schvartzes got is to be
>>sooper-stars or pro-dope dealers.
>
>True. And because you indeed _are_ stupid, you think that someone
>reading this might believe your claim that that is what I said.
>
>>Is a lot of your econ theory based
>>on drug dealing and pro-sports?
>
>They are certainly part of the economy, and for most young black
>American males, they are the principal prospective routes out of
>poverty.
>
>-- Roy L
Yes, more's the pity!
But understand from the get-go, I don't like Blacks,
however there are some like Johnson from BET television
who parleyed his piece into an airline biz and whose current
net worth is in the billions, or the guy who was running
Cadillac's business. So, ain't every nigger got lint in
they head. But too, you might have seen the Spike Lee
film, "Do the Right Thing" where there's three coons
sitting on the street corrner across from an Oriental Mkt.
speculating about getting a business like that, but conclude
that they probably never will. Why do the new Oriental immigrants
do it and the AfroAms don't? Because they haven't been beaten
down like mongrel dogs and had their spirits broken?
I dunno, but I don't think as a contractor that I should be back-charged
for bullshit labor. Put out, or get out!
Jackals and Arabs
Franz Kafka
Schakale und Araber
1917
We were camping in the oasis. My companions were asleep. The tall, white figure of an
Arab passed by; he had been seeing to the camels and was on his way to his own sleeping
place. I threw myself on my back in the grass; I tried to fall asleep; I could not; a
jackal howled in the distance; I sat up again. And what had been so far away was all at
once quite near. Jackals were swarming round me, eyes gleaming dull gold and vanishing
again, lithe bodies moving nimbly and rhythmically, as if at the crack of a whip. One jackal
came from behind me, nudging right under my arm, pressing against me, as if he needed
my warmth, and then stood before me and spoke to me almost eye to eye. "I am the
oldest jackal far and wide. I am delighted to have met you here at last. I had almost
given up hope, since we have been waiting endless years for you; my mother waited for
you, and her mother, and all our fore-mothers right back to the first mother of all the
jackals. It is true, believe me!" "That is surprising," said I, forgetting to kindle the pile
of firewood which lay ready to smoke away jackals, "that is very surprising for me to
hear. It is by pure chance that I have come here from the far North, and I am making
only a short tour of your country. What do you jackals want, then?" As if emboldened by
this perhaps too friendly inquiry the ring of jackals closed in on me; all were panting and
openmouthed.
"We know," began the eldest, "that you have come from the North; that is just what we
base our hopes on. You Northerners have the kind of intelligence that is not to be found
among Arabs. Not a spark of intelligence, let me tell you, can be struck from their cold
arrogance. They kill animals for food, and carrion they despise." "Not so loud," said I,
"there are Arabs sleeping near by."
"You are indeed a stranger here," said the jackal, "or you would know that never in the
history of the world has any jackal been afraid of an Arab. Why should we fear them? Is
it not misfortune enough for us to be exiled among such creatures?"
"Maybe, maybe," said I, "matters so far outside my province I am not competent to
judge; it seems to me a very old quarrel; I suppose it's in the blood, and perhaps will only
end with it."
"You are very clever," said the old jackal; and they all began to pant more quickly; the air
pumped out of their lungs although they were standing still; a rank smell which at times I
had to set my teeth to endure streamed from their open jaws, "you are very clever; what
you have just said agrees with our old tradition. So we shall draw blood from them and the
quarrel will be over." "Oh!" said I, more vehemently than I intended, "they'll defend
themselves; they'll shoot you down in dozens with their muskets."
"You misunderstand us," said he, "a human failing which persists apparently even in the far
North. We're not proposing to kill them. All the water in the Nile couldn't cleanse us of
that. Why, the mere sight of their living flesh makes us turn tail and flee into cleaner
air, into the desert, which for that very reason is our home."
And all the jackals around, including many newcomers from farther away, dropped their
muzzles between their forelegs and wiped them with their paws; it was as if they were
trying to conceal a disgust so overpowering that I felt like leaping over their heads to get
away.
"Then what are you proposing to do?" I asked, trying to rise to my feet; but I could not
get up; two young beasts behind me had locked their teeth through my coat and shirt; I
had to go on sitting. "These are your trainbearers," explained the old jackal, quite
seriously, "a mark of honor." "They must let go!" I cried, turning now to the old jackal,
now to the youngsters. "They will, of course," said the old one, "if that is your wish. But
it will take a little time, for they have got their teeth well in, as is our custom, and must
first loosen their jaws bit by bit. Meanwhile, give ear to our petition." "Your conduct
hasn't exactly inclined me to grant it," said I. "Don't hold it against us that we are
clumsy," said he, and now for the first time had recourse to the natural plaintiveness of
his voice, "we are poor creatures, we have nothing but our teeth; whatever we want to
do, good or bad, we can tackle it only with our teeth." "Well, what do you want?" I
asked, not much mollified.
"Sir," he cried, and all the jackals howled together; very remotely it seemed to resemble
a melody. "Sir, we want you to end this quarrel that divides the world. You are exactly
the man whom our ancestors foretold as born to do it. We want to be troubled no more
by Arabs; room to breathe; a skyline cleansed of them; no more bleating of sheep knifed
by an Arab; every beast to die a natural death; no interference till we have drained the
carcass empty and picked its bones clean. Cleanliness, nothing but cleanliness is what we
want" - and now they were all lamenting and sobbing - "how can you bear to live in such a
world, O noble heart and kindly bowels? Filth is their white; filth is their black; their
beards are a horror; the very sight of their eye sockets makes one want to spit; and
when they lift an arm, the murk of hell yawns in the armpit. And so, sir, and so, dear
sir, by means of your all-powerful hands slit their throats through with these scissors!"
And in answer to a jerk of his head a jackal came trotting up with a small pair of sewing
scissors, covered with ancient rust, dangling from an eyetooth.
"Well, here's the scissors at last, and high time to stop!" cried the Arab leader of our
caravan who had crept upwind towards us and now cracked his great whip.
The jackals fled in haste, but at some little distance rallied in a close huddle, all the
brutes so tightly packed and rigid that they looked as if penned in a small fold girt by
flickering will-o'-the-wisps. "So, you've been treated to this entertainment too, sir," said
the Arab, laughing as gaily as the reserve of his race permitted. "You know, then, what
the brutes are after?" I asked. "Of course," said he, "it's common knowledge; so long as
Arabs exist, that pair of scissors goes wandering through the desert and will wander with
us to the end of our days. Every European is offered it for the great work; every
Europeans is just the man that Fate has chosen for them. They have the most lunatic
hopes, these beasts; they're just fools, utter fools. That's why we like them; they are
our dogs; finer dogs than any of yours. Watch this, now, a camel died last night and I
have had it brought here." Four men came up with the heavy carcass and threw it down
before us. It had hardly touched the ground before the jackals lifted up their voices. As
if irresistibly drawn by cords each of them began to waver forward, crawling on his belly.
They had forgotten the Arabs, forgotten their hatred, the all-obliterating immediate
presence of the stinking carrion bewitched them. One was already at the camel's throat,
sinking his teeth straight into an artery. Like a vehement small pump endeavoring with as
much determination as hopefulness to extinguish some raging fire, every muscle in his body
twitched and labored at the task. In a trice they were all on top of the carcass, laboring
in common, piling mountain-high. And now the caravan leader leashed his cutting whip
crisscross over their backs. They lifted their heads; half swooning in ecstasy; saw the
Arabs standing before them; felt the sting of the whip on their muzzles; leaped and ran
backwards a stretch. But the camel's blood was already lying in pools, reeking to heaven,
the carcass was torn wide open in many places. They could not resist it; they were back
again; once more the leader lifted his whip; I stayed his arm.
"You are right, sir," said he, "we'll leave them to their business; besides, it's time to
break camp. Well, you've seen them. Marvelous creatures, aren't they? And how they
hate us!"
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:18:26 -0500
--------
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:42:08 -0800, Quirk wrote:
> That's the sort of [...] rant I was hoping for.
It must be heartening to see that your carefully drafted
plan for a Utopian paradise wound up having no more value
than a mundane usenet troll.
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 10 Feb 2005 03:59:04 -0800
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:42:08 -0800, Quirk wrote:
> > That's the sort of [...] rant I was hoping for.
> It must be heartening to see that your carefully drafted
> plan for a Utopian paradise wound up having no more value
> than a mundane usenet troll.
Thank you Artemia, there is no higher form of art then utopian usenet
trolling. You flatter me.
Agitate. Educate. Organize.
Tootles.
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:19:59 -0500
--------
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:59:04 -0800, Quirk wrote:
> Thank you Artemia, there is no higher form of art then utopian usenet
> trolling. You flatter me.
With nu-monet's knee on your neck you manage to croak out, "I WAS ONLY
KIDDING! GLURPG!!"
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 10 Feb 2005 11:01:14 -0800
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
> With nu-monet's knee on your neck you manage to croak out, "I WAS
ONLY
> KIDDING! GLURPG!!"
Is this some fantasy you are sharing with us?
Thankfully nu-nazi has never touched me, if you want to wrestle with
him, joke and "glurpg," he's all yours.
If you go for the Nazi type, perhaps you may want include KönigPruß
too, since you seem to be bending over backwards to ingratiate yourself
with the hatefilled, violence loving and intolerant crowd.
After they agree on wether it is the Jews, The Blacks, or The
"Communists" they would kill first, you can help them blow off some
pent-up frustration with some quick, clumbsy, angry, cold, sex.
It would help them though, might dampen their murderous fever.
I'm a little surprised you'd be into it, but hey, I admire the mercy.
By the way, I guess you missed my comment regarding Richard Nixon and
the US Dollar. This really the key to understanding his legacy. Which
is, as of today, a US Dollar worth .77 Euros, and falling, with no end
in sight.
Sorry for the tangent, but since this thread has been crossposted to
sci.econ, I though I'd add some relevant content.
Hope you're feeling better soon.
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:13:02 -0500
--------
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:01:14 -0800, Quirk wrote:
>
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>
>> With nu-monet's knee on your neck you manage to croak out, "I WAS
> ONLY
>> KIDDING! GLURPG!!"
>
> Is this some fantasy you are sharing with us?
>
> Thankfully nu-nazi has never touched me, if you want to wrestle with
> him, joke and "glurpg," he's all yours.
Oh, I see. You're taking me literally in order to set up a straw man.
How "artful" of you.
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 10 Feb 2005 11:22:09 -0800
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
> Oh, I see. You're taking me literally in order to set up a straw man.
> How "artful" of you.
A "straw man"... usually that term is used in the context of a logical
debate, if you posted a logical argument somewhere, and I missed it,
please cite it. You posted nonsense, you got back ridicule. What did
you expect?
Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:33:56 -0800
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:01:14 -0800, Quirk wrote:
>
> >
> > Artemia Salina wrote:
> >
> >> With nu-monet's knee on your neck you manage to croak out, "I WAS
> > ONLY
> >> KIDDING! GLURPG!!"
> >
> > Is this some fantasy you are sharing with us?
> >
> > Thankfully nu-nazi has never touched me, if you want to wrestle with
> > him, joke and "glurpg," he's all yours.
>
> Oh, I see. You're taking me literally in order to set up a straw man.
> How "artful" of you.
>
Ever notice how people whose sole knowledge of logical fallacies is the
term "straw man" almost always use it incorrectly?
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:48:03 -0500
--------
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:33:56 -0800, nenslo wrote:
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:01:14 -0800, Quirk wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Artemia Salina wrote:
>> Oh, I see. You're taking me literally in order to set up a straw man.
>> How "artful" of you.
>>
>
> Ever notice how people whose sole knowledge of logical fallacies is the
> term "straw man" almost always use it incorrectly?
Yeah, the idiots!
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:20:50 -0500
--------
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:48:03 -0500, Artemia Salina wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:33:56 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>> Ever notice how people whose sole knowledge of logical fallacies is the
>> term "straw man" almost always use it incorrectly?
>
> Yeah, the idiots!
Oh, P.S. Those who don't want to be DUMMIES about what a
straw man is should look here:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:04:30 GMT
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:48:03 -0500, Artemia Salina wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:33:56 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>
>>> Ever notice how people whose sole knowledge of logical fallacies is the
>>> term "straw man" almost always use it incorrectly?
>>
>> Yeah, the idiots!
>
>Oh, P.S. Those who don't want to be DUMMIES about what a
>straw man is should look here:
>
>http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html
>
>--
...or the subtle variation, "The Muffler Man"
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/muffler/
Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:05:30 -0800
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:48:03 -0500, Artemia Salina wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:33:56 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>
> >> Ever notice how people whose sole knowledge of logical fallacies is the
> >> term "straw man" almost always use it incorrectly?
> >
> > Yeah, the idiots!
>
> Oh, P.S. Those who don't want to be DUMMIES about what a
> straw man is should look here:
>
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html
Those who don't want to be dummies should learn about all the other
logical fallacies, and then not use them.
Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:53:40 -0800
--------
quirk@syntac.net wrote:
>
> Here is nu-nazi blowing a gasket, yet again, in yet another delusional,
> idiotic rant remarkable only for its complete lack of any reference to
> anything I have ever said, its sheer stupidity, and its devout fascism.
>
> If anybody doubted thus guy was a Nazi, all they need to do is read his
> words, "hate hate commie commie your kind kill kill" over and over
> again, ad nauseum. No logic. No humour. Just mindless hate.
Okay, yes, we know, so shut up about it.
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 9 Feb 2005 06:34:37 -0800
--------
nenslo wrote:
> Okay, yes, we know, so shut up about it.
Forgive me, I understand that most of you have killfiled him long ago
and that I am only amplifying to his ability to make noise by
responding to him. I will try to stop. But the temptation to make a
public farce of such an idiot is strong, and the flesh is weak.
Ok, fuck the fancy moral philosophication, sometime I get bored. Ok?
Damn, what do you want me to do with my computer, actually get some
work done?
Correspondent:: "Blackout"
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:28:29 -0700
--------
"Quirk" wrote
> Damn, what do you want me to do with my computer
drop it in the bathtub with you the next time you're making eggdrop soup.
jesus fucking flaming shit mopping jizzbucket christ this motherfucker is
boring, why haven't you people killed him yet?
Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:32:14 -0800
--------
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:28:29 -0700, "Blackout"
wrote:
>
>"Quirk" wrote
>
>> Damn, what do you want me to do with my computer
>
>drop it in the bathtub with you the next time you're making eggdrop soup.
>
>jesus fucking flaming shit mopping jizzbucket christ this motherfucker is
>boring, why haven't you people killed him yet?
>
you know quirk, plus abouit three or four other painfully boring
idiots who all popped up at about the same time, were all in my
killfile already from some time long past.
I guess everybody else uses the "killfile for 30 days" option and then
when these same idiots come back a year later (and they always do) and
they are just as stupid as they were before (and they always are) it
is like a completely new experience to the alt.slackers at large
kind of like they say a goldfish has such a short memory that every
time it swims around it's bowl and back to where it started, it's like
it's seeing something completely new.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver (Psalm 50:22)
- A short message from your loving God
Correspondent:: "Revi Shankar"
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:48:31 -0500
--------
> kind of like they say a goldfish has such a short memory that every
> time it swims around it's bowl and back to where it started, it's like
> it's seeing something completely new.
That might have a downside. Geeze, ya could get lost just by standing still.
Correspondent:: "Revi Shankar"
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:15:59 -0500
--------
Hey! Uncanny, this is my daily affirmation!
> All I am doing is validating what you really know about
> yourself: that you *are* inadequate, *and* that your
> self-hatred is justified, *and* you *should* remind
> yourself of what a disgusting piece of filth you are
> on a frequent basis.
>
> You will *never*, *EVER*, get what you want. So I
> laugh at you. Most of the world itself stands against
> you, and each and every day, more and more people rise
> up against your philosophy and tear another brick from
> your prison walls. Your world does not get stronger,
> it crumbles.
>
> You have no part of the future. Just die.
Life is much better when one has a clear grasp of reality.
--
"All in all, you are a very dying race,
Placing trust upon a cruel world.
You've never had the things you thought you should have had,
and you'll not get them now,
and,
all the while,
in perfect time,
your tears are falling on the ground."
Correspondent:: Rev DJ Epoch
Date: 11 Feb 2005 13:15:19 GMT
--------
quirk@syntac.net wrote in news:1107863228.011979.46890
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
>
>> Oh, yeah, and fuck you for calling me a Nazi.
>
> Unlike you with your endless nonsense, I can justify why I call you a
> Nazi.
>
> Each one of these statements and many more Nazi traits of yours can be
> proven by citing your own words.
>
> Top 10 reasons why YOU ARE a Nazi.
>
> 10- you are motivated by hatred, not by any engagement with actual
> arguments or people.
>
Your hatred of nu-mo would seem to put you in the same category.
> 9- your arguments are based upon fallacy and personal
> characterizations, unsubstantiated labels you place on others in order
> to justify your hatred.
"Personal charaterizations, unsubstantiated labels you place on others in
order to justify your hatred." ... as in calling someone "Nazi"? The pot
seems to call the kettle black here.
>
> 8- your are humourless.
>
Ding! Yet another shared trait.
> 7- you characterize any issue as "us" versus "them," including anyone
> you hate in the "them" category and glorifying violence against "their
> kind."
>
Ah, and your hate of "Nazis" somehow shields YOU from this? Batting three
for three there, Sparky.
> 6- you question the legitimacy of the belonging of the target of your
> hatred based upon your unsubstantiated labeling.
>
Make that four for four.
> 5- you glorify violence against people for expressing their opinions.
>
Well, sofar you haven't crossed THIS threshold... at least when it comes to
physical violence. Some would argue calling anyone "Nazi" is in itself an
act of verbal violence. Words can inflame emotions...
> 4- you ignore what the target of your hatred actually says, you never
> cite their arguments, instead you mindlessly spew yet more hatefull
> invective.
>
Ah, so constantly replying to "nu-nazi" isn't just mindlessly spewing yet
more hatefull invectives. Five out of six so far.
> 3- you are constantly trying create unsubstantiated connections
> between who are you arguing with and some outside party, for the
> purposes of justifying hatred and ignoring the actual arguments
> presented.
>
Ah yes, it's that nagging "Nazification" of your sparring partner again. 6
for 7.
> 2- you present a biased and ignorant view of history to justify your
> hatred.
>
"Anyway, Richard Nixon began the era of fiat money and US Dollar
Hegemony that sent the US on the road to its current trade deficit
crisis, under the weight of which your economy and is currently, and
spectacularly, collapsing, inspiring your ruling elite into desperate
acts of foreign adventurism and dangerous geostrategical games you can
not win in the long run."
Ahh, we DID have a period in there when we not only had narrowed the trade
deficit, but also had zero national debt with a SURPLUS. Oh...sorry, that
was during the Democrats regime... forgot to keep it on the "hate the
Republicans" path. Naggling little thing when someone "forgets" little
details while painting a broad picture with a spraygun.
Oh... 7 for 8.
> 1- you endlessly repeat the same defeated arguments over and over
> again, only adding more name calling and invective as if increasing
> your hatred somehow makes a point.
>
Once again... the labelling of your debate partner "nu-nazi" makes you
exempt from this point? You're making his side look better every minute.
8 out of nine.
>> I've lots of relatives who fought the Nazis
>
> How ironic then that you should be such a dedicated Nazi coward then,
> you must be a great disappointment to them.
>
...and the final score, NINE out of TEN! Why sir, you've rated yourself
90% PURE NAZI! CONGRATULATIONS! By your own standards you're ONE OF THEM!
--
12th Epochalyptic MegaFisTemple Dungeon of The Church of Our Lady of
Perpetual Motion
Cathedral, Carwash and Dancehall- Home of the Traci Lords Memorial Brothel
Rev. DJ Epoch - proprietor and janitor
Divine Southern Redneck Yeti Clench Recruitment site: http://revdjepoch.COM
"Yeah yeah. It's all fun and games until someone ingests a quantum
singularity and implodes!!"
-- DJ Epoch
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 11 Feb 2005 06:20:02 -0800
--------
Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
> quirk@syntac.net wrote:
> > 10- you are motivated by hatred, not by any engagement with actual
> > arguments or people.
> Your hatred of nu-mo would seem to put you in the same category.
Wrong.
I don't hate nu-nazi, unlike his many rants, I have never once said
that either him or "his kind" should be murdered, turtured, etc, I have
even frequently said that he is welcome to express his views.
I have never even responded to a single post he has made except those
that are in response to, or about, me. Were's the hate?
> > 9- your arguments are based upon fallacy and personal
> > characterizations, unsubstantiated labels you place on others in
order
> > to justify your hatred.
> "Personal charaterizations, unsubstantiated labels you place on
others in
> order to justify your hatred." ... as in calling someone "Nazi"? The
pot
> seems to call the kettle black here.
Sorry. Wrong again. My calling him a nazi was in //response// to him
expressing nazi beliefs, which I have //substantiated.// Best expressed
by his many calls for death to "my kind" and gloryfication of violence
and murder again people who "hold my beliefs."
> > 8- your are humourless.
> Ding! Yet another shared trait.
You're VERY WRONG here, I told a knock knock joke just the other day.
It was very funny.
More to the point, I have responded to all sorts of accusations with
resorting to bitching and screaming and death wishes. I have responded
with humour, even when told that "my kind" should be murdered. Which
isn't very funny really.
> > 7- you characterize any issue as "us" versus "them," including
anyone
> > you hate in the "them" category and glorifying violence against
"their
> > kind."
> Ah, and your hate of "Nazis" somehow shields YOU from this? Batting
three
> for three there, Sparky.
Sadly, wrong again, as I said, I don't hate nu-nazi. Why bother?
And your comment is a non sequitur, since it doesn't actually address
the argument you quote. Which talks about the tactic of using "us"
versus "them" type characterizations to glorify violence, not "hating
nazis," you seem to be repeating your first point for lack of a new
one.
> > 6- you question the legitimacy of the belonging of the target of
your
> > hatred based upon your unsubstantiated labeling.
> Make that four for four.
Huh? Given up so soon? Now you're not even trying, to which group have
I questioned the legitimacy of anybody's belonging?
> > 5- you glorify violence against people for expressing their
opinions.
> Well, sofar you haven't crossed THIS threshold... at least when it
comes to
> physical violence. Some would argue calling anyone "Nazi" is in
itself an
> act of verbal violence. Words can inflame emotions...
Then nu-nazi should have considered that, since he introduced the word
into our discusion, all I did was point it how much well it applies to
him, since from the beginning he did glorify violence against people
for expressing their opinions.
> > 4- you ignore what the target of your hatred actually says, you
never
> > cite their arguments, instead you mindlessly spew yet more hatefull
> > invective.
> Ah, so constantly replying to "nu-nazi" isn't just mindlessly spewing
yet
> more hatefull invectives. Five out of six so far.
I have responded logically to every logical point presented by anyone
here, nu-nazi or otherwise, I have not evaded a single actual argument,
if you feel I have you have no trouble posting an example.
> > 3- you are constantly trying create unsubstantiated connections
> > between who are you arguing with and some outside party, for the
> > purposes of justifying hatred and ignoring the actual arguments
> > presented.
> >
> Ah yes, it's that nagging "Nazification" of your sparring partner
again. 6
> for 7.
My sparring partner not only introduced "nazification" to our discusion
right from the beginning, but nazified himself in the process, that is
clear.
And please also consider the //entire// sentence, "for the purposes of
justifying hatred," I do not justify hatred, not against nu-nazi, nor
anyone else.
> > 2- you present a biased and ignorant view of history to justify
your
> > hatred.
Again, I will direct you to the //entire sentence//, "to justify your
hatred."
> "Anyway, Richard Nixon began the era of fiat money and US Dollar
> Hegemony that sent the US on the road to its current trade deficit
> crisis, under the weight of which your economy and is currently, and
> spectacularly, collapsing, inspiring your ruling elite into desperate
> acts of foreign adventurism and dangerous geostrategical games you
can
> not win in the long run."
Where is the justification of hatred?? There is none.
> Ahh, we DID have a period in there when we not only had narrowed the
trade
> deficit, but also had zero national debt with a SURPLUS. Oh...sorry,
that
> was during the Democrats regime... forgot to keep it on the "hate the
> Republicans" path. Naggling little thing when someone "forgets"
little
> details while painting a broad picture with a spraygun.
I am not sure what you are talking about, Nixon made the US Dollar a
fiat currency, that is a matter of historical record, this created the
possibility of the balance of trade crisis that the US is facing right
now, which is causing the collapse of your economy. I am not talking
either about budget deficits or party politics, just economics. Neither
party is mine, not the jack-ass or the elephant. I'm not even American.
If you seriously want to discuss the US trade deficit, I would be happy
to.
> > 1- you endlessly repeat the same defeated arguments over and over
> > again, only adding more name calling and invective as if increasing
> > your hatred somehow makes a point.
> Once again... the labelling of your debate partner "nu-nazi" makes
you
> exempt from this point? You're making his side look better every
minute.
As I explained, he introduced the label of nazi, I only illustrated
conclusively that it fit him perfectly, which is true. I never repeated
a defeated argument, if I have, please cite it, and, as you seem to
have missed in all of your points, I have expressed no hatred.
> ...and the final score, NINE out of TEN! Why sir, you've rated
yourself
> 90% PURE NAZI! CONGRATULATIONS! By your own standards you're ONE OF
THEM!
Wrong. As explained. Thanks for playing though.
Correspondent:: Rev DJ Epoch
Date: 11 Feb 2005 23:44:37 GMT
--------
"Quirk" wrote in news:1108131602.591714.174950
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
>
>> quirk@syntac.net wrote:
>
>> > 10- you are motivated by hatred, not by any engagement with actual
>> > arguments or people.
>
>> Your hatred of nu-mo would seem to put you in the same category.
>
> Wrong.
>
> I don't hate nu-nazi, unlike his many rants, I have never once said
> that either him or "his kind" should be murdered, turtured, etc, I have
> even frequently said that he is welcome to express his views.
>
> I have never even responded to a single post he has made except those
> that are in response to, or about, me. Were's the hate?
>
>> > 9- your arguments are based upon fallacy and personal
>> > characterizations, unsubstantiated labels you place on others in
> order
>> > to justify your hatred.
>
>> "Personal charaterizations, unsubstantiated labels you place on
> others in
>> order to justify your hatred." ... as in calling someone "Nazi"? The
> pot
>> seems to call the kettle black here.
>
> Sorry. Wrong again. My calling him a nazi was in //response// to him
> expressing nazi beliefs, which I have //substantiated.// Best expressed
> by his many calls for death to "my kind" and gloryfication of violence
> and murder again people who "hold my beliefs."
I stand by this statement. Using the handle "Nazi", even if brought on by the
opposing party, still results in personal charaterizations and
unsubstantiated labels you place on others in order to justify your hatred.
Yes, hatred. The use of the word Nazi is nowhere near a friendly gesture and
in some quarters would result in your abdomen picking up mass in the form of
lead projectiles.
>
>> > 8- your are humourless.
>
>> Ding! Yet another shared trait.
>
> You're VERY WRONG here, I told a knock knock joke just the other day.
>
> It was very funny.
>
> More to the point, I have responded to all sorts of accusations with
> resorting to bitching and screaming and death wishes. I have responded
> with humour, even when told that "my kind" should be murdered. Which
> isn't very funny really.
>
>> > 7- you characterize any issue as "us" versus "them," including
> anyone
>> > you hate in the "them" category and glorifying violence against
> "their
>> > kind."
>
>> Ah, and your hate of "Nazis" somehow shields YOU from this? Batting
> three
>> for three there, Sparky.
>
> Sadly, wrong again, as I said, I don't hate nu-nazi. Why bother?
Well then, if you don't hate him, I'm sure you could come up with some other
descriptive. Let's see you take the high road.
>
> And your comment is a non sequitur, since it doesn't actually address
> the argument you quote. Which talks about the tactic of using "us"
> versus "them" type characterizations to glorify violence, not "hating
> nazis," you seem to be repeating your first point for lack of a new
> one.
>
>> > 6- you question the legitimacy of the belonging of the target of
> your
>> > hatred based upon your unsubstantiated labeling.
>
>> Make that four for four.
>
> Huh? Given up so soon? Now you're not even trying, to which group have
> I questioned the legitimacy of anybody's belonging?
>
>> > 5- you glorify violence against people for expressing their
> opinions.
>
>> Well, sofar you haven't crossed THIS threshold... at least when it
> comes to
>> physical violence. Some would argue calling anyone "Nazi" is in
> itself an
>> act of verbal violence. Words can inflame emotions...
>
> Then nu-nazi should have considered that, since he introduced the word
> into our discusion, all I did was point it how much well it applies to
> him, since from the beginning he did glorify violence against people
> for expressing their opinions.
I fail to see how expressing an opinion along the lines of "some people don't
know when to shut up" makes one a nazi, or sharing a tale of someone who
didn't know when to shut up and suffered at the hands of their enemy makes
one a Nazi.
Read your history. The Nazis were more concerned with moving forward with the
Aryan philosophy of supremacy of the "master-race" and conquest of "lesser
species". Mass-murder of inferior cultures in concentration camps and gas
chambers, subjecting those whose counties they conquered to "submit, or
die" - not just individuals but ENTIRE NATIONS. THOSE are what I see as nazi
traits, and I've seen none of it in any of nu's diatribes. He might be off-
the-beam occasionally, raving against communism in general or even twisting
the news to espouse a view, but that hardly places him in the category of
"Nazi". I've seen Baptists and radical Islamics alike glorify violence aganst
people for expressing an opinion. Go to a tent revival and call them "Nazi"
and let's see how long you go without a cricifix up your gastro-intestinal
tract. Words themselves can generate HATE, and you're proving that point
rather succinctly.
>
>> > 4- you ignore what the target of your hatred actually says, you
> never
>> > cite their arguments, instead you mindlessly spew yet more hatefull
>> > invective.
>
>> Ah, so constantly replying to "nu-nazi" isn't just mindlessly spewing
> yet
>> more hatefull invectives. Five out of six so far.
>
> I have responded logically to every logical point presented by anyone
> here, nu-nazi or otherwise, I have not evaded a single actual argument,
> if you feel I have you have no trouble posting an example.
Quote: "Anyone seen a creepy little guy with a little mustache sneaking
around here? The smell is unmistakable, like the breath of a slug that has
been living on chicken shit and toilet water. He is usually in a state
of hysteria shouting "commie commie kill kill kill."
He's been exposed to situations and life experiences that have obviously
reniforced a strong anti-communist belief.
Quote: "And don't call yourself a Jew. You have no more
right to call yourself that any more than you have
to call yourself an American. Free speech ends
when you advocate genocide or holocaust denial."
Sounds like he's anti-genocide to me. And that is most definitly NOT a Nazi
trait. To continue to use the term against him is noting more than attempting
to inflame someone by calling them that which they hate. It's wrong, it's not
using factual data to back up your position, and it's a petty attempt to
denegrate someone who you have a difference of opinion with.
In other words... "You Lose".
>
>> > 3- you are constantly trying create unsubstantiated connections
>> > between who are you arguing with and some outside party, for the
>> > purposes of justifying hatred and ignoring the actual arguments
>> > presented.
>> >
>> Ah yes, it's that nagging "Nazification" of your sparring partner
> again. 6
>> for 7.
>
> My sparring partner not only introduced "nazification" to our discusion
> right from the beginning, but nazified himself in the process, that is
> clear.
>
> And please also consider the //entire// sentence, "for the purposes of
> justifying hatred," I do not justify hatred, not against nu-nazi, nor
> anyone else.
>
>> > 2- you present a biased and ignorant view of history to justify
> your
>> > hatred.
>
> Again, I will direct you to the //entire sentence//, "to justify your
> hatred."
>
>> "Anyway, Richard Nixon began the era of fiat money and US Dollar
>> Hegemony that sent the US on the road to its current trade deficit
>> crisis, under the weight of which your economy and is currently, and
>> spectacularly, collapsing, inspiring your ruling elite into desperate
>> acts of foreign adventurism and dangerous geostrategical games you
> can
>> not win in the long run."
>
> Where is the justification of hatred?? There is none.
>
>> Ahh, we DID have a period in there when we not only had narrowed the
> trade
>> deficit, but also had zero national debt with a SURPLUS. Oh...sorry,
> that
>> was during the Democrats regime... forgot to keep it on the "hate the
>
>> Republicans" path. Naggling little thing when someone "forgets"
> little
>> details while painting a broad picture with a spraygun.
>
> I am not sure what you are talking about, Nixon made the US Dollar a
> fiat currency, that is a matter of historical record, this created the
> possibility of the balance of trade crisis that the US is facing right
> now, which is causing the collapse of your economy. I am not talking
> either about budget deficits or party politics, just economics. Neither
> party is mine, not the jack-ass or the elephant. I'm not even American.
>
> If you seriously want to discuss the US trade deficit, I would be happy
> to.
>
>> > 1- you endlessly repeat the same defeated arguments over and over
>> > again, only adding more name calling and invective as if increasing
>> > your hatred somehow makes a point.
>
>> Once again... the labelling of your debate partner "nu-nazi" makes
> you
>> exempt from this point? You're making his side look better every
> minute.
>
> As I explained, he introduced the label of nazi, I only illustrated
> conclusively that it fit him perfectly, which is true. I never repeated
> a defeated argument, if I have, please cite it, and, as you seem to
> have missed in all of your points, I have expressed no hatred.
>
>> ...and the final score, NINE out of TEN! Why sir, you've rated
> yourself
>> 90% PURE NAZI! CONGRATULATIONS! By your own standards you're ONE OF
> THEM!
>
> Wrong. As explained. Thanks for playing though.
>
--
12th Epochalyptic MegaFisTemple Dungeon of The Church of Our Lady of
Perpetual Motion
Cathedral, Carwash and Dancehall- Home of the Traci Lords Memorial Brothel
Rev. DJ Epoch - proprietor and janitor
Divine Southern Redneck Yeti Clench Recruitment site: http://revdjepoch.COM
"Yeah yeah. It's all fun and games until someone ingests a quantum
singularity and implodes!!"
-- DJ Epoch
"People from other countries are so goddamned foreign. I hope they stay where
they come from."
-- HellPope Huey
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 17 Feb 2005 08:52:41 -0800
--------
Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
> "Quirk" wrote:
> > Sorry. Wrong again. My calling him a nazi was in //response// to
him
> > expressing nazi beliefs, which I have //substantiated.// Best
expressed
> > by his many calls for death to "my kind" and gloryfication of
violence
> > and murder again people who "hold my beliefs."
> I stand by this statement. Using the handle "Nazi", even if brought
on by
> the opposing party, still results in personal charaterizations and
> unsubstantiated labels you place on others in order to justify your
hatred.
It would be unsubstantiated, except that I did substantiate it. That
makes it //substantiated//, also, as I said, there is no Hatred, your
attempt to equate the word "Nazi" with hatred is fallacious.
> > Sadly, wrong again, as I said, I don't hate nu-nazi. Why bother?
> Well then, if you don't hate him, I'm sure you could come up with
some
> other descriptive. Let's see you take the high road.
I have taken all roads, the high road, the middle road, the low road,
the side road, the back road, and the secret passage. No matter which
road I have taken, nu-nu's response is the same, hatred and death
wishes.
> I fail to see how expressing an opinion along the lines of "some
people
> don't know when to shut up" makes one a nazi,
Me neither. However nu-nu said this:
'Have you ever read "The Militant"? I'm proud to say a friend of
mine
broke the thumbs of this fat beard who was selling copies of that
rag.'
Among many more glorifications of the killing, torture and murder of
people who hold ideas different to his own. This *does* make him a
Nazi.
It was in response to this, and his endlessly trying to equate my
views, which he did not even bother to understand or make reference to,
as being Nazi, that I labeled him nu-nazi.
I made every effort to talk reasonably to him, including pointing out
that my proposal specificly rejects communism. (not that it would
justify his fascism if it did not)
> or sharing a tale of someone who
> didn't know when to shut up and suffered at the hands of their enemy
makes
> one a Nazi.
Glorifying such a tale certainly does.
> Read your history. The Nazis were more concerned with moving forward
with
> the Aryan philosophy of supremacy of the "master-race" and conquest
of
> "lesser species".
If I catch a good back wind, I can hit the Reichstag with a baseball
from my apartment. I know the history quite well, I am surrounded by
it.
The motivation of the Nazis was to kill so-called "Communists," first
and foremost, part of the program was also breeding ethnic hatred to
justify confiscation, oppression ad murder.
The Nazis were a reaction against the Socialists and Communists on
behalf by the property owning elite.
> Words themselves can generate HATE, and you're proving that point
rather
> succinctly.
Well, since we both used naughty words, including Nazi, how curious
then that you only criticize me.
But regardless, because nu-nu's hate came out long before I started
calling him nu-nazi, so I can hardly take the credit for it.
> > I have responded logically to every logical point presented by
anyone
> > here, nu-nazi or otherwise, I have not evaded a single actual
argument,
> > if you feel I have you have no trouble posting an example.
> Quote: "Anyone seen a creepy little guy with a little mustache
sneaking
> around here? The smell is unmistakable, like the breath of a slug
that has
> been living on chicken shit and toilet water. He is usually in a
state
> of hysteria shouting "commie commie kill kill kill."
Umm, the statement you are responding to asks you to present a quote by
"anyone here," (as in not me) that I have *evaded.* Instead you post no
such quote, but rather a quote from me. Please try to pay better
attention.
> He's been exposed to situations and life experiences that have
obviously
> reniforced a strong anti-communist belief.
First of all that is no excuse, second of all I have told him
repeatedly that I am not a Communist, and that my proposal rejects
communism.
He is using this unsubstantiated label *on purpose* in order to justify
hatred.
> Quote: "And don't call yourself a Jew. You have no more
> right to call yourself that any more than you have
> to call yourself an American. Free speech ends
> when you advocate genocide or holocaust denial."
> Sounds like he's anti-genocide to me. And that is most definitly NOT
a Nazi
> trait.
You're not reading very carefully then, the purpose of the statement
you are quoting is intended to justify my exclusion with
unsubstantiated smears, namely advocating genocide and holocaust
denail, which are, of course, baseless. Once again, he made up these
smears specificly to justify his hatred. This *most definately is* a
Nazi trait.
And also he has frequently said that me and anybody who shares my
beliefs should die. I would be happy to furnish quotes if you dispute
this.
> To continue to use the term against him is noting more than
attempting
> to inflame someone by calling them that which they hate. It's wrong,
it's
> not using factual data to back up your position, and it's a petty
attempt
> to denegrate someone who you have a difference of opinion with.
He was already inflamed, and he was calling me that, when it became
clear he wasn't really interested in listening to my actual views, but
just making up smears and spewing hatred, I started pointing out how
well his smears applied to him, complete with factual backup, as
explained. The petty attempts to denigrate where his. I am happy to
discuss things with people who hold different opinions.
> In other words... "You Lose".
Wrong. You are not paying attention.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:14:17 GMT
--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>
>Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
>
>> "Quirk" wrote:
>
>> > Sorry. Wrong again. My calling him a nazi was in //response// to
>him
>> > expressing nazi beliefs, which I have //substantiated.// Best
>expressed
>> > by his many calls for death to "my kind" and gloryfication of
>violence
>> > and murder again people who "hold my beliefs."
>
>> I stand by this statement. Using the handle "Nazi", even if brought
>on by
>> the opposing party, still results in personal charaterizations and
>> unsubstantiated labels you place on others in order to justify your
>hatred.
>
>It would be unsubstantiated, except that I did substantiate it. That
>makes it //substantiated//, also, as I said, there is no Hatred, your
>attempt to equate the word "Nazi" with hatred is fallacious.
>
Welcome to the Ministry of Love!
You were refered to us by the Ministry of Truth.
Please procede to Room 101...
Correspondent:: John Starrett
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:50:43 -0700
--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> quirk@syntac.net wrote:
>
>
> So, who do you hate the worst? Negroes, Jews,
> or just everybody in the world who doesn't
> believe in your twisted fantasies so you call
> them Nazis?
>
> And don't call yourself a Jew. You have no more
> right to call yourself that any more than you have
> to call yourself an American. Free speech ends
> when you advocate genocide or holocaust denial.
>
Err... no. That is where free speech begins.
John Starrett
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:54:18 GMT
--------
In article <1107805036.051903.76930@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
quirk@syntac.net wrote:
> Should contact occur, immediately contact HellPopeHuey for scrubbing.
Don't offer to scrub me unless you mean it; I'll make you do ALL of the
cracks & crevices. Think you're man enough to handle all of that,
grassmoker?
--
HellPope Huey
Deadly, Illegal and Embarrassing, Attorneys at Law
Everybody gets so much information all day long
that they lose their common sense.
- Gertrude Stein
How would Jesus vote?
Heck, I'd be willing
just to see Him show up to REGISTER.
~Michael on a FreeRepublic.com forum
Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:48:34 -0800
--------
HellPope Huey wrote:
>
> Don't offer to scrub me unless you mean it; I'll make you do ALL of the
> cracks & crevices. Think you're man enough to handle all of that,
> grassmoker?
>
I've used a push broom before.
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:46:29 GMT
--------
In article <420852B2.8BB1E49A@yahoox.com>, nenslo
wrote:
> HellPope Huey wrote:
> >
> > Don't offer to scrub me unless you mean it; I'll make you do ALL of the
> > cracks & crevices. Think you're man enough to handle all of that,
> > grassmoker?
> >
> I've used a push broom before.
Your time in the pornography video business isn't at issue. The
question was about your fortitude.
--
HellPope Huey
I mostly just want a better chair
and to not have to hold the chicken
between my knees.
Is that so WRONG??
How do I know pornography depraves and corrupts?
It depraves and corrupts me.
- Malcolm Muggeridge
"You think Christmas falls out of a clear blue sky??
Well it DOESN'T!! It falls out of my holly-jolly BUTT!!"
- "Family Guy"
Correspondent:: quirk@syntac.net
Date: 8 Feb 2005 03:49:28 -0800
--------
HellPope Huey wrote:
> Don't offer to scrub me unless you mean it; I'll make you do ALL of
the
> cracks & crevices.
With a falafel or a loofa?
> Think you're man enough to handle all of that,
> grassmoker?
That depends, how much do you have for me to smoke?
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:02:48 GMT
--------
In article <4207C02B.4D6@succeeds.com>,
"nu-monet v7.0" wrote:
> quirk@syntac.net wrote:
> > That's right Zapanaz, and remember they have
> > not stopped the killing, as nu-nazi keeps
> > reminding us...
> You really are no different than a Taliban, except
> you have dreams of genocide far beyond anything
> they could imagine.
He has a slight edge in variety due to exposure to our version of the
news and all those horror flicks, but I give the Taliban the edge for
sheer ignorant brutality. Yep, in a place where there is no toilet
paper, just stones, you're itchy-ouchie all the time and ready to stomp
hell out of anything at the drop of Allah's hankie. The world could not
help but be a better, more peaceful place if the less fortunate could
only have improved butt hygiene.
--
HellPope Huey
Deadly, Illegal and Embarrassing, Attorneys at Law
Everybody gets so much information all day long
that they lose their common sense.
- Gertrude Stein
How would Jesus vote?
Heck, I'd be willing
just to see Him show up to REGISTER.
~Michael on a FreeRepublic.com forum
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 23:21:53 -0500
--------
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:36:44 +0000, Talysman the Ur-Beatle wrote:
> the best you can say is that Nixon was a basically good man led
> astray by his own obsessions with power, vengeance, and paranoia.
> the watergate and "enemies list" incidents were born out of his
> lust for vengence and paranoia that everyone was out to get him.
This was what the media tried to get the public to believe about him,
and they did it very successfully. The fact was that everyone WAS out
to get him. What Nixon was was a naive uncompromising idealist. He just
didn't get that those who backed him had ulterior motives or an agenda
of their own. He didn't believe that just because someone financially
backed his campaign he owed them any favors. In his mind you backed a
candidate because you believed that he was the best man to do what a
president should do: lead the country with the best interests of the
people in mind, not because you wanted political favors.
With an attitude like that, and its inevitable repercussions, who WOULDN'T
be paranoid and defensive? Even just having to work with J. Edgar Hoover
would make ME paranoid. And given his attitude why wouldn't he want
vengeance on those who sought to destroy him because they couldn't make
him bend to their will? To him they were scum; a corrupting influence, and
a threat to the country.
I wonder what his most vocal detractors would have done in that
environment.
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:03:32 -0800
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>
> What Nixon was was a naive uncompromising idealist.
That must have been SOME movie. I was actually alive and partially
conscious during his presidency and experienced life in America during
that time and the impression I got was somewhat different from what you
got from that dramatic presentation.
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 03:26:39 -0500
--------
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:03:32 -0800, nenslo wrote:
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>
>> What Nixon was was a naive uncompromising idealist.
>
> That must have been SOME movie. I was actually alive and partially
> conscious during his presidency and experienced life in America during
> that time and the impression I got was somewhat different from what you
> got from that dramatic presentation.
So when we look at this post and your other post together we see that
"Nixon" challenges the beliefs that YOU are predisposed to have about
events of the time. Tell me, how exactly did you gain your impression
of those times back then? Were you employed in the White House? Did
you have some other form of special access to those directly involved,
or are you going by what you were told by the news media, like the rest
of us who were around back then?
What makes you such an authority on the veracity of that movie?
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:49:59 -0800
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:03:32 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>
> > Artemia Salina wrote:
> >>
> >> What Nixon was was a naive uncompromising idealist.
> >
> > That must have been SOME movie. I was actually alive and partially
> > conscious during his presidency and experienced life in America during
> > that time and the impression I got was somewhat different from what you
> > got from that dramatic presentation.
>
> So when we look at this post and your other post together we see that
> "Nixon" challenges the beliefs that YOU are predisposed to have about
> events of the time.
No we don't see that at all. We see that the single statement of yours
which I quoted differs from the impressions I got from my own
experience. That's all.
> Tell me, how exactly did you gain your impression
> of those times back then? Were you employed in the White House? Did
> you have some other form of special access to those directly involved,
> or are you going by what you were told by the news media, like the rest
> of us who were around back then?
I saw hippies who could see nothing right about Nixon and hardhats who
could see nothing wrong with Nixon, and I could tell they were
expressing their EMOTIONS and ignoring any facts which did not agree
with their preconceptions. I never felt any emotions about him myself
and could tell he was as complex an individual as anyone else, and a
damn sight more complex than most. I listened to what people said and
reserved judgment. If that makes me "brainwashed by the MEEEDIA," okay.
>
> What makes you such an authority on the veracity of that movie?
Nothing.
When people make a movie, they present the characters and situations in
a way which creates the story they want to tell. They try to make an
interesting and compelling entertainment. The entire life and career
and personality of a person cannot be crunched down into a few hours.
What you get from a movie is a fictional character, made up of tiny bits
of the real person's life. You do not get the truth, you get a fiction.
I can see you feel a connection of some kind with the fictional
character you watched for a few hours, but that was not Richard Nixon.
It was a character in a movie.
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:39:53 GMT
--------
In article <4205DA36.F8713FBB@yahoox.com>, nenslo
wrote:
> that was not Richard Nixon.
> It was a character in a movie.
I felt that way when I saw him on the evening news. Any American who
can make the CHINESE smile like he did was obviously quite capable and
potent to some extent, even scary. Its just a shame he also made every
appearance of having a soul the size of a peanut.
Besides, anyone standing on the side of Order at all would have looked
like the proverbial devil during a time when all those goddamned hippies
were running loose wearing no bras. Well, it took a while, but Them
fixed that crap. The best way to undermine a revolution is to sell
t-shirts of its heroes.
Like Nixon was the worst one ever, pfooey. Dick is dead, long live the
clan of dicks from whence he came.
--
HellPope Huey
Well, dip me in a white wine sauce
and call me PookieBear
Friendship is usually treated by the majority of mankind
as a tough and everlasting thing
which will survive all manner of bad treatment.
But this is an exceedingly great and foolish error;
it may die in an hour of a single unwise word.
- Marie Louise De La Ramee
"Did you mean for all those words
to come together like that
or did they just fall out randomly?
- "King of the Hill"
Correspondent:: William Earl Haskell
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:28:28 -0600
--------
Talysman the Ur-Beatle wrote:
>
> Nixon admitted in his writings that, while on a political trip
> in south america, he punched a little boy in the back of the
> head when no one was looking, because the boy was making faces
> at him earlier.
>
> and he wrote that he enjoyed it.
>
You just say that like there's something wrong with it.
Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:02:19 -0800
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>
> He was made out to be the worst villain since Hitler,
> on television when I was just a kid, and I bought the
> whole package without question.
Yay! NEW PACKAGE!
Your beliefs are safe until you see another movie about Nixon.
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 23:25:53 -0500
--------
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:02:19 -0800, nenslo wrote:
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>
>> He was made out to be the worst villain since Hitler,
>> on television when I was just a kid, and I bought the
>> whole package without question.
>
> Yay! NEW PACKAGE!
>
> Your beliefs are safe until you see another movie about Nixon.
SHUT UP.
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 23:58:37 -0800
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:02:19 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>
> > Artemia Salina wrote:
> >>
> >> He was made out to be the worst villain since Hitler,
> >> on television when I was just a kid, and I bought the
> >> whole package without question.
> >
> > Yay! NEW PACKAGE!
> >
> > Your beliefs are safe until you see another movie about Nixon.
>
> SHUT UP.
IT WAS A MOVIE. Suddenly you KNOW THE TRUTH which is THE EXACT OPPOSITE
of what you've believed for years, just because you watched a movie - a
FICTIONALIZATION, an HISTORICAL DRAMA. You have replaced one form of
ignorance with another.
Expert - someone who saw something on TV once.
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 03:16:12 -0500
--------
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 23:58:37 -0800, nenslo wrote:
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:02:19 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>>
>> > Artemia Salina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> He was made out to be the worst villain since Hitler,
>> >> on television when I was just a kid, and I bought the
>> >> whole package without question.
>> >
>> > Yay! NEW PACKAGE!
>> >
>> > Your beliefs are safe until you see another movie about Nixon.
>>
>> SHUT UP.
>
> IT WAS A MOVIE. Suddenly you KNOW THE TRUTH which is THE EXACT OPPOSITE
> of what you've believed for years, just because you watched a movie - a
> FICTIONALIZATION, an HISTORICAL DRAMA. You have replaced one form of
> ignorance with another.
You don't know that that movie was inaccurate. Given that it was made
long after the events it portrayed it was no doubt much less biased,
much more fair to those involved, than accounts that were given at
the time.
True, it was a movie, but we're not talking about "The Spy Who Loved Me"
or "Jaws" or "This Island Earth."
> Expert - someone who saw something on TV once.
Critic: Someone who presumes that everything on television is false
and of no value, no matter what its original source or how much work
was put into making it accurate.
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:23:12 -0800
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>
> You don't know that that movie was inaccurate. Given that it was made
> long after the events it portrayed it was no doubt much less biased,
> much more fair to those involved, than accounts that were given at
> the time.
I have never said it was inaccurate. A movie which is a couple of hours
long, depicting events which took decades to occur in real life,
necessarily selects only a tiny percentage of the things which really
happened. The events which were depicted, even if every one of them
happened exactly as depicted, were selected by the filmmakers to present
the characters in a way which would tell the story they wanted to tell.
I DO doubt that the few hours of fiction you saw were "less biased" than
the hundreds of thousands of hours of factual reporting on the life and
activities of the real person throughout his career. Your impression
that only or mostly negative statements were made about the man during
his life may be the result of your admitted lack of attention the the
events as they occurred. It wasn't really that way.
>
> True, it was a movie, but we're not talking about "The Spy Who Loved Me"
> or "Jaws" or "This Island Earth."
That is a specious or irrelevant comparison. A dramatic movie "based
on fact" is as much a movie as one which is entirely imaginary. It is a
drama, a fiction, not a documentary, NOT REALITY. You NEVER SAW Richard
Nixon. You saw an actor, a British actor at that, pretending to be
Nixon, reciting lines from a script written for the purpose of creating
a specific impression of that character. I'm glad you liked the movie,
but it wasn't reality.
>
> > Expert - someone who saw something on TV once.
>
> Critic: Someone who presumes that everything on television is false
> and of no value, no matter what its original source or how much work
> was put into making it accurate.
Always happy when someone confirms that I am not a critic. My sole
presumption is that a couple of hours of drama differs significantly
from decades of real life.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 09:34:29 GMT
--------
nenslo wrote:
> My sole
>presumption is that a couple of hours of drama differs significantly
>from decades of real life.
In what way?
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 05:14:40 -0500
--------
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:23:12 -0800, nenslo wrote:
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>
>> You don't know that that movie was inaccurate. Given that it was made
>> long after the events it portrayed it was no doubt much less biased,
>> much more fair to those involved, than accounts that were given at
>> the time.
>
> I have never said it was inaccurate. A movie which is a couple of hours
> long, depicting events which took decades to occur in real life,
> necessarily selects only a tiny percentage of the things which really
> happened. The events which were depicted, even if every one of them
> happened exactly as depicted, were selected by the filmmakers to present
> the characters in a way which would tell the story they wanted to tell.
And the story they wanted to tell could very well have been an
historically accurate account of what happened. A several hour
long movie can have the advantage of being able to summarize events
which spanned many years, allowing the viewer to keep disparate
events in mind more easily. Also, in the case of a movie that is
made about events of decades ago, those who were involved in those
events are more likely to be candid about them. Time heals all wounds,
etc.
> I DO doubt that the few hours of fiction you saw were "less biased" than
> the hundreds of thousands of hours of factual reporting on the life and
> activities of the real person throughout his career. Your impression
> that only or mostly negative statements were made about the man during
> his life may be the result of your admitted lack of attention the the
> events as they occurred. It wasn't really that way.
I never meant to say that I lacked attention to the events as they took
place; they were thrust in our faces daily, not only by the news media,
but also by every entertainer on television back then. What I had meant
was that my deepest impression of Nixon was brought about by his ending
the war in Viet Nam, and the constant bombardment of Nixon jokes, taunts,
and tirades made by famous entertainers on television. My guess is that
they had to scramble for new material once they didn't have him to kick
around any more.
>> True, it was a movie, but we're not talking about "The Spy Who Loved Me"
>> or "Jaws" or "This Island Earth."
>
> That is a specious or irrelevant comparison. A dramatic movie "based
> on fact" is as much a movie as one which is entirely imaginary. It is a
> drama, a fiction, not a documentary, NOT REALITY. You NEVER SAW Richard
> Nixon. You saw an actor, a British actor at that, pretending to be
> Nixon, reciting lines from a script written for the purpose of creating
> a specific impression of that character. I'm glad you liked the movie,
> but it wasn't reality.
What makes you think that I liked the movie? In fact I disliked it
intensely. I especially disliked the psuedo-psychedelic overlays,
for instance in the scene where Nixon confronted the director of
the CIA, and they overlaid time-lapse shots of flowers blossoming.
It was very distracting and bizarre.
> Always happy when someone confirms that I am not a critic. My sole
> presumption is that a couple of hours of drama differs significantly
> from decades of real life.
Of course it does. One difference is guaranteed to be the length of
time each takes. But that's the only difference that is guaranteed.
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: "Talysman the Ur-Beatle"
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:53:06 GMT
--------
Artemia Salina wrote in
news:pan.2005.02.06.10.14.40.35771@sheayright.com:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:23:12 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>
>> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>>
>>> You don't know that that movie was inaccurate. Given that it was made
>>> long after the events it portrayed it was no doubt much less biased,
>>> much more fair to those involved, than accounts that were given at
>>> the time.
>>
>> I have never said it was inaccurate. A movie which is a couple of hours
>> long, depicting events which took decades to occur in real life,
>> necessarily selects only a tiny percentage of the things which really
>> happened. The events which were depicted, even if every one of them
>> happened exactly as depicted, were selected by the filmmakers to present
>> the characters in a way which would tell the story they wanted to tell.
>
> And the story they wanted to tell could very well have been an
> historically accurate account of what happened.
there's no such thing as historical accuracy, particularly in a MOVIE.
the reason why "history" and "story" resemble each other orthographically,
and in fact the french word "histoire" means "story" and not "history", is
because that's what a history is: a story. a retelling of selected events,
either documented or remembered. and there is *always* a bias.
--
Talysman the Ur-Beatle, STRAWGRASPER
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 20:26:58 -0500
--------
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:53:06 +0000, Talysman the Ur-Beatle wrote:
> Artemia Salina wrote in
> news:pan.2005.02.06.10.14.40.35771@sheayright.com:
>> And the story they wanted to tell could very well have been an
>> historically accurate account of what happened.
>
> there's no such thing as historical accuracy, particularly in a MOVIE.
>
> the reason why "history" and "story" resemble each other orthographically,
> and in fact the french word "histoire" means "story" and not "history", is
> because that's what a history is: a story. a retelling of selected events,
> either documented or remembered. and there is *always* a bias.
So then none of us should make any judgments at all about anything that
we didn't personally witness. After all, what is the news but a story,
as in "news story?" Since you had an opinion about Nixon earlier I guess
you must've been a fly on the wall in the White House, eh?
You say that you read "his writings" and that in them he punched some kid
in the back of the head. From that one incident you've developed a
complete personality profile of the man. Didn't your parents ever smack
you for getting out of line? Hell I've had teachers that did that. Back
in those days corporal punishment of children, even ones not our own,
was considered acceptable.
Have you ever noticed that people LOVE to believe the worst about other
people? Just listen to some gossip at work some time, or people's
opinions of Micheal Jackson or O. J. Simpson, etc. They have no fucking
clue as to what *actually* happened, they just go by what they're told
and their imaginations (and those imaginings are usually based on what
they imagine themselves doing in the same situations).
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:43:52 -0800
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:53:06 +0000, Talysman the Ur-Beatle wrote:
>
> > Artemia Salina wrote in
> > news:pan.2005.02.06.10.14.40.35771@sheayright.com:
>
> >> And the story they wanted to tell could very well have been an
> >> historically accurate account of what happened.
> >
> > there's no such thing as historical accuracy, particularly in a MOVIE.
> >
> > the reason why "history" and "story" resemble each other orthographically,
> > and in fact the french word "histoire" means "story" and not "history", is
> > because that's what a history is: a story. a retelling of selected events,
> > either documented or remembered. and there is *always* a bias.
>
> So then none of us should make any judgments at all about anything that
> we didn't personally witness.
Deliberately erroneous conclusion intended to make the opponent's
statement seem ridiculous.
> After all, what is the news but a story,
> as in "news story?"
Misdirection - the subject being discussed is a movie, not a news story.
> Since you had an opinion about Nixon earlier I guess
> you must've been a fly on the wall in the White House, eh?
Deliberate and false absurdity intended to make opponent's point seem ridiculous.
These are all examples of dishonest discourse, the type of "argument"
people put up when they have no valid basis for contention.
>
> You say that you read "his writings" and that in them he punched some kid
> in the back of the head. From that one incident you've developed a
> complete personality profile of the man.
Another false claim made by you and not him.
> Didn't your parents ever smack
> you for getting out of line? Hell I've had teachers that did that. Back
> in those days corporal punishment of children, even ones not our own,
> was considered acceptable.
If this is intended to support your claim that it is possible to draw an
historically accurate image of a person's career and character (which
image as stated by you shows little resemblance to fact) from seeing an
actor portraying that person, it is INSANE.
>
> Have you ever noticed that people LOVE to believe the worst about other
> people?
This conflicts with your own apparent desire NOT to believe the worst
about a person, based on a movie you saw about him which led you to
completely reverse your previous views.
>Just listen to some gossip at work some time, or people's
> opinions of Micheal Jackson or O. J. Simpson, etc. They have no fucking
> clue as to what *actually* happened, they just go by what they're told
> and their imaginations (and those imaginings are usually based on what
> they imagine themselves doing in the same situations).
THEY HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE AS TO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, THEY JUST GO BY
WHAT THEY WERE TOLD. Which is different from seeing a movie about what happened.
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:39:29 -0500
--------
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:43:52 -0800, nenslo wrote:
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>> So then none of us should make any judgments at all about anything that
>> we didn't personally witness.
>
> Deliberately erroneous conclusion intended to make the opponent's
> statement seem ridiculous.
What makes you think it was DELIBERATE? Heh! Got you THERE, didn't I?
>> After all, what is the news but a story,
>> as in "news story?"
>
> Misdirection - the subject being discussed is a movie, not a news story.
No, what was being discussed was a STORY, as in HISTORY. Talisman
changed the focus of what was being discussed. I realize that you
want to argue with me more than nearly anything else in the world,
but there are more people than just you and I involved in this
discussion. This discussion does NOT revolve around you.
I was not misdirecting; I was making the point that the news
is a story just as much as a movie is. Unless you're trying to
say that "Nixon" was a complete LIE; that NONE of the events
depicted in it ever happened, then the comparison holds.
We were told "stories" by both newscasters and entertainers
about the wrongdoings of Nixon. If it is acceptable for
people to make judgments based on those stories, then it
should be equally acceptable for me to make judgments
based on a movie.
You yourself claim to have not made judgments about Nixon,
but then Talisman and I are not talking about you, as much
as you would LIKE us to.
>> Since you had an opinion about Nixon earlier I guess
>> you must've been a fly on the wall in the White House, eh?
>
> Deliberate and false absurdity intended to make opponent's point seem ridiculous.
> These are all examples of dishonest discourse, the type of "argument"
> people put up when they have no valid basis for contention.
You're stretching here. You know very well that "a fly on the wall"
is merely an expression which means "having special and secret access
to a conversation in which the candidness of the speakers can be assured,"
and is not generally intended to make one's point seem ridiculous.
>> You say that you read "his writings" and that in them he punched some kid
>> in the back of the head. From that one incident you've developed a
>> complete personality profile of the man.
>
> Another false claim made by you and not him.
The first sentence is not a false claim, and the second one is what I
inferred from the first. Again, you're being obtuse in order to support
your "point," which of course is dishonest discourse, the type of
"argument" that people put up when they have no valid basis for
contention.
>> Didn't your parents ever smack
>> you for getting out of line? Hell I've had teachers that did that. Back
>> in those days corporal punishment of children, even ones not our own,
>> was considered acceptable.
>
> If this is intended to support your claim that it is possible to draw an
> historically accurate image of a person's career and character (which
> image as stated by you shows little resemblance to fact) from seeing an
> actor portraying that person, it is INSANE.
It was intended to discount HIS implicit claim that a person can be judged as
bad, based solely on one anecdote. Surely, if my judgment of a person,
based on a three hour long movie about him cannot be valid, then Talisman's
judgment cannot be as well. TEN FOLD.
>> Have you ever noticed that people LOVE to believe the worst about other
>> people?
>
> This conflicts with your own apparent desire NOT to believe the worst
> about a person, based on a movie you saw about him which led you to
> completely reverse your previous views.
More obtuseness.
>>Just listen to some gossip at work some time, or people's
>> opinions of Micheal Jackson or O. J. Simpson, etc. They have no fucking
>> clue as to what *actually* happened, they just go by what they're told
>> and their imaginations (and those imaginings are usually based on what
>> they imagine themselves doing in the same situations).
>
>
> THEY HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE AS TO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, THEY JUST GO BY
> WHAT THEY WERE TOLD. Which is different from seeing a movie about what happened.
Exactly.
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:29:20 -0800
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>
> This discussion does NOT revolve around you.
That's where you are wrong.
>
> I was not misdirecting; I was making the point that the news
> is a story just as much as a movie is. Unless you're trying to
> say that "Nixon" was a complete LIE; that NONE of the events
> depicted in it ever happened, then the comparison holds.
A news story, or rather many hundreds of thousands of news stories in
the case of Richard Nixon, serves an entirely different purpose from
that served by a movie. They are two different TYPES of things. It is
an error to treat them as if they are the same. This is your
fundamental error in this entire discussion.
>
> We were told "stories" by both newscasters and entertainers
> about the wrongdoings of Nixon. If it is acceptable for
> people to make judgments based on those stories, then it
> should be equally acceptable for me to make judgments
> based on a movie.
The reporting of facts in a news story is not the same as a story told
by an entertainer. It is perfectly acceptable for you to make judgments
on any basis whatsoever. A judgment based on facts is different from
one based on entertainment. It is your fundamental error throughout
this discussion to assert that your judgment, based on entertainment, is
as accurate as, or more accurate than, one based on fact.
>
> You yourself claim to have not made judgments about Nixon,
> but then Talisman and I are not talking about you, as much
> as you would LIKE us to.
There again is where you are wrong, at least in your case.
>
> >> Since you had an opinion about Nixon earlier I guess
> >> you must've been a fly on the wall in the White House, eh?
> >
> > Deliberate and false absurdity intended to make opponent's point seem ridiculous.
> > These are all examples of dishonest discourse, the type of "argument"
> > people put up when they have no valid basis for contention.
>
> You're stretching here. You know very well that "a fly on the wall"
> is merely an expression which means "having special and secret access
> to a conversation in which the candidness of the speakers can be assured,"
> and is not generally intended to make one's point seem ridiculous.
Since you already knew that the answer to that question must necessarily
be "no," the question was asked for the sole purpose of raising a
spurious objection to the opponent's knowledge or qualifications.
>
> >> You say that you read "his writings" and that in them he punched some kid
> >> in the back of the head. From that one incident you've developed a
> >> complete personality profile of the man.
> >
> > Another false claim made by you and not him.
>
> The first sentence is not a false claim, and the second one is what I
> inferred from the first. Again, you're being obtuse in order to support
> your "point," which of course is dishonest discourse, the type of
> "argument" that people put up when they have no valid basis for
> contention.
Sorry, your unclear writing confused me. I didn't realize it was merely
a deliberately exaggerated false inference.
>
> >> Didn't your parents ever smack
> >> you for getting out of line? Hell I've had teachers that did that. Back
> >> in those days corporal punishment of children, even ones not our own,
> >> was considered acceptable.
> >
> > If this is intended to support your claim that it is possible to draw an
> > historically accurate image of a person's career and character (which
> > image as stated by you shows little resemblance to fact) from seeing an
> > actor portraying that person, it is INSANE.
>
> It was intended to discount HIS implicit claim that a person can be judged as
> bad, based solely on one anecdote. Surely, if my judgment of a person,
> based on a three hour long movie about him cannot be valid, then Talisman's
> judgment cannot be as well. TEN FOLD.
There is no such thing as an "implicit claim." That is a false
attribution of an idea, which was your creation, to your opponent. Your
judgment was not of a person, but of an actor portraying that person,
reciting lines from a script written to portray the person in a specific
manner. You were not watching factual reporting, you were watching a movie.
>
> >> Have you ever noticed that people LOVE to believe the worst about other
> >> people?
> >
> > This conflicts with your own apparent desire NOT to believe the worst
> > about a person, based on a movie you saw about him which led you to
> > completely reverse your previous views.
>
> More obtuseness.
Yours.
>
> >>Just listen to some gossip at work some time, or people's
> >> opinions of Micheal Jackson or O. J. Simpson, etc. They have no fucking
> >> clue as to what *actually* happened, they just go by what they're told
> >> and their imaginations (and those imaginings are usually based on what
> >> they imagine themselves doing in the same situations).
> >
> >
> > THEY HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE AS TO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, THEY JUST GO BY
> > WHAT THEY WERE TOLD. Which is different from seeing a movie about what happened.
>
> Exactly.
Exactly.
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:40:21 -0500
--------
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:29:20 -0800, nenslo wrote:
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>
>> This discussion does NOT revolve around you.
>
> That's where you are wrong.
I've decided to just let you GUESS at what I WOULD have said
if I HAD deigned to respond to your post. FOR EVER.
Go ahead, stew, like a pot of boiled chicken necks.
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:01:04 -0800
--------
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:40:21 -0500, Artemia Salina
wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:29:20 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>
>> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>>
>>> This discussion does NOT revolve around you.
>>
>> That's where you are wrong.
>
>I've decided to just let you GUESS at what I WOULD have said
>if I HAD deigned to respond to your post. FOR EVER.
>
>Go ahead, stew, like a pot of boiled chicken necks.
there are no chicken necks in heaven, little guy.
none. no fat nor gristle nor chicken necks.
They eat MANNA in heaven, and nothing else. And it is the BEST MEAL
YOU EVER HAD, and you NEVER GET SICK OF IT.
You can broil manna and make cheeseburgers. You can stew it and have
a stew that GLEAMS WITH GOLDEN LIGHT. You can deep-fat-fry manna and
have MANNA FRY BREAD. You can pinch a little manna off and have MANNA
CHAWIN' TOBACCO.
And you NEVER GET SICK OF IT.
Manna tastes exactly like bananas.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"The Day After Tomorrow" is rated Pg-13. Millions of people die, but
nobody swears, copulates, undresses or takes drugs.
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:42:24 GMT
--------
In article ,
Artemia Salina wrote:
Don't argue with Nenslo, you'll get coooooties. Its even worse if you
can occasionally catch him in a paradox, then he will make pooties as
well. Awful stuff.
--
HellPope Huey
Well, dip me in a white wine sauce
and call me PookieBear
Friendship is usually treated by the majority of mankind
as a tough and everlasting thing
which will survive all manner of bad treatment.
But this is an exceedingly great and foolish error;
it may die in an hour of a single unwise word.
- Marie Louise De La Ramee
"Did you mean for all those words
to come together like that
or did they just fall out randomly?
- "King of the Hill"
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 15:41:12 -0700
--------
HellPope Huey wrote:
>
> Don't argue with Nenslo, you'll get coooooties.
> Its even worse if you can occasionally catch him
> in a paradox, then he will make pooties as well.
> Awful stuff.
Oh, and whatever you do, don't kick the snot out of
him in an argument, or call him an old yuppie wannabe,
or shit like I did or he'll first killfile you so you
will be a non-person, and then he'll start mailing you
dead pigeons and bats with their heads bitten off and
he'll call INS and try to have you deported as an
illegal alien and pay hookers with really bad herpes
to have sex with all your friends which really looks
gross, seeing all those people walking around with
facial sores.
--
"By thy works, we shall know ye as
an asshole."
--nu-monet
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:02:38 GMT
--------
In article <42069D08.4D5E@succeeds.com>,
"nu-monet v7.0" wrote:
>>>>and pay hookers with really bad herpes
> to have sex with all your friends which really looks
> gross, seeing all those people walking around with
> facial sores.
Been to an X-Day, have ya?
--
HellPope Huey
Well, dip me in a white wine sauce
and call me PookieBear
Friendship is usually treated by the majority of mankind
as a tough and everlasting thing
which will survive all manner of bad treatment.
But this is an exceedingly great and foolish error;
it may die in an hour of a single unwise word.
- Marie Louise De La Ramee
"Did you mean for all those words
to come together like that
or did they just fall out randomly?
- "King of the Hill"
Correspondent:: polar bear
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:52:49 -0800
--------
In article , Artemia
Salina wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:23:12 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>
> > Artemia Salina wrote:
> >>
>
> What makes you think that I liked the movie? In fact I disliked it
> intensely. I especially disliked the psuedo-psychedelic overlays,
> for instance in the scene where Nixon confronted the director of
> the CIA, and they overlaid time-lapse shots of flowers blossoming.
> It was very distracting and bizarre.
>
No doubt a reference to Mao's 1957 "let a thousand flowers bloom"
speech, or possibly to the little flower girl in the 1964 Johnson vs
Goldwater race, or maybe they're opium poppies (CIA/Laos - get it?)
Of course I've really no way to know without seeing the film.
PS: All the models went to Martinique for a photo shoot so It's a slow
day at the polar bear mansion.
pb
Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:10:26 -0800
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:23:12 -0800, nenslo wrote:
> A movie which is a couple of hours
> > long, depicting events which took decades to occur in real life,
> > necessarily selects only a tiny percentage of the things which really
> > happened. The events which were depicted, even if every one of them
> > happened exactly as depicted, were selected by the filmmakers to present
> > the characters in a way which would tell the story they wanted to tell.
>
> And the story they wanted to tell could very well have been an
> historically accurate account of what happened.
Oliver Stone is one of the most agenda-laden directors in cinematic
history. "Could very well have been" ain't IS and you know it. He
made you fall in love with the fantasy Nixon he created and THAT'S
GREAT. If you avoid learning any other viewpoints or facts about the
real guy you can preserve that love for a long time. Don't read any of
the Watergate Tape Transcripts especially. Those are mostly the
foulmouthed scheming old-time political machine operator Nixon, who
might dispel your "naive idealist" image of him.