Q for Carl Fogel: Are you for or against lynching?

"App" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Now that you have educated yourself, please answer the following
>questions:
>
>Would you,or would you not support the anti-lynching resolution? Why?

As my dear, departed grandmother would say, "Oy."

On 16 Jun 2005 07:11:38 -0700, "App" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Now that you have educated yourself, please answer the following
>questions:
>
>Would you,or would you not support the anti-lynching resolution? Why?
>
>App

Dear App,

I haven't dared to read the resolution, since it's been
explained to me that any failure to endorse it after reading
it would brand me as a racist. What if I failed to measure
up to the loyalty oath committee's standards?

I did peek at Robert Chung's nice state-by-state graph,
broken down into black and other victims, and don't know
whether to praise Colorado for lynching only "other" victims
(most likely Mexican-Americans, Italian-Americans, and
immigrants from Central Europe) or to wonder what the
powerful Colorado Klan members were doing in the 1930's.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[email protected] writes:

> On 16 Jun 2005 07:11:38 -0700, "App" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Now that you have educated yourself, please answer the following
>>questions:
>>
>>Would you,or would you not support the anti-lynching resolution? Why?
>>
>>App
>

> I haven't dared to read the resolution, since it's been
> explained to me that any failure to endorse it after reading
> it would brand me as a racist. What if I failed to measure
> up to the loyalty oath committee's standards?

Good god you are full of **** Mr. Fogel!

Do you care to share the conversation from which your delusion
derives?

> I did peek at Robert Chung's nice state-by-state graph,
> broken down into black and other victims, and don't know
> whether to praise Colorado for lynching only "other" victims
> (most likely Mexican-Americans, Italian-Americans, and
> immigrants from Central Europe) or to wonder what the
> powerful Colorado Klan members were doing in the 1930's.

You forgot the Chinese.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:18:50 -0500, Jim Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] writes:
>
>> On 16 Jun 2005 07:11:38 -0700, "App" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Now that you have educated yourself, please answer the following
>>>questions:
>>>
>>>Would you,or would you not support the anti-lynching resolution? Why?
>>>
>>>App
>>
>
>> I haven't dared to read the resolution, since it's been
>> explained to me that any failure to endorse it after reading
>> it would brand me as a racist. What if I failed to measure
>> up to the loyalty oath committee's standards?
>
>Good god you are full of **** Mr. Fogel!
>
>Do you care to share the conversation from which your delusion
>derives?


Dear Jim,

Here you go:

Jim Smith wrote:

# http://bokonon.metapath.org/l.html
#
# Seems like signing on would be a no-brainer. Unless one
# was a racist.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[email protected] writes:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:18:50 -0500, Jim Smith
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] writes:
>>
>>> On 16 Jun 2005 07:11:38 -0700, "App" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Now that you have educated yourself, please answer the following
>>>>questions:
>>>>
>>>>Would you,or would you not support the anti-lynching resolution? Why?
>>>>
>>>>App
>>>
>>
>>> I haven't dared to read the resolution, since it's been
>>> explained to me that any failure to endorse it after reading
>>> it would brand me as a racist. What if I failed to measure
>>> up to the loyalty oath committee's standards?
>>
>>Good god you are full of **** Mr. Fogel!
>>
>>Do you care to share the conversation from which your delusion
>>derives?
>
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> Here you go:
>
> Jim Smith wrote:
>
> # http://bokonon.metapath.org/l.html
> #
> # Seems like signing on would be a no-brainer. Unless one
> # was a racist.

Aha!. It IS as I suspected. You ARE a doddering fool!

Oh well, best you get back to your spreadsheets and calculators.

Oh, and take your affected salutations and shove 'em up your ass.

"Jim Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] writes:
>> Aha!. It IS as I suspected. You ARE a doddering fool!
>
> Oh well, best you get back to your spreadsheets and calculators.
>
> Oh, and take your affected salutations and shove 'em up your ass.

Making new friends?

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:58:12 -0700, "Frank Drackman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Jim Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] writes:
>>> Aha!. It IS as I suspected. You ARE a doddering fool!
>>
>> Oh well, best you get back to your spreadsheets and calculators.
>>
>> Oh, and take your affected salutations and shove 'em up your ass.
>
>Making new friends?
>

Dear Frank,

The quoting >'s ended up a bit confused, so I'll point out
that the three lines above your wry query were from Jim, not
me:

"Aha!. It IS as I suspected. You ARE a doddering fool!"

"Oh well, best you get back to your spreadsheets and
calculators."

"Oh, and take your affected salutations and shove 'em up
your ass."

Such closely reasoned arguments always bear repeating.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[email protected] writes:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:58:12 -0700, "Frank Drackman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>> Aha!. It IS as I suspected. You ARE a doddering fool!
>>>
>>> Oh well, best you get back to your spreadsheets and calculators.
>>>
>>> Oh, and take your affected salutations and shove 'em up your ass.
>>
>>Making new friends?
>>
>
> Dear Frank,
>
> The quoting >'s ended up a bit confused, so I'll point out
> that the three lines above your wry query were from Jim, not
> me:
>
> "Aha!. It IS as I suspected. You ARE a doddering fool!"
>
> "Oh well, best you get back to your spreadsheets and
> calculators."
>
> "Oh, and take your affected salutations and shove 'em up
> your ass."
>
> Such closely reasoned arguments always bear repeating.


Coming full circle to where we started, I will point out that those
are not arguments either. Not that I think that will stop you from
caiming they are. Moron.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Dear Frank,
>
> The quoting >'s ended up a bit confused, so I'll point out
> that the three lines above your wry query were from Jim, not
> me:
>

Correct as usual, sorry for my mistake

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:03:06 -0700, "Frank Drackman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Dear Frank,
>>
>> The quoting >'s ended up a bit confused, so I'll point out
>> that the three lines above your wry query were from Jim, not
>> me:
>>
>
>Correct as usual, sorry for my mistake

Dear Frank,

If only it were usual . . . Joe Riel just had to point out
gently that my careful side-to-side tilt calculations
elsewhere needed doubling.

Anyway, given my level of proof-reading, I plan to bank your
cheerful "sorry" and trade it back as an "oops" when needed.
Trimming any thread as nested as this one is tricky.

Imagine if we all paid a penny per oops or typo to some
worthy cause--say Mike Iglesias, for example, who takes care
of the weekly archiving of our threads.

Carl Fogel

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:00:03 -0500, Jim Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] writes:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:58:12 -0700, "Frank Drackman"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>>> Aha!. It IS as I suspected. You ARE a doddering fool!
>>>>
>>>> Oh well, best you get back to your spreadsheets and calculators.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and take your affected salutations and shove 'em up your ass.
>>>
>>>Making new friends?
>>>
>>
>> Dear Frank,
>>
>> The quoting >'s ended up a bit confused, so I'll point out
>> that the three lines above your wry query were from Jim, not
>> me:
>>
>> "Aha!. It IS as I suspected. You ARE a doddering fool!"
>>
>> "Oh well, best you get back to your spreadsheets and
>> calculators."
>>
>> "Oh, and take your affected salutations and shove 'em up
>> your ass."
>>
>> Such closely reasoned arguments always bear repeating.
>
>
>Coming full circle to where we started, I will point out that those
>are not arguments either. Not that I think that will stop you from
>caiming they are. Moron.

Dear Jim,

Actually, I think that your posts form an argument for other
readers to see, though not the one that you think.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

Carl Fogel