[OT: humour] On the subject of taking Iraq messages elsewhere

[Larry Varney]

Robert Siegel wrote:
> Belatedly, I want to apologize to Tom Sherman and to this NG for saying that Tom is our baddest,
> most leftist "expletive". I was tired, inexcusably hurried and careless in posting my note. This
> is generally an open, interesting NG with much good humor, including many funny and often
> self-effacing comments from Tom Sherman.
>
> Very clearly, I should have said: Tom Sherman is our baddest leftist-wing iconoclast. Most
> definitely, there is nothing wrong with having unpopular opinions, for sure.
>
> Gator Bob Siegel EasyRacers Ti Rush
>

I, for one, welcome and applaud your apology. I'm sure that this group isn't unique, but I was
beginning to tire of seeing postings that belittled the opinions of others, slurred whole
nations, and seemed designed to do nothing but insult someone. The result of such things usually
means that the group starts taking on the flavor of the insult posters, as more and more people
who don't enjoy that sort of thing gradually stop posting, and eventually leave for good. Offense
isn't something that we can completely avoid, and it may be a bad idea to even try. Some may even
find it offensive that I've changed the subject line of this post. To them I say: expletive
deleted. And if you know what made that phrase famous, you may be as old as I am!

--
Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

 

[Joshua Goldberg]

fer sure eh (am lernin te speek Canadiun) All these posts devoted to Bashing Tom Sherman WAS getting
tiresome, seems ever since he got the Dragonflyer people have been lining up to take a shot at
him...some the comments being vile and a few on the verge of questioning his preoccupation with PVC
and studded leather clad Sheep.
--------------------------------------Baaah---------------------------------
------------
"Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Robert Siegel wrote:
> > Belatedly, I want to apologize to Tom Sherman and to this NG for saying
that
> > Tom is our baddest, most leftist "expletive". I was tired, inexcusably hurried and careless in
> > posting my note. This is generally an open, interesting NG with much good humor, including many
> > funny and often self-effacing comments from Tom Sherman.
> >
> > Very clearly, I should have said: Tom Sherman is our baddest
leftist-wing
> > iconoclast. Most definitely, there is nothing wrong with having unpopular opinions,
for
> > sure.
> >
> > Gator Bob Siegel EasyRacers Ti Rush
> >
>
> I, for one, welcome and applaud your apology. I'm sure that this group isn't unique, but I was
> beginning to tire of seeing postings that belittled the opinions of others, slurred whole
> nations, and seemed designed to do nothing but insult someone. The result of such things
> usually means that the group starts taking on the flavor of the insult posters, as more and
> more people who don't enjoy that sort of thing gradually stop posting, and eventually leave
> for good. Offense isn't something that we can completely avoid, and it may be a bad idea to
> even try. Some may even find it offensive that I've changed the subject line of this post. To
> them I say: expletive deleted. And if you know what made that phrase famous, you may be as old
> as I am!
>
>
>
>
> --
> Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

 

[A&B]

Pics? ;-) bill g

Joshua Goldberg wrote:
>
some the comments being vile and a few on the verge of questioning
> his preoccupation with PVC and studded leather clad Sheep.
> --------------------------------------Baaah---------------------------------

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:55:12 +0100, "Mikael Seierup" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> It's like this: in go the weapons inspectors and say "show us your weapons." If Saddam shows them
>> any weapons, Dubya says "Aha! Weapons!" and invades. If Saddam shows them an empty bunker Dubya
>> says "Aha! He's not showing the inspectors his weapons!" and invades.

>Yep, its a perfect Catch-22.

>Not much humour in this thread btw.

Sadly not. Sadly also it's degenrated (apparently) into Scott v. Rest Of World. Which is a shame,
because earlier on Scott made some good and thought-provoking points - but there you go, as the
thread lengthens people tend to polarise their positions and end up perhaps seeming further out than
they really are. I can't imagine anybody has no reservations at all about the motives or outcomes of
war in the Gulf.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003 15:49:41 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

>You're just being silly.

Yes, actually, I am somewhat. I am not absolutely against war under abny circumstances, and I am
certainly no fan of Saddam. But.

Why does Saddam get threatened with bombing for possibly still possessing the Anthrax which the US
sold him, while North Korea gets diplomacy for violating nuclear treaties?

Still, the only answer which has the ring of truth is "oil."

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Tom Sherman]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
> Sadly not. Sadly also it's degenrated (apparently) into Scott v. Rest Of World. Which is a shame,
> because earlier on Scott made some good and thought-provoking points - but there you go, as the
> thread lengthens people tend to polarise their positions and end up perhaps seeming further out
> than they really are. I can't imagine anybody has no reservations at all about the motives or
> outcomes of war in the Gulf.

To judge by the recent UN Security Council meeting and the turnout worldwide for the Saturday
anti-war marches, it is more like the US and Israeli governments against the rest of the world.

As for not having reservations, I doubt G. W. Bush has any, since he apparently has the conviction
of a religious crusader that remaking the world using US military power is God's wish.

It is amazing the in little over two years; the Bush Administration has dissipated almost all the
goodwill the US has earned in Western Europe over the last six decades. Or as the Palestinian man in
Jerusalem said when asked how he felt about the US, "Good people, bad government."

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Tamasic1]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Or as the Palestinian man in Jerusalem said when asked how he felt about the US, "Good people, bad
government."

Sad how easily you are taken in by the mass media.

 

[Dave Larrington]

Mikael wrote:

> Not much humour in this thread btw.

OK, try here: http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/. Snk!

Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Freewheeling]

Guy:

"Why does Saddam get threatened with bombing for possibly still possessing the Anthrax which the US
sold him, while North Korea gets diplomacy for violating nuclear treaties?"

Well:

1. I think the US is, so far, refusing to negotiate directly with the N. Koreans, which is basically
what they're *****ing about.

2. Saddam possesses more than Anthrax, which probably doesn't worry us all that much since it's not
contageous and can be treated with antibiotics.

3. We might be keeping our distance from the N. Korean situation in order to buy time, and to avoid
negotiating with a nuclear blackmailer. (Sets a pretty bad precedent.)

4. It would be an easy world indeed if we could just apply a cookie cutter solution to every problem
in foreign policy.

5. Strictly speaking the N. Koreans didn't violate a treaty, they went around it. They agreed to not
employ one route to a nuclear weapon with the Clinton administration, and then simply employed
another route not specified in the treaty. They are, however, in material breach of a UN
resolution.

6. I wouldn't bet that we will continue to stay out of the N. Korean situation, after some of the
regional principles engage them (mainly Japan and China).

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2003 15:49:41 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >You're just being silly.
>
> Yes, actually, I am somewhat. I am not absolutely against war under abny circumstances, and I am
> certainly no fan of Saddam. But.
>
> Why does Saddam get threatened with bombing for possibly still possessing the Anthrax which the US
> sold him, while North Korea gets diplomacy for violating nuclear treaties?
>
> Still, the only answer which has the ring of truth is "oil."
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

 

[Freewheeling]

Guy:

I recently posted (in a more appropriate setting) a lament that the President of the US is not
Hillary Clinton. I think the Clinton/Levin proposal for dealing with Iraq would actually work, and
eventually checkmate Saddam (quite possibly without a war). Even if it occasioned a war it would be
one started by Saddam, and not us. I find it very frustrating that the Bush team apparently doesn't
see this opportunity. Furthermore the Clinton/Levin position is not so far from that of the French
that we couldn't embarass or compel them to accept it , and obtain either a second resolution or a
new resolve to implement the precise terms of the first. (The Germans are a lost cause.)

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:55:12 +0100, "Mikael Seierup" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> It's like this: in go the weapons inspectors and say "show us your weapons." If Saddam shows
> >> them any weapons, Dubya says "Aha! Weapons!" and invades. If Saddam shows them an empty bunker
> >> Dubya says "Aha! He's not showing the inspectors his weapons!" and invades.
>
> >Yep, its a perfect Catch-22.
>
> >Not much humour in this thread btw.
>
> Sadly not. Sadly also it's degenrated (apparently) into Scott v. Rest Of World. Which is a shame,
> because earlier on Scott made some good and thought-provoking points - but there you go, as the
> thread lengthens people tend to polarise their positions and end up perhaps seeming further out
> than they really are. I can't imagine anybody has no reservations at all about the motives or
> outcomes of war in the Gulf.
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

 

[Tom Sherman]

tamasic1 wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Or as the Palestinian man in Jerusalem said when asked how he felt about the US, "Good people, bad
> government."
>
> Sad how easily you are taken in by the mass media.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????? [1]

[1] Yes, I am wasting scare punctuation resources.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
>
> Guy:
>
> I recently posted (in a more appropriate setting) a lament that the President of the US is not
> Hillary Clinton. I think the Clinton/Levin proposal for dealing with Iraq would actually work,
> and eventually checkmate Saddam (quite possibly without a war). Even if it occasioned a war it
> would be one started by Saddam, and not us. I find it very frustrating that the Bush team
> apparently doesn't see this opportunity. Furthermore the Clinton/Levin position is not so far
> from that of the French that we couldn't embarass or compel them to accept it , and obtain either
> a second resolution or a new resolve to implement the precise terms of the first. (The Germans
> are a lost cause.)
>
> --
> --Scott

Over the last year and a half, there seems to be a distinct impression of the Israeli tail wagging
the US dog.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Freewheeling]

"Over the last year and a half, there seems to be a distinct impression of the Israeli tail wagging
the US dog."

B.S. And I thought you weren't going to change the subject. This has absolutely nothing to do with
Resolution 1441.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Freewheeling wrote:
> >
> > Guy:
> >
> > I recently posted (in a more appropriate setting) a lament that the President of the US is not
> > Hillary Clinton. I think the Clinton/Levin proposal for dealing with Iraq would actually work,
> > and eventually
checkmate
> > Saddam (quite possibly without a war). Even if it occasioned a war it would be one started by
> > Saddam, and not us. I find it very frustrating
that
> > the Bush team apparently doesn't see this opportunity. Furthermore the Clinton/Levin position is
> > not so far from that of the French that we couldn't embarass or compel them to accept it , and
> > obtain either a
second
> > resolution or a new resolve to implement the precise terms of the first. (The Germans are a lost
> > cause.)
> >
> > --
> > --Scott
>
> Over the last year and a half, there seems to be a distinct impression of the Israeli tail wagging
> the US dog.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
>
> Guy:
>
> I recently posted (in a more appropriate setting) a lament that the President of the US is not
> Hillary Clinton. I think the Clinton/Levin proposal for dealing with Iraq would actually work,
> and eventually checkmate Saddam (quite possibly without a war). Even if it occasioned a war it
> would be one started by Saddam, and not us. I find it very frustrating that the Bush team
> apparently doesn't see this opportunity. Furthermore the Clinton/Levin position is not so far
> from that of the French that we couldn't embarass or compel them to accept it , and obtain either
> a second resolution or a new resolve to implement the precise terms of the first. (The Germans
> are a lost cause.)

I am coming to the conclusion, while the human species may contain some reasonable individuals, as a
collective group they are a failure at establishing a just, sustainable society. Therefore, I
believe the best solution to the current situation is to sit back and watch the world descend into a
new age of barbarism and ecological disaster, where might makes right and any pretense of
international order is abandoned.

All will not be lost, since rodents are quite tough [1], and should survive any destruction that
humans may cause, so mammals will not become extinct. The second time around, a highly intelligent
species with more wisdom than the current one may evolve.

[1] A large population of rats was found living on Bikini Atoll after the island had been used for
aboveground thermonuclear test explosions.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Derek Swift]

> I, for one, welcome and applaud your apology. I'm sure that this group isn't unique, but I was
> beginning to tire of seeing postings that belittled the opinions of others, slurred whole
> nations, and seemed designed to do nothing but insult someone.

I concur. It takes a big man to admit that he was in error.

Derek

 

[Rorschandt]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

>
> I am coming to the conclusion, while the human species may contain some reasonable individuals, as
> a collective group they are a failure at establishing a just, sustainable society. Therefore, I
> believe the best solution to the current situation is to sit back and watch the world descend into
> a new age of barbarism and ecological disaster, where might makes right and any pretense of
> international order is abandoned.

http://www.multi.co.uk/afterhum.htm

 

[Freewheeling]

So, in other words as long as you don't have to see any opposition to your point of view you don't
mind not reiterating them. Doesn't that define a monopoly? The way I see it is that the Chomskyites,
et al have pretty much had their way within the education system for quite awhile, virtually
unopposed. The result is a series of commonly held mythologies that, for instance, employ the same
word for opening a McDonalds in a third world country and the horrors in the Belgian Congo.
"Imperialism" has an extraordinarily elastic interpretation, apparently. I think it's about time
this stuff is addressed, especially in view of the fact that it has finally become so widespread as
to represent a threat and an apparent justification for terrorists. (According to the estwhile
linguist the US is really a "terrorist nation.")

I realize that people would prefer to sweep this under the rug, and don't mind keeping this off
a.r.b.r but, like you, I don't start these threads. I'm responding to what I think are wrong-headed
observations that aren't completely transparent about what they're actually *for* or against.

Furthermore, I notice that you often change the topic to something where you feel you have more
purchase after I've responded. Isn't that the same as starting a new thread? Or at least a new
sub-thread?

You might explain to me, offline if possible, the difference between the concept of a "peoples
corporation" and Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalism. I'm sure it's a little arcane for most of the group
here though. It's just that it's so hard to pin some of these obscure concepts down.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Mikael Seierup wrote:
> >
> > There you two go again. Wouldn't it be better to use email? For the rest of us I mean. ;o)
>
> Mikael,
>
> You are missing the point entirely. As a search of the Google Groups alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> archives will reveal, I have not started threads with political content. This may come as a
> surprise to people, but I would actually prefer not to see such discussions on a.r.b.r.
>
> HOWEVER, in the US there are plenty of advocates for the US economic system as it currently
> stands, US foreign policy in general, a US invasion of Iraq, etc., as almost all the mainstream
> media reporters, television and radio pundits, and quoted government officials support these
> views. Since these views are so commonly expressed, I see no reason for them to appear in
> a.r.b.r. [1]
>
> I have no real desire to discuss these issues with someone else who mind is also made up, which is
> rather pointless. But, being an obstinate, irritable, abrasive, sarcastic, and obnoxious person, I
> am willing to challenge these mainstream media/government off-topic points of view until the cows
> come home, pigs fly, hell freezes over, or the Homeland Security Officers haul me off to
> Guantonomo Bay (to the sounds of great rejoicing from everyone else).
>
> [1] Admittedly, this is a US centric view, however the majority of the contributors to a.r.b.r are
> from the US.
>
> Tom Sherman - Curmudgeonville USA

 

[Freewheeling]

Tom:

"I am coming to the conclusion, while the human species may contain some reasonable individuals, as
a collective group they are a failure at establishing a just, sustainable society."

I have a suggestion. Learn something about Game Theory, and why they decided to give the Nobel Prize
to John Nash.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Freewheeling wrote:
> >
> > Guy:
> >
> > I recently posted (in a more appropriate setting) a lament that the President of the US is not
> > Hillary Clinton. I think the Clinton/Levin proposal for dealing with Iraq would actually work,
> > and eventually
checkmate
> > Saddam (quite possibly without a war). Even if it occasioned a war it would be one started by
> > Saddam, and not us. I find it very frustrating
that
> > the Bush team apparently doesn't see this opportunity. Furthermore the Clinton/Levin position is
> > not so far from that of the French that we couldn't embarass or compel them to accept it , and
> > obtain either a
second
> > resolution or a new resolve to implement the precise terms of the first. (The Germans are a lost
> > cause.)
>
> I am coming to the conclusion, while the human species may contain some reasonable individuals, as
> a collective group they are a failure at establishing a just, sustainable society. Therefore, I
> believe the best solution to the current situation is to sit back and watch the world descend into
> a new age of barbarism and ecological disaster, where might makes right and any pretense of
> international order is abandoned.
>
> All will not be lost, since rodents are quite tough [1], and should survive any destruction that
> humans may cause, so mammals will not become extinct. The second time around, a highly intelligent
> species with more wisdom than the current one may evolve.
>
> [1] A large population of rats was found living on Bikini Atoll after the island had been used for
> aboveground thermonuclear test explosions.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Carol Cohen]

> I am coming to the conclusion, while the human species may contain some reasonable individuals, as
> a collective group they are a failure at establishing a just, sustainable society. Therefore, I
> believe the best solution to the current situation is to sit back and watch the world descend into
> a new age of barbarism and ecological disaster, where might makes right and any pretense of
> international order is abandoned.
>
> All will not be lost, since rodents are quite tough

My vote is for raccoons. They have little hands and can change gears and grip brake levers, and
those fluffy banded tails make excellent padding on a lowracer seat.

WILL YOU GUYS EVER STAY ON-TOPIC???

C.C.

 

[Rorschandt]

Carol Cohen <[email protected]> wrote in news:BA77EB21.45014%[email protected]:

>
>
>>
>> I am coming to the conclusion, while the human species may contain some reasonable individuals,
>> as a collective group they are a failure at establishing a just, sustainable society. Therefore,
>> I believe the best solution to the current situation is to sit back and watch the world descend
>> into a new age of barbarism and ecological disaster, where might makes right and any pretense of
>> international order is abandoned.
>>
>> All will not be lost, since rodents are quite tough
>
> My vote is for raccoons. They have little hands and can change gears and grip brake levers, and
> those fluffy banded tails make excellent padding on a lowracer seat.
>
> WILL YOU GUYS EVER STAY ON-TOPIC???

Raccoons are not rodents, and are of the order of CARNIVORA, Family PROCYONIDAE. Ailurus.

happy trails, rorschandt