|
Home > Archive > Architecture > May 2007 > Now that he's gone....
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Now that he's gone....
|
|
|
| .....watch and see which US corporate boards take him aboard as a director
and which groups pay him six-figure honorariums for speeches.
In the meantime he should be brought up on charges commensurate with the
magnitude of his crimes.
Talkin' 'bout Blair.
| |
| RicodJour 2007-05-12, 1:25 pm |
| Don wrote:
> ....watch and see which US corporate boards take him aboard as a director
> and which groups pay him six-figure honorariums for speeches.
>
> In the meantime he should be brought up on charges commensurate with the
> magnitude of his crimes.
>
> Talkin' 'bout Blair.
Blair is a war criminal, but Hitler would be a potential source of
funding your lifestyle? Usually holding two such irreconcilable views
at the same time causes someone's head to explode.
Of course, if Blair showed you the money, you'd do the work for him,
right?
If Hilary Clinton or Obama or Osama for that matter, wanted to hire
you, you'd have no problem.
If Ted Kennedy, intent on removing all assault weapons, showed up,
you'd ask for a deposit check.
Please. The only intelligence you're insulting is your own. You have
standards, you just don't want to admit it.
R
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-12, 1:25 pm |
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1178988138.593170.194510@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Don wrote:
>
> Blair is a war criminal, but Hitler would be a potential source of
> funding your lifestyle? Usually holding two such irreconcilable views
> at the same time causes someone's head to explode.
Only if you try to make sense of it. I gave up when he argued for personal
nuclear proliferation.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
| 3D Peruna 2007-05-12, 5:25 pm |
| Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> Only if you try to make sense of it. I gave up when he argued for personal
> nuclear proliferation.
No, that was me.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-12, 5:25 pm |
|
"3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:z3p1i.28$GV2.24@newsfe02.lga...
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>
> No, that was me.
I don't think so. Don said he didn't care who had nukes. You may have chimed
in, but you are a known provocateur.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
|
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1178988138.593170.194510@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Don wrote:
>
> Blair is a war criminal, but Hitler would be a potential source of
> funding your lifestyle? Usually holding two such irreconcilable views
> at the same time causes someone's head to explode.
>
> Of course, if Blair showed you the money, you'd do the work for him,
> right?
> If Hilary Clinton or Obama or Osama for that matter, wanted to hire
> you, you'd have no problem.
> If Ted Kennedy, intent on removing all assault weapons, showed up,
> you'd ask for a deposit check.
>
> Please. The only intelligence you're insulting is your own. You have
> standards, you just don't want to admit it.
So, you make up accusations and then you answer to them too.
When a client hires me to do a job I will do it.
If you want to drag all sorts of baggage into your business relationships
thats your problem.
Maybe thats why you're business relationships are mainly failures and you
are therefore jealous of others that are successful?
If you want to be successful then act like it and treat others as successful
too.
sheesh, wasn't this covered in basic human interaction courses in what, 3rd
grade?
| |
|
|
"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:f2502h02dbi@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1178988138.593170.194510@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Only if you try to make sense of it. I gave up when he argued for personal
> nuclear proliferation.
jeezis h christ.
Just go on make up whole lies Mike.
YOU brought it up, and I simply said I don't care what you own.
So in your opinion if I mind my own business it means something else.
TEEVEE does that to people.
| |
|
|
"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:f257b902jp3@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
> news:z3p1i.28$GV2.24@newsfe02.lga...
>
> I don't think so. Don said he didn't care who had nukes. You may have
> chimed in, but you are a known provocateur.
If I *don't care* about something then that means I *argued for* it?
| |
|
| > Only if you try to make sense of it. I gave up when he argued for personal
> nuclear proliferation.
The sense of it is quite plain. It is recognized that you disagree.
How your disagreement is any sort of counter to his sense is not
evident.
| |
|
| > >> I gave up when he argued for
[color=darkred]
> Don said he didn't care who had nukes
Speaking of making sense, these statements are not equivalent.
| |
|
| > sheesh, wasn't this covered in basic human interaction courses in what, 3rd
> grade?
Don, I don't know why you refuse to use social and financial coersion
to force people to behave in conformance with Rico's dreams for the
world. Kings couldn't do it. Democracy isn't being able to do it.
Grassroots snottiness is the world's last and only hope. Don, you are
the world's last and only hope. Please conform to standards.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-12, 5:25 pm |
|
"gruhn" <gruhn@rararchitects.com> wrote in message
news:1179003987.6XXXX5.158820@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Speaking of making sense, these statements are not equivalent.
Point taken.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-12, 5:25 pm |
|
"gruhn" <gruhn@rararchitects.com> wrote in message
news:1179003853.753458.47800@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> The sense of it is quite plain. It is recognized that you disagree.
> How your disagreement is any sort of counter to his sense is not
> evident.
That's because I didn't and I'm not going to try. I said I "gave up".
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2007-05-12, 5:25 pm |
| On May 12, 2:31 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
> "gruhn" <g...@rararchitects.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179003853.753458.47800@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> That's because I didn't and I'm not going to try. I said I "gave up".
I conform to the standards of when the pub is closing,
I have many pleasant memories...
Ken
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-12, 5:25 pm |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:f259mb02uo5@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
> news:f257b902jp3@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> If I *don't care* about something then that means I *argued for* it?
It's equally irresponsible to say you don't care about personal nuclear
proliferation, as it is to argue for it in my books. If not exactly equal,
equally irresponsible and astounding. It also makes me grateful for the
existence of CIA, the FBI, CSIS, the Mounties and the rest of the cops,
Martial Law, the War Measures Act, prisons, jails, insane asylums, and all
the other repressive tools of the state, as flawed as they all are.
| |
| Warm Worm 2007-05-12, 8:25 pm |
| On May 12, 4:16 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
> "3D Peruna" <whar...@weirdness.com> wrote in message
>
> news:z3p1i.28$GV2.24@newsfe02.lga...
>
>
>
>
> I don't think so. Don said he didn't care who had nukes. You may have chimed
> in, but you are a known provocateur.
Are you trying to provoke 3DP? ;)
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2007-05-12, 8:25 pm |
| On May 12, 2:58 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
> "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f259mb02uo5@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It's equally irresponsible to say you don't care about personal nuclear
> proliferation, as it is to argue for it in my books. If not exactly equal,
> equally irresponsible and astounding. It also makes me grateful for the
> existence of CIA, the FBI, CSIS, the Mounties and the rest of the cops,
> Martial Law, the War Measures Act, prisons, jails, insane asylums, and all
> the other repressive tools of the state, as flawed as they all are.
Screw that MikeB, your constructing power
organizations to compete in a domination
fashion that will use you and your son's in
a meat=grinder war.
The canuck govmonks is totally corrupt, they
rob you blind too support the're pension plans,
thats it, WTF, figure it out.
Don's right, but if you don't agree, at least have
vigilance. You are governed by fucking morons.
Every A-hole cop, lawyer (lier), judge makes a
buck only if a criminal exists, so their entire
business is based on crime, kapeach?
Ontario is totally corrupt, the POOPS have no
accountability.
I agree with Don, your brain box is fucked,
you'll believe the easiest apparent truth inspite
of the "Big Lie", path of least resistance.
I know your (MikeB) IQ is higher than mine, but
I learned in kindergarten, "Bull-Shit Baffles Brains".
Govmonks lern ya to Read Rite and Rithmetic,
which is better don in home schooling.
No offense intended, regards
Ken
| |
|
|
"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:f25db002qvk@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:f259mb02uo5@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> It's equally irresponsible to say you don't care about personal nuclear
> proliferation, as it is to argue for it in my books.
There it is folks.
Paranoia brought on by over exposure to mass media.
If not exactly equal,
> equally irresponsible and astounding. It also makes me grateful for the
> existence of CIA, the FBI, CSIS, the Mounties and the rest of the cops,
> Martial Law, the War Measures Act, prisons, jails, insane asylums, and all
> the other repressive tools of the state, as flawed as they all are.
The cowards, when rasslin' with their emotions and attempting to discuss
private property rights centered on firearms immediately, like herd members,
jump to the ridiculous fantasy of owning a nookular device. Their naive
thought process that dangerous items in the hands of private persons is
inhernetly dangerous but when in the hands of politicians is necessary.
Contrary to the fact that the former is stable and the latter is insane.
Why aren't Indy car racers being arrested left and right for driving 200mph
on the streets?
Why aren't the millions of card carrying *right to carry* members being
thrown in jail em masse for spraying bullets all over the place?
Why doesn't Bill Gates, who can bankroll and entire country is so desired,
become the worlds greatest dictator?
There is no rational explanation behind the cowardly stance of the liberal
socialists as their infantile minds have been carved into caracatures of
rampant paranoia fueled by confused and conflicting messages on a grand
scale for most of their lives - simply, they are unable to think
cohesively - and for their own good should be gathered up and confined in a
padded room with 100" TEEVEE's showing Sesame Street on every wall. They
have no place in a free society and are bent upon causing as much grief to
others as possible.
Teeny brains propped on top of even teenyer backbones with microscopic movie
theater raisinette ballz glued to the bottom end and tissue paper skin
stretched over glass shard nerve endings everywhere.
Emotional basket cases on jet propelled wheelchairz...............
| |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1179010825.594398.70260@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 12, 2:58 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
>
> Screw that MikeB, your constructing power
> organizations to compete in a domination
> fashion that will use you and your son's in
> a meat=grinder war.
> The canuck govmonks is totally corrupt, they
> rob you blind too support the're pension plans,
> thats it, WTF, figure it out.
>
> Don's right, but if you don't agree, at least have
> vigilance. You are governed by fucking morons.
>
> Every A-hole cop, lawyer (lier), judge makes a
> buck only if a criminal exists, so their entire
> business is based on crime, kapeach?
>
> Ontario is totally corrupt, the POOPS have no
> accountability.
>
> I agree with Don, your brain box is fucked,
> you'll believe the easiest apparent truth inspite
> of the "Big Lie", path of least resistance.
>
> I know your (MikeB) IQ is higher than mine,
No, you don't know that.
but
> I learned in kindergarten, "Bull-Shit Baffles Brains".
> Govmonks lern ya to Read Rite and Rithmetic,
> which is better don in home schooling.
>
> No offense intended, regards
The last thing on my mind, when offended, is worrying whether I have
offended anyone.
Its not possible to breathe a single breath these daze without offending
someone somewhere.
Fuck em all.........
| |
|
| "gruhn"> wrote
>
> The sense of it is quite plain. It is recognized that you disagree.
> How your disagreement is any sort of counter to his sense is not
> evident.
He can't.
You see, logic and emotion are not linked.
| |
|
|
"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:f25bnp02og6@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "gruhn" <gruhn@rararchitects.com> wrote in message
> news:1179003853.753458.47800@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> That's because I didn't and I'm not going to try. I said I "gave up".
There it is again, raw emotionalism. LOL
| |
|
| "gruhn"> wrote
>
> Don, I don't know why you refuse to use social and financial coersion
> to force people to behave in conformance with Rico's dreams for the
> world. Kings couldn't do it. Democracy isn't being able to do it.
> Grassroots snottiness is the world's last and only hope. Don, you are
> the world's last and only hope. Please conform to standards.
Some people were born in the wrong century, I think I was born on the wrong
continent. heh
| |
| RicodJour 2007-05-13, 9:25 am |
| On May 13, 7:39 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "gruhn"> wrote
>
>
>
> Some people were born in the wrong century, I think I was born on the wrong
> continent. heh
No, you were born in continent - which, at least verbally, your last
five posts bear out.  ~
R
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-13, 9:25 am |
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1179010825.594398.70260@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 12, 2:58 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
>
> Screw that MikeB, your constructing power
> organizations to compete in a domination
> fashion that will use you and your son's in
> a meat=grinder war.
> The canuck govmonks is totally corrupt, they
> rob you blind too support the're pension plans,
> thats it, WTF, figure it out.
>
> Don's right, but if you don't agree, at least have
> vigilance. You are governed by fucking morons.
>
> Every A-hole cop, lawyer (lier), judge makes a
> buck only if a criminal exists, so their entire
> business is based on crime, kapeach?
>
> Ontario is totally corrupt, the POOPS have no
> accountability.
>
> I agree with Don, your brain box is fucked,
> you'll believe the easiest apparent truth inspite
> of the "Big Lie", path of least resistance.
>
> I know your (MikeB) IQ is higher than mine, but
> I learned in kindergarten, "Bull-Shit Baffles Brains".
> Govmonks lern ya to Read Rite and Rithmetic,
> which is better don in home schooling.
>
Ha. I knew that would get you going. Still, I am grateful there are
government instruments to control and suppress certain elements in society.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-13, 9:25 am |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:f26t8j0u8o@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1179010825.594398.70260@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> No, you don't know that.
That's true.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-13, 1:25 pm |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:f26tbk0u9t@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
> news:f25bnp02og6@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> There it is again, raw emotionalism. LOL
There it is again: Fundamental Attribution Error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundam...tribution_error
While I like argument, I don't argue at every opportunity. There are classes
of people with whom I would not argue about anything. There are some with
whom I might argue abut certain things. There are very few I would engage in
argument about anything. These are the really smart ones who are also
'open'. A pretty rare thing.
I won't argue religion with most religious people, especially the
fundamentalists.
I wont argue morality with a cannibal.
I won't argue racism with a bigot.
I won't argue abortion with most people.
I won't argue politics with terrorists.
I won't argue anything with the average psychotic wandering the streets. The
list goes on and on.
Assuming that I won't argue a point with you has something to do with
"emotionalism" is your prerogative, but incorrect.
My reason is that it's a waste of time, so I give up.
| |
|
|
"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:f277sg02ddp@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:f26tbk0u9t@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> There it is again: Fundamental Attribution Error.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundam...tribution_error
>
> While I like argument, I don't argue at every opportunity. There are
> classes of people with whom I would not argue about anything. There are
> some with whom I might argue abut certain things. There are very few I
> would engage in argument about anything. These are the really smart ones
> who are also 'open'. A pretty rare thing.
>
> I won't argue religion with most religious people, especially the
> fundamentalists.
> I wont argue morality with a cannibal.
> I won't argue racism with a bigot.
> I won't argue abortion with most people.
> I won't argue politics with terrorists.
> I won't argue anything with the average psychotic wandering the streets.
> The list goes on and on.
>
> Assuming that I won't argue a point with you has something to do with
> "emotionalism" is your prerogative, but incorrect.
> My reason is that it's a waste of time, so I give up.
Under a certain mindset *everything* is a waste of time.
Arguing with progovernmentalists might be a waste of time too but I still
have to keep trying.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-13, 5:25 pm |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:f27rk801k6r@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
> news:f277sg02ddp@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> Under a certain mindset *everything* is a waste of time.
> Arguing with progovernmentalists might be a waste of time too but I still
> have to keep trying.
Actually you don't.
| |
|
| > These are the really smart ones who are also
> 'open'. A pretty rare thing.
>
> I won't argue religion with most religious people, especially the
> fundamentalists.
> I wont argue morality with a cannibal.
> I won't argue racism with a bigot.
> I won't argue abortion with most people.
> I won't argue politics with terrorists.
> I won't argue anything with the average psychotic wandering the streets. The
> list goes on and on.
There are that many average psychotics wandering the streets? How do
you recognize them?
Do you mean "bigot" or "people Michael decrees bigots"?
morality-cannibal; politics-terrorists. Because you recognize that
actual discussions with these people are probably the most valuable
and surely more valuable than mere argument. Especially mere arguing
for enjoyment. ?.
>
> Assuming that I won't argue a point with you has something to do with
> "emotionalism" is your prerogative, but incorrect.
> My reason is that it's a waste of time, so I give up.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
| |
| Warm Worm 2007-05-15, 5:25 pm |
| On May 15, 12:25 am, gruhn <g...@rararchitects.com> wrote:
>
>
> There are that many average psychotics wandering the streets? How do
> you recognize them?
>
> Do you mean "bigot" or "people Michael decrees bigots"?
>
> morality-cannibal; politics-terrorists. Because you recognize that
> actual discussions with these people are probably the most valuable
> and surely more valuable than mere argument. Especially mere arguing
> for enjoyment. ?.
Good points and I'm tempted to agree. On the other hand, I see
Michael's angle/perspective and his right to do so as well... although
it does seem to kind of limit one's potential for fresh
perspectives... Perhaps it's a little like using a real-world plonk
filter. ;)
[color=darkred]
I think most of my time spent online is wasteful, but I still do
it. ;)
One great thing about having a life is that one can choose not to have
one.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-15, 5:25 pm |
|
"Warm Worm" <glomerol@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1179262781.311461.9410@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 12:25 am, gruhn <g...@rararchitects.com> wrote:
In a big city you trip over them if you're not careful. They wear T-shirts
that say "You can't MAKE me take my meds."
[color=darkred]
To me, these are the same thing.
[color=darkred]
Argument does not imply hositlity of any kind.
[color=darkred]
> Good points and I'm tempted to agree. On the other hand, I see
> Michael's angle/perspective and his right to do so as well... although
> it does seem to kind of limit one's potential for fresh
> perspectives...
True, but this is something the young rightly fuss over. I'm not young
anymore. I've made up my mind on a lot of subjects, including that of
"making up one's mind." I'm fine with it.
> Perhaps it's a little like using a real-world plonk
> filter. ;)
Exactly. I'm quick with the plonk button too. Life is very short.
| |
| Warm Worm 2007-05-15, 8:25 pm |
| On May 15, 6:17 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
> "Warm Worm" <glome...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:1179262781.311461.9410@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In a big city you trip over them if you're not careful. They wear T-shirts
> that say "You can't MAKE me take my meds."
>
>
> To me, these are the same thing.
>
>
> Argument does not imply hositlity of any kind.
>
>
> True, but this is something the young rightly fuss over. I'm not young
> anymore. I've made up my mind on a lot of subjects, including that of
> "making up one's mind." I'm fine with it.
>
>
> Exactly. I'm quick with the plonk button too. Life is very short.
Indeed it is Michael. Sometimes we have to make decisions based on
limited info.
| |
|
| "Warm Worm"> wrote
> One great thing about having a life is that one can choose not to have
> one.
Interestingly enough lifeless people, that is, people that *need to get a
life* have that same choice.
Weird, huh?
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-15, 8:25 pm |
|
"Warm Worm" <glomerol@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1179268143.707222.90700@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 6:17 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
>
> Indeed it is Michael. Sometimes we have to make decisions based on
> limited info.
SOMEtimes?
| |
| Warm Worm 2007-05-15, 8:25 pm |
| On May 15, 6:47 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
> "Warm Worm" <glome...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:1179268143.707222.90700@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SOMEtimes?
Ok, maybe all the time. There seem to be a few "realities" out there;
yours; mine; others'; reality, itself...
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-16, 9:25 am |
|
"Warm Worm" <glomerol@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1179271864.986178.233350@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 6:47 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
>
> Ok, maybe all the time. There seem to be a few "realities" out there;
> yours; mine; others'; reality, itself...
The first three are tight-fitting, Cartesian reductions, and the fourth a
quagmire ; )
| |
| RicodJour 2007-05-16, 9:25 am |
| Warm Worm wrote:
>
> Indeed it is Michael. Sometimes we have to make decisions based on
> limited info.
Goes without saying. What needs to be said - or at least understood -
is how limited the limited info is before someone feel's comfortable
making a decision.
Jumping to conclusions is not an exercise in predictive decision
making, it's an escape from evaluating a situation without
prejudgment.
Your coefficients may vary.
R
| |
|
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:f26t3e0u4e@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
> news:f25db002qvk@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> There it is folks.
> Paranoia brought on by over exposure to mass media.
>
> If not exactly equal,
>
> The cowards, when rasslin' with their emotions and attempting to discuss
> private property rights centered on firearms immediately, like herd
> members, jump to the ridiculous fantasy of owning a nookular device. Their
> naive thought process that dangerous items in the hands of private persons
> is inhernetly dangerous but when in the hands of politicians is necessary.
> Contrary to the fact that the former is stable and the latter is insane.
>
> Why aren't Indy car racers being arrested left and right for driving
> 200mph on the streets?
> Why aren't the millions of card carrying *right to carry* members being
> thrown in jail em masse for spraying bullets all over the place?
> Why doesn't Bill Gates, who can bankroll and entire country is so desired,
> become the worlds greatest dictator?
>
> There is no rational explanation behind the cowardly stance of the liberal
> socialists as their infantile minds have been carved into caracatures of
> rampant paranoia fueled by confused and conflicting messages on a grand
> scale for most of their lives - simply, they are unable to think
> cohesively - and for their own good should be gathered up and confined in
> a padded room with 100" TEEVEE's showing Sesame Street on every wall. They
> have no place in a free society and are bent upon causing as much grief to
> others as possible.
>
> Teeny brains propped on top of even teenyer backbones with microscopic
> movie theater raisinette ballz glued to the bottom end and tissue paper
> skin stretched over glass shard nerve endings everywhere.
> Emotional basket cases on jet propelled wheelchairz...............
>
On the other end of the scale, teeny brains atop teenier still spines, all
seemingly completely covered by the balls the size of Texas filled with
nothing but hot air. When the time comes they all pay their taxes, they all
stand in line, they all stick with America. Why, who knows, since they seem
to despise it so much.
All these men who would rather hole themselves up and come out of their
hidey holes only when your waving the green flag, I.E. hundred dollar bills.
These are living balls of pure hot air supporting their weight with self
perpetuating hypocrisy, circular logic, and an undying denial of what is
called "the real world". Using the word freedom as if there were no
consequences to their actions, and living in a world where every person (but
themselves of course) is a blooming idiot who somehow was brainwashed and
couldn't come to conclusions on their own.
In between these two extremes lives the average person, with whom the
majority of the world relates to. The majority of the world who just wants
to live their life happily and wants everyone else to have the same. The
majority of the world who is still trying to figure it out, while the other
(huge balls) screams that they somehow got the truth, either from God, or
from being so pissed off about the government, that only the opposite of
government could be true. The tiny majority is always the loudest because
they know they are right. Socrates would say all of these "truths" that
these tiny people with huge balls know is nothing but dogma.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl...socrates02.html
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
|
"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4648a383$0$16378$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:f26t3e0u4e@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> On the other end of the scale, teeny brains atop teenier still spines, all
> seemingly completely covered by the balls the size of Texas filled with
> nothing but hot air. When the time comes they all pay their taxes, they
> all stand in line, they all stick with America. Why, who knows, since
> they seem to despise it so much.
>
> All these men who would rather hole themselves up and come out of their
> hidey holes only when your waving the green flag, I.E. hundred dollar
> bills. These are living balls of pure hot air supporting their weight with
> self perpetuating hypocrisy, circular logic, and an undying denial of what
> is called "the real world". Using the word freedom as if there were no
> consequences to their actions, and living in a world where every person
> (but themselves of course) is a blooming idiot who somehow was brainwashed
> and couldn't come to conclusions on their own.
>
> In between these two extremes lives the average person, with whom the
> majority of the world relates to. The majority of the world who just
> wants to live their life happily and wants everyone else to have the same.
> The majority of the world who is still trying to figure it out, while the
> other (huge balls) screams that they somehow got the truth, either from
> God, or from being so pissed off about the government, that only the
> opposite of government could be true. The tiny majority is always the
> loudest because they know they are right. Socrates would say all of these
> "truths" that these tiny people with huge balls know is nothing but dogma.
>
> http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl...socrates02.html
Looks like I touched a nerve, again. sigh
No need to get all defensive Edgar.
You too will see the way, in time.
| |
| Warm Worm 2007-05-16, 5:25 pm |
| On May 16, 9:18 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> Warm Worm wrote:
>
>
> Goes without saying.
Of course. We say much that "goes without saying" as a matter of
casual conversation.
> What needs to be said - or at least understood -is how limited the limited info is before someone feel's comfortable
> making a decision.
> Jumping to conclusions is not an exercise in predictive decision making, it's an escape from evaluating a situation
> without prejudgment.
>
> Your coefficients may vary.
Seems to make sense... I wonder how many times a hair can be split. ;)
| |
|
|
"Warm Worm" <glomerol@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1179348666.711161.326480@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 16, 9:18 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> Of course. We say much that "goes without saying" as a matter of
> casual conversation.
>
>
> Seems to make sense... I wonder how many times a hair can be split. ;)
Once.
After that you have to split a *half hair*.
| |
| Seņor Popcorn-Coconut 2007-05-16, 9:25 pm |
| Don wrote:
> "Warm Worm" <glomerol@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:1179348666.711161.326480@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Once.
> After that you have to split a *half hair*.
:D
"Yes, but what if the strand was not precisely split in half the first
time? Our coefficients may vary."
;D
| |
| Seņor Popcorn-Coconut 2007-05-16, 9:25 pm |
| Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> "Warm Worm" <glomerol@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:1179271864.986178.233350@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The first three are tight-fitting, Cartesian reductions, and the fourth a
> quagmire ; )
Cool.
| |
| Warm Worm 2007-05-17, 5:25 pm |
| On May 13, 7:35 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:1179010825.594398.70260@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No, you don't know that.
>
> but
>
>
>
> The last thing on my mind, when offended, is worrying whether I have
> offended anyone.
> Its not possible to breathe a single breath these daze without offending
> someone somewhere...
No matter who you are or what you do, there will always be people who
don't like you or what you do. Naturally, it works both ways, as some
seem to forget. So I think that being yourself, within reason, is
being on the right track.
| |
|
|
"Warm Worm" <glomerol@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1179433345.030224.157380@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 13, 7:35 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
> No matter who you are or what you do, there will always be people who
> don't like you or what you do. Naturally, it works both ways, as some
> seem to forget. So I think that being yourself, within reason, is
> being on the right track.
Offended people offend me. heh
| |
|
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:f2fa3r01sjm@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4648a383$0$16378$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> Looks like I touched a nerve, again. sigh
> No need to get all defensive Edgar.
> You too will see the way, in time.
>
Damn, my posts have been coming through very late. Almost forgot about this
one.
Anyways, no I will never "see" the way to extremism of any sort. You can
call it defensiveness, I call it reality. Look back in history all the way
back to the beginning of time, and you'll see it too. There has never in
recorded history existed anything close to anarchy, and if it did, it wasn't
pretty. Governments haven't always been pretty either, but right now it is
the best we've got. The thing Pete talks about us "being in anarchy" on a
daily basis is cute but hold no water. But you go ahead and wallow in your
individualism.
The truth is, the only way anarchy would ever work is if everyone was
considerate of everyone else. If everyone held at least a semblance of
respect for each other, we might be able to pull it off. As it is,
individualism is not the answer for a healthy society, it is just an answer
for a healthy ego, and that's it.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
|
"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:464dddcc$0$16372$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:f2fa3r01sjm@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> Damn, my posts have been coming through very late. Almost forgot about
> this one.
>
> Anyways, no I will never "see" the way to extremism of any sort. You can
> call it defensiveness, I call it reality. Look back in history all the
> way back to the beginning of time, and you'll see it too. There has never
> in recorded history existed anything close to anarchy, and if it did, it
> wasn't pretty. Governments haven't always been pretty either, but right
> now it is the best we've got. The thing Pete talks about us "being in
> anarchy" on a daily basis is cute but hold no water. But you go ahead and
> wallow in your individualism.
>
> The truth is, the only way anarchy would ever work is if everyone was
> considerate of everyone else. If everyone held at least a semblance of
> respect for each other, we might be able to pull it off. As it is,
> individualism is not the answer for a healthy society, it is just an
> answer for a healthy ego, and that's it.
Everything you described in that last paragraph is anarchy exactly.
Just as Pete described.
I wonder why people try to resist this factoid when they know its true?
There is not one facet of gov't that works nor is there one facet that is
necessary.
Further, there is nothing that gov't can do that the free market can't do
better.
Remember, before any gov't can do right it must first do wrong.
This is not true in the free market, of which you are already a part.
Wallow in my individualism?
I don't think wallow is the right word, but I will continue to practice
individualism for that is what I am, an individual.
I remember a time long ago when I was forced to be a herd member.
Never again.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-18, 5:25 pm |
|
"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:464dddcc$0$16372$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> The truth is, the only way anarchy would ever work is if everyone was
> considerate of everyone else. If everyone held at least a semblance of
> respect for each other, we might be able to pull it off. As it is,
> individualism is not the answer for a healthy society, it is just an answer
> for a healthy ego, and that's it.
"When people lost sight of the way to live
Came codes of love and honesty,
Learning came, charity came,
Hypocrisy took charge;
When differences weakened family ties
Came benevolent fathers and dutiful sons;
And when lands were disrupted and misgoverned
Came ministers commended as loyal."
The Tao Te Ching, #18, Witter Bynner Translation
(http://www.terebess.hu/english/tao/bynner.html)
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
| 3D Peruna 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
| In-Reply-To: <1179010749.016748.42950@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <L_J3i.1220$p15.454@newsfe04.lga>
X-Trace: noffecneefnkbhgflhbgfpgcdpepfmkgmeefnfpbfjcaaddekeigeejhnbdodopngdfdchpdmhegmmbecgnfiiaohfkicjjjlnnfkjjhhkkconjhpdjjeanbmknkkpkajcecfidbdaffifbo
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 14:29:15 MST
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 16:29:18 -0500
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.architecture:137945
Warm Worm wrote:
> On May 12, 4:16 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
>
> Are you trying to provoke 3DP? ;)
Cool.
For citizens of the US: It is clear, from the writings of those who
wrote the Constitution, that the 2nd Amendment is there to provide
protection for the individuals against a tyrannical government. It is
not about hunting, or any of the other things that people make it out to
be. The 2nd Amendment provides the final and ultimate check against a
government run amok. Therefore, any law that bans any weapon that the
government has is unconstitutional. We cannot defend ourselves from a
tyrannical government if they have bigger and better weapons.
Provoked enough?
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
|
"3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:L_J3i.1220$p15.454@newsfe04.lga...
> Warm Worm wrote:
>
> Cool.
>
> For citizens of the US: It is clear, from the writings of those who wrote
> the Constitution, that the 2nd Amendment is there to provide protection
> for the individuals against a tyrannical government. It is not about
> hunting, or any of the other things that people make it out to be. The
> 2nd Amendment provides the final and ultimate check against a government
> run amok. Therefore, any law that bans any weapon that the government has
> is unconstitutional. We cannot defend ourselves from a tyrannical
> government if they have bigger and better weapons.
This was my point precisely, but does this make sense?
(Where you been? This thread is pretty old....)
| |
|
|
"3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:L_J3i.1220$p15.454@newsfe04.lga...
> Warm Worm wrote:
>
> Cool.
>
> For citizens of the US: It is clear, from the writings of those who wrote
> the Constitution, that the 2nd Amendment is there to provide protection
> for the individuals against a tyrannical government. It is not about
> hunting, or any of the other things that people make it out to be. The
> 2nd Amendment provides the final and ultimate check against a government
> run amok. Therefore, any law that bans any weapon that the government has
> is unconstitutional. We cannot defend ourselves from a tyrannical
> government if they have bigger and better weapons.
>
> Provoked enough?
Hardly, this stuff is right up my alley.
I'll go one step further.
No one gets to tell me what I can or can't own.
The only authority that I *might* recognize is brute force when it is
presented directly before my very eyes.
In that split second I will decide whether to recognize or decimate.
I trod this earth in peace and expect the same in return and anyone that
doesn't deal on that level can go straight to hell.
| |
| 3D Peruna 2007-05-19, 8:25 pm |
| Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> "3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
> news:L_J3i.1220$p15.454@newsfe04.lga...
>
> This was my point precisely, but does this make sense?
Well now, that depends. If it's me, I'd trust me completely to only use
my nukes in situations such as we have now... two political parties
completely inept, useless and going from bad to worse as fast as the new
Audi R8 goes from 0 to 60.
They didn't write the 2nd Amendment with "sense" in mind. They had a
greater fear of bad government than of bad people. One could argue (and
I think rather effectively) that bad government ends up creating more
bad people (in many different senses).
> (Where you been? This thread is pretty old....)
Loaded question. We'll start with several project deadlines and go from
there...
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-05-19, 9:25 pm |
|
"3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:W4N3i.1237$p15.1010@newsfe04.lga...
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
> Well now, that depends. If it's me, I'd trust me completely to only use
> my nukes in situations such as we have now... two political parties
> completely inept, useless and going from bad to worse as fast as the new
> Audi R8 goes from 0 to 60.
It would certainly obviate the project of tackling the legacy of slavery,
campaign finance reform, illegal immigration, Roe v. the Bible belt, the war
on drugs, the war on terror, and all the other wars, current and future,
that your leadership might imagine. Where do you plan to detonate? Capitol
hill? If so, would you do me a personal favor and advise innocent bystanders
in advance so that they can say their prayers, unless, of course, they are
in a public facility where they will have to settle for a moment of
reflection.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
|
| "Michael Bulatovich"> wrote
> Roe v. the Bible belt,
A more perfect error of a system out of control would be hard to find.
They didn't have the right to make it illegal in the first place so rather
than retract the wrong they did they simply wrote another paper to cover it
up.
WTF is that all about?
Sort of parallels that whole prohibition thing.
Make something illegal, which they have no business doing, then rather than
retract it they make a whole nother law to over ride the previous.
Buncha bullshit.....
| |
|
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:f2kqbe01ohq@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:464dddcc$0$16372$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> Everything you described in that last paragraph is anarchy exactly.
> Just as Pete described.
> I wonder why people try to resist this factoid when they know its true?
> There is not one facet of gov't that works nor is there one facet that is
> necessary.
> Further, there is nothing that gov't can do that the free market can't do
> better.
> Remember, before any gov't can do right it must first do wrong.
> This is not true in the free market, of which you are already a part.
>
Which is why I said THAT is the only way anarchy would work, in other words,
it WOULDN'T work because people DON'T do that. See that is where this thing
called reality comes into play, get it? So I am not trying to resist that
factoid at all, I put it out there even as my own truth. The only person
that is in severe denial of reality is you.
> Wallow in my individualism?
> I don't think wallow is the right word, but I will continue to practice
> individualism for that is what I am, an individual.
> I remember a time long ago when I was forced to be a herd member.
> Never again.
>
Good for you, keep stroking that ego.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
|
"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4652fabc$0$16392$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:f2kqbe01ohq@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> Which is why I said THAT is the only way anarchy would work, in other
> words, it WOULDN'T work because people DON'T do that. See that is where
> this thing called reality comes into play, get it?
The things Pete mentioned are not part of your day to day life?
Interesting, because they have been a big part of everyday of my life, and
everybody I have ever known.
So whats it like to not interact with people everyday?
|
|
|
|
|