Monkey wisdom

[Seattle Zack]

Where's the challenge in protesting if there's no tear gas? Might as well stay home and watch Oprah.

Yeah, and now they're all whining in the Letters to the Editor why more people didn't show up for this BIG FUCKIN protest ... we realy don't care, as long as Starbucks keeps rising. Liberals with a condo. We're with you ... er, most of the way.

 

[amicus]

Chuckles at least, if not an outright guffaw, as I muse over the renewed circle jerk of the left liberal anti war, bush haters on this thread.

Do you folks ever look beyond your candle lit, wiccan environment at the real world anytime at all?

It is not just childish, but retarded, or brainwashed, to ignore the history of the middle east since before the time of Christ, to not understand the current conflict in the center of the ancient world.

Such petty partisan politics belongs on the GB, or on lesser forums; the AH, prides itself on a rather higher level of discussion, one that takes all of history into consideration.


Politics as usual for the unwashed is commonplace and expected; one would think that one could transcend the Kennedy infidelities, the Clinton Cocksuckers and the Carter wimpiness and really concentrate on something important, like the Jeffersonian miscegenations, or was that Ben Franklin and the Parisian Prostitutes?

Say what?

Silly peeps...


amicus...

 

[cumallday]

Chuckles at least, if not an outright guffaw, as I muse over the renewed circle jerk of the left liberal anti war, bush haters on this thread.

Do you folks ever look beyond your candle lit, wiccan environment at the real world anytime at all?

It is not just childish, but retarded, or brainwashed, to ignore the history of the middle east since before the time of Christ, to not understand the current conflict in the center of the ancient world.

Such petty partisan politics belongs on the GB, or on lesser forums; the AH, prides itself on a rather higher level of discussion, one that takes all of history into consideration.


Politics as usual for the unwashed is commonplace and expected; one would think that one could transcend the Kennedy infidelities, the Clinton Cocksuckers and the Carter wimpiness and really concentrate on something important, like the Jeffersonian miscegenations, or was that Ben Franklin and the Parisian Prostitutes?

Say what?

Silly peeps...


amicus...

You have a poor understanding of history.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Chuckles at least, if not an outright guffaw, as I muse over the renewed circle jerk of the left liberal anti war, bush haters on this thread.

Do you folks ever look beyond your candle lit, wiccan environment at the real world anytime at all?

It is not just childish, but retarded, or brainwashed, to ignore the history of the middle east since before the time of Christ, to not understand the current conflict in the center of the ancient world.

Such petty partisan politics belongs on the GB, or on lesser forums; the AH, prides itself on a rather higher level of discussion, one that takes all of history into consideration.


Politics as usual for the unwashed is commonplace and expected; one would think that one could transcend the Kennedy infidelities, the Clinton Cocksuckers and the Carter wimpiness and really concentrate on something important, like the Jeffersonian miscegenations, or was that Ben Franklin and the Parisian Prostitutes?

Say what?

Silly peeps...


amicus...

Wow, ami, that's unusually incoherent, even for you. The Kennedy infidelities and Clinton got sucked by a Fat Chick? Man, that Clinton thing, it really tingles your neocon's hemorrhoids, don't it. So what if he stuffed the soggy end of a Cohiba up some fattie's twat in the Oval Office. I'll tel ya, that's the kind of president I want.

"Candlelit" should be one word, by the way. Didn't anyone teach you about adverbs? Good thing I don't need to edit your copy.

Not to mention the kind of sickos that solicit underage pages to get their cocks sucked. You want to talk Republicans in sex scandals? I doubt it.

 

[shereads]

ike the Jeffersonian miscegenations, or was that Ben Franklin and the Parisian Prostitutes?

You must be thinking of Strom Thurmond. (Edited to add: It's possible that you are Strom Thurmond. Yikes!)

More than once in this forum, historians have refuted, point by point, your so-called knowledge of history - particularly that of the Middle East. I noticed, each time, that you didn't acknowledge those posts. Your tactic, when faced with documented proof that you are wrong, is to drop out of the thread, or change the subject, or accidentally skip those posts and reply to a less challenging one. Newbies might be fooled by your bluster, but do you really think the rest of us didn't figure out, long ago, that the way you "win" a debate is by pronouncing yourself the winner?

In this medium, it's possible to become many things by proclamation: tall, rich, successful, popular, confidante to kings and statesmen, just because we say so. (I myself am a professional figure skater and Nobel Laureate.) But you can't be knowledgable or well informed or reasonable by proclamation, amicus. For that, you need the Wizard of Oz.

 

[amicus]

Ah, SheReads, ever the jester...

Continue as you will to rave and bluster about my obvious ignorance and lack of knowledge about any and everything if you must, it has never flustered me in the least.

After about my tenth college course in History and when I had decided to take a Masters in Colonial American History, I got a little sidetracked on a thesis concerning Historiography.

Not being a 'believer' in any particular interpretation of History, in general or per se, discovering that any 'history' of any time, and place, any individual is colored by the Historians who write and teach history. Your particular belief seems to be a Marxist interpretation and that is fine if you so choose.

Pick any major or minor event in human history and you can discover a dozen or more interpretations of the events and the consequences and the sequential importance in those times and events.

Every assertion I have ever made, including the insinuation that Thomas Jefferson fathered a black daughter from a slave mother and that Benjamin Franklin, while in Paris, did in fact have a Mistress. Add to that the John F. Kennedy association with Marilyn Monroe and dozens more peccadillo's of greater or lesser note abound and have been sworn to by "Historians' of import.

It has long been a curious contradiction in your debate style, SheReads, one who defends secular humanism and subjective morality, that you adamantly defend your 'interpretation' of history as the only correct one while you advocate there is no true, objective definition for anything.

I know that events do and did in fact occur. I know those events can and have been perceived objectively, truthfully and have been recorded.

The task of the Historian I intended to be, would be to untangle the 'method' historians and seek the truth of the matter. When I found that dealt mostly with bills of lading and shipping records, titles and deeds and bank records, I decided a formal career in History was not something that would amuse me.

Nor did I wish to teach at any level and undergo campus politics as a steady diet.

If I had not fallen in love with your Avatar, I might have quit reading you a long time ago.

So, dear SheReads & cohorts, continue merrily along with the name calling and regaling of my ignorance, stupidity and general male blindness and we will all be just dumb and happy as usual.

amicus...

 

[cloudy]

Ah, SheReads, ever the jester...

Continue as you will to rave and bluster about my obvious ignorance and lack of knowledge about any and everything if you must, it has never flustered me in the least.

After about my tenth college course in History and when I had decided to take a Masters in Colonial American History, I got a little sidetracked on a thesis concerning Historiography.

Not being a 'believer' in any particular interpretation of History, in general or per se, discovering that any 'history' of any time, and place, any individual is colored by the Historians who write and teach history. Your particular belief seems to be a Marxist interpretation and that is fine if you so choose.

Pick any major or minor event in human history and you can discover a dozen or more interpretations of the events and the consequences and the sequential importance in those times and events.

Every assertion I have ever made, including the insinuation that Thomas Jefferson fathered a black daughter from a slave mother and that Benjamin Franklin, while in Paris, did in fact have a Mistress. Add to that the John F. Kennedy association with Marilyn Monroe and dozens more peccadillo's of greater or lesser note abound and have been sworn to by "Historians' of import.

It has long been a curious contradiction in your debate style, SheReads, one who defends secular humanism and subjective morality, that you adamantly defend your 'interpretation' of history as the only correct one while you advocate there is no true, objective definition for anything.

I know that events do and did in fact occur. I know those events can and have been perceived objectively, truthfully and have been recorded.

The task of the Historian I intended to be, would be to untangle the 'method' historians and seek the truth of the matter. When I found that dealt mostly with bills of lading and shipping records, titles and deeds and bank records, I decided a formal career in History was not something that would amuse me.

Nor did I wish to teach at any level and undergo campus politics as a steady diet.

If I had not fallen in love with your Avatar, I might have quit reading you a long time ago.

So, dear SheReads & cohorts, continue merrily along with the name calling and regaling of my ignorance, stupidity and general male blindness and we will all be just dumb and happy as usual.

amicus...

You would make much more sense, ami, if you would use complete sentences.

Just sayin'.

 

[SlickTony]

Anyone notice the price of gas lately?

Yes, we're back to the days of $30+ fill-ups...

The reasons put forth by the refining industry are (1) They are transitioning from their winter gas to their summer gas and (2) Refineries are going off-line for spring maintenance.

I, who had a dad who was in the petroleum engineering business, think that sounds plausible. My husband did too, but he says he's not buying it.

 

[shereads]

So, dear SheReads & cohorts, continue merrily along with the name calling and regaling of my ignorance, stupidity and general male blindness and we will all be just dumb and happy as usual.

amicus...

You advertise your own ignorance pretty well. As for your blindness, I'd never call it 'male blindness.' I adore men. Selectively, of course.

I believe my point, which in typical fashion you pretended not to understand, was that others in this forum, who are genuinely knowledgeable about the history of the Middle East, have effectively refuted your version - not with interpretations of history, which are of course subjective, but with timelines and other non-subjective evidence. You hate that, don't you! Whenever you're faced with a fact you can't counter with ideology, you ignore it.

FYI, you don't need a degree in American history to know that Thomas Jefferson had children with his slave, Sally Hemmings, or that Benjamin Franklin was a one-man promotional tour for syphillis. And that's relevent to the Middle East because....?

 

[shereads]

You would make much more sense, ami, if you would use complete sentences.

Just sayin'.

Wanna bet? I think the uses of ellipses is part of a communication strategy. The weaker the argument, the more sentences amicus starts and doesn't finish. The ellipsis is probably meant to convey, "of course everyone knows this part, so I won't waste time explaining." But it actually comes across as a time-buying tactic, like frequent throat-clearing, or GWB's now-familiar Shifty Panic Eyes.

 

[cloudy]

Wanna bet? I think the uses of ellipses is part of a communication strategy. The weaker the argument, the more sentences amicus starts and doesn't finish. The ellipsis is probably meant to convey, "of course everyone knows this part, so I won't waste time explaining." But it actually comes across as a time-buying tactic, like frequent throat-clearing, or GWB's now-familiar Shifty Panic Eyes.

True, but I must've been having one of those off days - you know, where I'm tactful.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Wanna bet? I think the uses of ellipses is part of a communication strategy. The weaker the argument, the more sentences amicus starts and doesn't finish. The ellipsis is probably meant to convey, "of course everyone knows this part, so I won't waste time explaining." But it actually comes across as a time-buying tactic, like frequent throat-clearing, or GWB's now-familiar Shifty Panic Eyes.

Ain't that the truth. Herb Caen introduced the "elipses journalist" with his three-dots column in the Chronicle, but I don't even think ami knows the definition of an elipses, let alone how to use it properly. Must be hell to edit his shit. I pity the poor bastard.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Add to that the John F. Kennedy association with Marilyn Monroe and dozens more peccadillo's of greater or lesser note abound and have been sworn to by "Historians' of import.

Good Lord, dear, haven't you realized that apostrophe's don't mean plural's? Perhaps you should go back to Our Naughty Sister's school of Nasty Catholic English or something similar. It might help when those liberal's attack you stout conservative's and Ann Coulter's Addam's Apple gets a-bobbin'.

 

[amicus]

Good Lord, dear, haven't you realized that apostrophe's don't mean plural's? Perhaps you should go back to Our Naughty Sister's school of Nasty Catholic English or something similar. It might help when those liberal's attack you stout conservative's and Ann Coulter's Addam's Apple gets a-bobbin'.

~~~
Good lord, assholes, be aware that I am not writing a term paper or a thesis here, that I do have editors, that I do dictate most of my work and that I do leave tidbits for you to nag and bicker about as you are too fucking dumb to address the issues?

This has always been a 'win/win' scenario for me and provides me with an...endless source of...humor...


bite me elipses...


amicus...

 

[shereads]

~~~
Good lord, assholes, be aware that I am not writing a term paper or a thesis here, that I do have editors, that I do dictate most of my work and that I do leave tidbits for you to nag and bicker about as you are too fucking dumb to address the issues?

This has always been a 'win/win' scenario for me and provides me with an...endless source of...humor...


bite me elipses...


amicus...

You did it again! You managed to avoid responding to the issue at hand - the one you introduced; i.e, your superior understanding of the history of the middle east. I could google some old threads to prove this, but you'd ignore them again: your "interpretation" of history, as applied to the ethnic and cultural tensions in the region, was contradicted by actual timelines posted by someone who'd actually read up on the subject. By your criteria, it would be possible to blame the Spanish American War for the fall of the Roman Empire. Facts are facts. Learn some that aren't so easily refuted, and you might not have to rely on teenagers to make you feel smart. Silly little man.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=shereads]You did it again! You managed to avoid responding to the issue at hand - the one you introduced; i.e, your superior understanding of the history of the middle east. I could google some old threads to prove this, but you'd ignore them again: your "interpretation" of history, as applied to the ethnic and cultural tensions in the region, was contradicted by actual timelines posted by someone who'd actually read up on the subject. By your criteria, it would be possible to blame the Spanish American War for the fall of the Roman Empire. Facts are facts. Learn some that aren't so easily refuted, and you might not have to rely on teenagers to make you feel smart. Silly little man.[/QUOTE]


~~~

Ah, silly little girl, and more and more I think that defines you. As I said before, you are so immersed in your Marxist interpretation of History, that you will not acknowledge any other interpretation.

I do not and have never claimed a 'superior' knowledge of the history of the Middle East, Persia, China, or medieval Europe, but I do claim a rather wide and in depth exploration of those histories; enough to refute your myopic Marxist, 'class struggle' bullshit that you peddle incessantly.

Grow up you little shit, use your mind instead of the words of others.

amicus...

 

[shereads]

deleted cheapshot double post

 

[shereads]

deleted cheap shot

 

[Subo97]

Let us not forget that as we speak corners are being turned, deciders are deciding the hard decisions, surges are surging, and mdias are biasing.


Amicus, as student and teacher of History, myself, I've learned enough to be more humble in my presentation of my arguments. You'd be surprised how many much more respect you'll gain once you learn how to give it. I claim no expertise in Middle eastern history, but my daily experience in the classroom has made me quite adept at recognizing adolescent attention getting behavior. A person of more self worth would be more willing to see the value in the thoughts of others. One of my jobs as a teacher is to guide young men from insecurity to self esteem, a stage in the growth process you've apparently missed.

 

[shereads]

Let us not forget that as we speak corners are being turned, deciders are deciding the hard decisions, surges are surging, and mdias are biasing.


Amicus, as student and teacher of History, myself, I've learned enough to be more humble in my presentation of my arguments. You'd be surprised how many much more respect you'll gain once you learn how to give it. I claim no expertise in Middle eastern history, but my daily experience in the classroom has made me quite adept at recognizing adolescent attention getting behavior. A person of more self worth would be more willing to see the value in the thoughts of others. One of my jobs as a teacher is to guide young men from insecurity to self esteem, a stage in the growth process you've apparently missed.

Everybody! There's gonna be a food fight in the lunchroom!

<hurls marshmallow Peeps at amicus; dodges shrapnel>

 

[amicus]

Let us not forget that as we speak corners are being turned, deciders are deciding the hard decisions, surges are surging, and mdias are biasing.


Amicus, as student and teacher of History, myself, I've learned enough to be more humble in my presentation of my arguments. You'd be surprised how many much more respect you'll gain once you learn how to give it. I claim no expertise in Middle eastern history, but my daily experience in the classroom has made me quite adept at recognizing adolescent attention getting behavior. A person of more self worth would be more willing to see the value in the thoughts of others. One of my jobs as a teacher is to guide young men from insecurity to self esteem, a stage in the growth process you've apparently missed.

~~~

I suppose this is called 'civility'? Subo97?

There was a news item this day on Fox News, an interview with an author of a book criticizing how her son was 'indoctrinated' in History class, in the 11th grade.

She read the entire thousand page history book and discovered that 'America' and the concepts behind this nation, were always, without exception, painted in a bad light.

It is the usual conservative complaint that left wing, basically Marxist dialog in opposition to democratic principle, is overwhelmingly the content of high school textbooks and classroom instruction.

I infer from your acclamation of 'humility' and my lack of it, that you listen and accredit equal validity to those who advocate Nazism, Socialism, Communism, Witchcraft and Wiccanism while denying the intrinsic values of the democratic process.

You seem to not only talk that way, but feel somewhat superior to those who are not so open to the wide range of thought.

'Self Esteem' in a young man, or anyone, is not acquired through a route of total acceptance of all opinions on an equal basis, as secular humanism purports. It is rather a process of the rational and logical acquisition of non contradictory knowledge while at the same time inculcating a strict system of human ethics and morality.

When you divorce ethical judgmental from the acquisition of that knowledge, you invalidate entirely the process of education.

So look down your nose at me if you wish, I could care less. Continue to corrupt the students you are trusted with, perhaps if you are nasty enough to all opposition, no one will ever know and call you out for what you really are.

amicus...

 

[Subo97]

Everybody! There's gonna be a food fight in the lunchroom!

<hurls marshmallow Peeps at amicus; dodges shrapnel>

I love Peeps, i don't even care if they're not made of food. I only eat the yellow ones--I'm a conservative, you know.

Has anyone else ever engaged in Peeps jousting? We Wiccans do it all the time.

Amicus, to show you my heart is in the right place, I'm going to cede you 37.5% of my carbon credits for the rest of Lent.

 

[cumallday]

[/B]

~~~

I suppose this is called 'civility'? Subo97?

There was a news item this day on Fox News, an interview with an author of a book criticizing how her son was 'indoctrinated' in History class, in the 11th grade.

She read the entire thousand page history book and discovered that 'America' and the concepts behind this nation, were always, without exception, painted in a bad light.

It is the usual conservative complaint that left wing, basically Marxist dialog in opposition to democratic principle, is overwhelmingly the content of high school textbooks and classroom instruction.

I infer from your acclamation of 'humility' and my lack of it, that you listen and accredit equal validity to those who advocate Nazism, Socialism, Communism, Witchcraft and Wiccanism while denying the intrinsic values of the democratic process.

You seem to not only talk that way, but feel somewhat superior to those who are not so open to the wide range of thought.

'Self Esteem' in a young man, or anyone, is not acquired through a route of total acceptance of all opinions on an equal basis, as secular humanism purports. It is rather a process of the rational and logical acquisition of non contradictory knowledge while at the same time inculcating a strict system of human ethics and morality.

When you divorce ethical judgmental from the acquisition of that knowledge, you invalidate entirely the process of education.

So look down your nose at me if you wish, I could care less. Continue to corrupt the students you are trusted with, perhaps if you are nasty enough to all opposition, no one will ever know and call you out for what you really are.

amicus...

You have a poor understanding of both Marxism as well as secular humanism. Hit the books.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm a secular humanist. And I do not accept all opinions as being of equal worth.

I do however actually study them before I assign a value to them.

And one thing I can say. The people at the far ends of the political spectrum are more similar than they are different. They are highly economically deterministic. Both regard their beliefs as so true, so good, that they regard any action they take as good.

And both despite their constant puffing of their chests and endless superior rants are scared little people, unable and unwilling to face a complex world.

 

[amicus]

You have a poor understanding of both Marxism as well as secular humanism. Hit the books.

~~~

From previous encounters I gather you are not amenable to reasonable discussion.


I could suggest that you have a poor understanding of Objectivism and moral imperatives, but then, I would be doing as you are, criticizing out of hand without furthering a discussion on anything.

I have rather a good understanding of the tenets of secular humanism and Marxism, thank you, although I do not claim to be a "student" of either.

My objection to Marxism, in general, and Das Kapital specifically, is that individual human values are sacrificed for the greater good of the whole.

My objection to Secular Humanism, in general, is the basic tenet that moral questions are not related to the 'physical world', exist only in the mind, and thus are not subject to critical terms such as absolute, and imperative or axiomatic.

Which means, one has no basis for making moral or ethical decisions if one basks in the religion of secular humanism.

Marxism has no redeeming qualities. Secular Humanism has many fine qualities but lacks an intellectual foundation for making ethical decisions.

Bah, humbug...

crawl back in your comfortable rug ya bug....


amicus...