tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post3062281010864243221..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Islam is not a threatLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-54039709341318891402007-07-07T22:22:00.000-06:002007-07-07T22:22:00.000-06:00english and ordinary: I think you and I have very ...<B>english and ordinary</B>: I think you and I have very different ideas about what we consider "normal". Methinks you might have more in common with Islamic terrorists than you would care to admit.<BR/><BR/><I>Maybe the time has come to say 'Enough is Enough' and pay them back...</I><BR/><BR/>Precisely whom do you suggest we pay pack? How precisely do you recommend making such payment?<BR/><BR/>"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." (Gandhi)Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-47612860756364094242007-07-07T18:46:00.000-06:002007-07-07T18:46:00.000-06:00Can't believe that you folks consider yourselves i...Can't believe that you folks consider yourselves intelligent.<BR/>You come from a different planet to ANY religious fundamentalist extremists. Don't try to understand them because when you get close to understanding they will twist things just to prove you wrong.<BR/>You will ALWAYS be wrong in their eyes because they do not want to be what we consider normal and human.<BR/>If you don't agree with them you are a target for their twisted sense of justice. <BR/>Maybe the time has come to say 'Enough is Enough' and pay them back.....if they want death and glory let us meet them half way. <BR/>Death is more valuable to the fanatics than life so let us make their dreams come trueAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-44260207429250502772007-06-30T01:59:00.000-06:002007-06-30T01:59:00.000-06:00"What a silly argument, though, on all parts (incl..."What a silly argument, though, on all parts (including me)."<BR/><BR/>A bit Pythonesque? I'll be Cleese. <BR/><BR/>James F. Elliott said... "Okay, now I hope you stick around!"<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the warm welcome, fellas. I think I'll poke my nose around this joint for awhile, maybe take it for a test-drive.<BR/><BR/>The Barefoot Bum said... "I second James' exhortation: I'd like you to stick around as well. Keep in mind: If you're wrong, I won't be shy about pointing it out. If I'm wrong, you don't have to be shy either. Just be right."<BR/><BR/>Agreed. I appreciate your comments regarding Silber -- he's an ethical genius IMHO, really opened my eyes to radical tolerance. Except, of course, for his recent actions regarding Mr. Bum and his blog. Maybe I'll send Arthur an e-mail. <BR/><BR/>The Barefoot Bum said... "I'm an engineer and philosopher. I sometimes have trouble getting beyond literal meanings."<BR/><BR/>I knew there was a reason! I didn't figure that post would have a long half-life. It was meant to self-destruct in 10...9... Absolutely no offense intended, James.<BR/><BR/>James F. Elliott said... "That original comment is a riot. I love it. I now not only hope to interact with this anonymous fellow more, I also hope he at least gives us an alias to know him by!"<BR/><BR/>Glad it was received in the spirit in which it was intended. Call me ... nah, too obvious. <BR/><BR/>"Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship." — Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart), Casablanca (1942) <BR/><BR/>;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-49763192647577411872007-06-29T21:36:00.000-06:002007-06-29T21:36:00.000-06:00That original comment is a riot. I love it. I no...That original comment is a riot. I love it. I now not only hope to interact with this anonymous fellow more, I also hope he at least gives us an alias to know him by!James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-24751236667766752952007-06-29T18:22:00.000-06:002007-06-29T18:22:00.000-06:00That you cannot recognize brilliant satire is no f...<I>That you cannot recognize brilliant satire is no fault of mine.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm an engineer and philosopher. I sometimes have trouble getting beyond literal meanings. Here is Anonymous's original post in its satirical entirety:<BR/><BR/><I>James F. Elliot, don't tell me not to be an idiot. I'll fucking be an idiot if I goddamn well want to be. You and some fucking army couldn't stop me if you fucking tried.<BR/><BR/>Fucking cocksucker.</I><BR/><BR/>Is everyone happy now?Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-83502189672911774992007-06-29T18:19:00.000-06:002007-06-29T18:19:00.000-06:00I second James' exhortation: I'd like you to stick...I second James' exhortation: I'd like you to stick around as well. Keep in mind: If you're wrong, I won't be shy about pointing it out. If I'm wrong, you don't have to be shy either. Just be <I>right</I>.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-79142032187185148692007-06-29T17:26:00.000-06:002007-06-29T17:26:00.000-06:00"Hey, Honey, I just made a solecism!""You better d...<I>"Hey, Honey, I just made a solecism!"<BR/><BR/>"You better damn well clean it up yourself!" </I><BR/><BR/>Okay, now I hope you stick around!James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-63954355373022000062007-06-29T17:24:00.000-06:002007-06-29T17:24:00.000-06:00"Whinging" is the completely counter-intuitive cor..."Whinging" is the completely counter-intuitive correct spelling of "whineing."<BR/><BR/>Hey, I think being an idiot's all good. I do it quite frequently, just ask my wife.<BR/><BR/>That said, I don't really see why the quote needed attribution at all. What a silly argument, though, on all parts (including me).James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-40138840255785394502007-06-29T16:58:00.000-06:002007-06-29T16:58:00.000-06:00"By your logic, I've got to pause and attribute Jo..."By your logic, I've got to pause and attribute John Wayne whenever I say, "That'll be the day" as part of a greater soliloquy."<BR/><BR/>Not if you're doing a John Wayne impersonation as you say it.<BR/><BR/>Harder to pull it off on paper. Better to attribute it. Also depends on the context. If you're making a joke, no one cares about the attribution. If you're making a point, it definitely helps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-17117633437090905192007-06-29T16:56:00.000-06:002007-06-29T16:56:00.000-06:00solecism n. A nonstandard usage or grammatical con...solecism n. A nonstandard usage or grammatical construction. A violation of etiquette. An impropriety, mistake, or incongruity.<BR/><BR/>OK, third definition. Got it.<BR/><BR/>My deleted post was a solecism too! (2nd definition)<BR/><BR/>"Hey, Honey, I just made a solecism!"<BR/><BR/>"You better damn well clean it up yourself!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-75464552081616010022007-06-29T16:45:00.000-06:002007-06-29T16:45:00.000-06:00"I can at least stop people from being idiots here..."I can at least stop people from being idiots here; it doesn't take a whole army."<BR/><BR/>True, but I can still be an idiot if I want to.<BR/><BR/>"To be frank, I should have accurately quoted and attributed Patton."<BR/><BR/>That's all you had to say in the first place. I understand that it takes a lot to admit one is wrong.<BR/><BR/>"But, given that the phrase has wide currency, it was a solecism, merely lazy and not dishonest."<BR/><BR/>Rationalizing, the phrase does not have wide currency, I doubt more than 1 in 10,000 could have identified Patton as the source. However, I never accused you of dishonesty. Ironically, I was accusing you of laziness and maybe, just maybe, taking advantage of the utter lack of currency of the phrase. In other words, from reading your posts I see you are an intelligent fellow with a strong message, a message that deserves the i's dotted and the t's crossed, so to speak.<BR/><BR/>"I'm curious as to what the deleted post said, if it wasn't just spam..."<BR/><BR/>It was an epithet-laced rant meant in complete satire. I demanded the right to be an idiot in no uncertain terms. It's just basic human decency to let someone be an idiot.<BR/><BR/>"The anonymous idiot was whinging about being called an idiot and noting that we can't stop him from being an idiot."<BR/><BR/>For the record, I was not "whinging," whatever that is. I was not whining either. That you cannot recognize brilliant satire is no fault of mine.<BR/><BR/>And I still reserve the right to be an idiot, though in fairness, if you do not want me to be here, I shan't return.<BR/><BR/>Good day!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-34387361072064201632007-06-29T10:45:00.000-06:002007-06-29T10:45:00.000-06:00The anonymous idiot was whinging about being calle...The anonymous idiot was whinging about being called an idiot and noting that we can't stop him from being an idiot.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-33959883632766561802007-06-29T10:39:00.000-06:002007-06-29T10:39:00.000-06:00I'm curious as to what the deleted post said, if i...I'm curious as to what the deleted post said, if it wasn't just spam...James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-63439915215715845372007-06-29T05:01:00.000-06:002007-06-29T05:01:00.000-06:00To be frank, I should have accurately quoted and a...To be frank, I should have accurately quoted and attributed Patton. But, given that the phrase has wide currency, it was a solecism, merely lazy and not dishonest.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-84234674690308547702007-06-29T04:51:00.000-06:002007-06-29T04:51:00.000-06:00I can at least stop people from being idiots here;...I can at least stop people from being idiots <I>here</I>; it doesn't take a whole army.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-76175227163966018502007-06-29T00:09:00.000-06:002007-06-29T00:09:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-11407975059648313972007-06-28T19:38:00.000-06:002007-06-28T19:38:00.000-06:00If the U.S. can remotely monitor the radiation emi...<I>If the U.S. can remotely monitor the radiation emissions from North Korea's underground nuclear test sites, they sure as hell can locate the radiation signature of a suitcase nuke within the U.S.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes and no. Certain types of isotopes are more detectable than others. Plutonium, for example, is very "hot" and easily detected -- an Australian cargo ship carrying roofing tiles that had accidentally been "tagged" with trace amounts of plutonium was tracked and boarded by the U.S. Navy (using satellites, no less) before ever entering U.S. waters. However, "dull" isotopes, like uranium, or those found in common medical equipment are not at all easily detectable but are equally useful in a dirty bomb.<BR/><BR/><I>My point is that this discussion as framed is meaningless.</I><BR/><BR/>Then I think your point is meaningless because you're definition of "terrorism" is expanded to a point of utter uselessness.<BR/><BR/><I>We have tight economic relationships with China too -- China owns $1 Trillion in U.S. debt. Like they could do anything about it if the U.S. went into default anyway.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but whereas we are important because we buy their shit and send them manufacturing contracts, Venezuela and Iran are important because they sell them the very fuel their economy runs on. And China is just one example: Russia (and just how great a pal has Putin been lately, really...) is another.<BR/><BR/><I>The U.S. has a larger military than the next 20 nations on Earth combined.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but the whole point of nuclear weapons is that they take the conventional military forces out of the equation. One carrier task force could pretty much eviscerate Iran's professional military (which is just a crappy Air Force and the land and sea units of the "elite" forces...); one carrier group can't defend you against even a single ICBM. <BR/><BR/><I>The Commander Guy seems to have no problem with the complexity of it all.</I><BR/><BR/>Anyone with a working knowledge of the military knows this isn't even an argument worth making.<BR/><BR/><I>When did that Cold War-style exchange of nuclear weapons actually occur? It must have been before I was born, else I fell asleep in history class that day.</I><BR/><BR/>Don't be an idiot. This isn't even an argument against my point; it's an attempt to score a rhetorical hit (and a bad one at that).<BR/><BR/><I>Oh, yeah. It never did happen, I just realized. Some threat.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, because in a world where more than one nation has nuclear weapons, they become <I>defensive</I> in nature, a deterrent, not a tool of aggression. But thanks for leaving yourself wide open.<BR/><BR/><I>Keep on ripping off one-liners from historical figures, Bum.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think you actually are accurately invoking the rules of attribution. By your logic, I've got to pause and attribute John Wayne whenever I say, "That'll be the day" as part of a greater soliloquy. They're phrases in common usage; that's basic cultural semiotics.<BR/><BR/>Dick.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-51994952983061221522007-06-28T16:51:00.000-06:002007-06-28T16:51:00.000-06:00"Just so you know, Anon, I'm calling you a dick (a..."Just so you know, Anon, I'm calling you a dick (and stupid too)."<BR/><BR/>Wow, call me obtuse. <BR/><BR/>Keep on ripping off one-liners from historical figures, Bum. I see quite a future in it for you.<BR/><BR/>Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-980334688091378402007-06-28T16:48:00.000-06:002007-06-28T16:48:00.000-06:00"This is also why, today, countries like Iran and ..."This is also why, today, countries like Iran and Venezuela, when confronted by a belligerent relationship with a nuclear-armed foe like the U.S., seek tight economic relationships with nuclear-armed countries, like China."<BR/><BR/>We have tight economic relationships with China too -- China owns $1 Trillion in U.S. debt. Like they could do anything about it if the U.S. went into default anyway. The U.S. has a larger military than the next 20 nations on Earth combined. <BR/><BR/>"Further, in the interconnected and democratic world, the use of or invocation of the threat of use of nuclear weapons are complex political matters."<BR/><BR/>The Commander Guy seems to have no problem with the complexity of it all.<BR/><BR/>The ACTUAL risk of a Cold War-style exchange of nuclear weapons is largely overblown."<BR/><BR/>When did that Cold War-style exchange of nuclear weapons actually occur? It must have been before I was born, else I fell asleep in history class that day. <BR/><BR/>Oh, yeah. It never did happen, I just realized. Some threat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-53379449211543590032007-06-28T16:39:00.000-06:002007-06-28T16:39:00.000-06:00"State sponsored 'terrorism'" is an oxymoron. Viol..."State sponsored 'terrorism'" is an oxymoron. Violence used by the actual government of a state against the citizenry of another state is usually called <I>war</I>.<BR/><BR/>"State sponsored 'terrorism'" just means "war where the enemy refuses to hand us the advantage."<BR/><BR/>Just so you know, Anon, I'm calling you a dick (and stupid too).Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-85640156397645419772007-06-28T16:26:00.000-06:002007-06-28T16:26:00.000-06:00"[Patton] was pretty much a dick."No argument from..."[Patton] was pretty much a dick."<BR/><BR/>No argument from me here -- he was before my time. He certainly has been portrayed as a dick. Fine with me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-83483475356471884902007-06-28T16:24:00.000-06:002007-06-28T16:24:00.000-06:00"(Is that precise enough, Mr. Semantic? Yeesh.)"I ..."(Is that precise enough, Mr. Semantic? Yeesh.)"<BR/><BR/>I know you jest, but if you think my point was "semantics," then we failed to connect. The point was substantive, i.e. why care about the infinitesimal amount of non-state sponsored terrorism when state-sponsored terrorism is the real threat?<BR/><BR/>My point is that this discussion as framed is meaningless.<BR/><BR/>Even the Founders knew that one's own government is the greatest threat to life and liberty. And they created the monstrosity that is the U.S. government anyway. Thanks a bunch!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-79969386830787761922007-06-28T16:18:00.000-06:002007-06-28T16:18:00.000-06:00He might have, he was pretty much a dick.He might have, he was pretty much a dick.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-21730952162343626622007-06-28T16:13:00.000-06:002007-06-28T16:13:00.000-06:00"The mark of a true master is to succeed without a..."The mark of a true master is to succeed without appearing to be trying."<BR/><BR/>Did Patton say that too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-15162149794442455362007-06-28T14:49:00.000-06:002007-06-28T14:49:00.000-06:00The weak intellects who believe in fantasies like ...The weak intellects who believe in fantasies like 'American Hiroshima' were the kind of people who believed Hitler's tales of an international Jewish bloodsucking conspiracy. It's also interesting to note how the same physical stereotypes the Nazis used to denigrate Jews in the 1930s are used to denigrate Arabs and Muslims today. This is no accident.<BR/><BR/>If the U.S. can remotely monitor the radiation emissions from North Korea's underground nuclear test sites, they sure as hell can locate the radiation signature of a suitcase nuke within the U.S. Therefore, if there IS a nuclear terrorist attack on these shores, you can be sure that the parties which stands to gain the most money and power - namely our own fearless leaders - are responsible though either outright collusion or deliberate inaction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com