WAR
International NewsSubmitted by Tracy
It must be recognized that the cause of world unrest, of world wars which have wrecked humanity, and of widespread misery upon our planet, can largely be attributed to a selfish group with materialistic purposes, who have for centuries exploited the masses and used the labor of mankind for their selfish ends.
This group of capitalists has cornered and exploited the world's resources and the staples required for civilized living. They have made possible the vast differences existing between the very rich and the very poor; they love money and the power which money gives; they have stood behind governments and politicians; they have controlled the electorate; they have made possible the narrow nationalistic aims of selfish politics; they have financed the world businesses and controlled oil, coal, power, light and transportation; they control the world's banking accounts.
The responsibility for the widespread misery to be found today in every country in the world, lies predominantly at the door of certain major interrelated groups of business men, bankers, executives of international cartels, monopolies, trusts and organizations, and directors of huge corporations, who work for corporate or personal gain.
War can be, and is, mass murder, where the motive is wrong.
It can be sacrifice and right action, where the motive is right.
The slaying of a man in the act of killing the defenseless is not regarded as murder. The principle remains the same, whether it is killing an individual who is murdering, or fighting a nation, which is warring on the defenseless.
(paraphrased from the writings of A. Bailey).
Vaughn Tolle said:
Tracy, if by the above you are pointing out that for the most part, economics is the underlying cause of war, I agree.
Danny said:
Tracy,
I don't know if all people who have money are bad and corrupt, at the same time it does seem that a majority of people who have significant sums of money are though. In some small way, I could see economics playing a part in wars, I don't know that it is the entire reason behind war. Certainly war could be, group A has something group B wants. Group B doesn't want to pay for what Group A has, so therefore attacks and kills Group A to take what it wanted. That is economically driven.
However, I suspect there are also other reasons for war. Defending an ally from an aggressor, defending a group of people from genocide, etc. Probably just causes for getting involved in a war. Doesn't mean I'm for war, I quite against it in many of its flavors, but understand that sometimes there are likely to be inevitable reasons for why it occurs.
Good writing Tracy. Thanks for sharing.
I don't know if all people who have money are bad and corrupt, at the same time it does seem that a majority of people who have significant sums of money are though. In some small way, I could see economics playing a part in wars, I don't know that it is the entire reason behind war. Certainly war could be, group A has something group B wants. Group B doesn't want to pay for what Group A has, so therefore attacks and kills Group A to take what it wanted. That is economically driven.
However, I suspect there are also other reasons for war. Defending an ally from an aggressor, defending a group of people from genocide, etc. Probably just causes for getting involved in a war. Doesn't mean I'm for war, I quite against it in many of its flavors, but understand that sometimes there are likely to be inevitable reasons for why it occurs.
Good writing Tracy. Thanks for sharing.
Nathan said:
Tracy,
Perhaps you could give me the full name of the author please and title of book?
Thank you,
Nathan
Perhaps you could give me the full name of the author please and title of book?
Thank you,
Nathan
Vaughn Tolle said:
Danny, a few observations on your points above.
As to defending an ally from an agressor, the issue becomes what is driving the agressor? Regarding defending a group from genocide, what is being causing the genocide? From the perspective of the author cited by Tracy, it is (my words) economic greed. Thus, if one performs acts of genocide, there is one group less with whom to divide scarce resources. If the agressor is trying to conquer a neighbor for access to his resources, then there is an economic cause.
Not a tidy thing, trying to characterize various causi belli into a simple explanation. However, I am one who has developed the opoinion, whether valid or invalid, that in most wars (I hope I made that clear earlier), economics is a cause, albeit unstated.
Thus, using WWII as an example, the desire of the Third Reich for Lebensraum; the desire of the Japanese to obtain access to raw materials deemed necessary for the expansion of the empire. Overly simplistic, I'm sure; but it surely is something to consider.
As to defending an ally from an agressor, the issue becomes what is driving the agressor? Regarding defending a group from genocide, what is being causing the genocide? From the perspective of the author cited by Tracy, it is (my words) economic greed. Thus, if one performs acts of genocide, there is one group less with whom to divide scarce resources. If the agressor is trying to conquer a neighbor for access to his resources, then there is an economic cause.
Not a tidy thing, trying to characterize various causi belli into a simple explanation. However, I am one who has developed the opoinion, whether valid or invalid, that in most wars (I hope I made that clear earlier), economics is a cause, albeit unstated.
Thus, using WWII as an example, the desire of the Third Reich for Lebensraum; the desire of the Japanese to obtain access to raw materials deemed necessary for the expansion of the empire. Overly simplistic, I'm sure; but it surely is something to consider.
Danny said:
VT,
I agree, certainly economics could be a part of reasoning for why the initial "attack" or war started. But not everybody getting involved is going to do so because of economics.
WWII, I agree started primarily because of resources, or at least the perceived need for resources by Japan, Germany, and probably also Italy. However, I think that our involvement was more defensive(though possibly an argument could be made against that) in so far as helping our ally in Great Britain and defending our own soil after Pearl Harbor was attacked. I suspect the argument here is that did we know about Japan to be attacking Pearl Harbor prior to them doing so and if so did we allow to fire up the American people into war? I think however, in our case it was still defensive and ally support vs. economics that brought is into the war, though one could potentially say that the war "created" jobs and improved the economy in the short term, so perhaps it was economically driven after all. With other contributing factors playing into our getting involved in it. I suspect that economics isn't the sole contributor to why people join a war in progress, but could be a reason why wars do sometimes start.
Either way, an interesting topic to be sure. I'm sure that economics is just one of the many facets that contribute to why a war begins or why outsiders join in the continuing war/conflict. However, I suspect there are other factors to considers still.
I agree, certainly economics could be a part of reasoning for why the initial "attack" or war started. But not everybody getting involved is going to do so because of economics.
WWII, I agree started primarily because of resources, or at least the perceived need for resources by Japan, Germany, and probably also Italy. However, I think that our involvement was more defensive(though possibly an argument could be made against that) in so far as helping our ally in Great Britain and defending our own soil after Pearl Harbor was attacked. I suspect the argument here is that did we know about Japan to be attacking Pearl Harbor prior to them doing so and if so did we allow to fire up the American people into war? I think however, in our case it was still defensive and ally support vs. economics that brought is into the war, though one could potentially say that the war "created" jobs and improved the economy in the short term, so perhaps it was economically driven after all. With other contributing factors playing into our getting involved in it. I suspect that economics isn't the sole contributor to why people join a war in progress, but could be a reason why wars do sometimes start.
Either way, an interesting topic to be sure. I'm sure that economics is just one of the many facets that contribute to why a war begins or why outsiders join in the continuing war/conflict. However, I suspect there are other factors to considers still.
Vaughn Tolle said:
It has been my understanding that the attack on Pearl Harbor was an attempt by the Japanese to cripple the fleet, so that the embargo of Japan might be lifted; thus, the initial attack undergirded by attempting to accomplish an economic goal, the importation of resources. The response by the U.S. was not, IMHO, based upon economics; it was to "defend the territory", although one of the consequences of the entry into WWII by the US was to finish bringing the national economy out of the state it was in due to the Depression.
lindainks55 said:
VT is right. There are limited resources and societies inevitably expand until they need more than is readily available. Economics are the root cause of war.
Crass economics aren't really enough to justify brutal conflict between people, for that people need to hate each other. To hate your opponent you need to demonize him, remove his humanity. This is seen in all conflicts through history by all sides. It turns out that religion is one pretty handy way to dehumanize somebody else.
We're told often this is a conflict in which the Islamic world is attempting to impose its ideology on Western nations. Remarks like, "Go be fitted for your burqa." You've all heard them or said them. No need to repeat the many phrases used to stir things up and create hate and scare us into thinking they will impose their religious beliefs.
I don't think they want us to be Muslims at all. I think they just want us to leave them alone. Live and let live! In all the messages I've heard from Osama bin Laden his gripe with us has always been that we use military might to get oil under the guise of being some kind of moral / civil rights police, and he was sick of it and going to give us a taste of our own medicine.
For over four years we've been in a cronyistic, contract driven, take just enough troops to lose, dismiss professionals and pray things go right approach to war. Sit and spin is not a plan. As this war spirals further out of control we still see nothing approaching a viable plan. A President with no ability to control events and no political capital here or abroad to suggest he would be able to gain the upper hand. He has already told us it won't be his responsibility but will fall to the next President.
There is no winning; there is no 'victory.' Permanent occupation is not a viable option. The Soviets learned that lesson. The French learned it in Morocco and Algeria. The Spanish and Romans learned it before them. We should have learned it Vietnam, but I guess those currently in charge missed that war.
Call me what you want. I am an American. America was founded on civil disobedience. When things are wrong I have the right to fight (in my way) for things to improve. I think it's time for a peaceful revolution.
The pendulum will swing; Democrats will be back, as of last mid-term election in the Congress and probably 2008 in the White House. Then it will be the GOP's turn to call the new guy (or gal) names again. It's all a circle. We'll be listening to all the same name-calling, same conspiricies, and same irrelevent arguments. The far left and the far right look so much alike in their methods it's freaky, they should just get married and get a room!
Shouldn't we all think there is a better way?
Crass economics aren't really enough to justify brutal conflict between people, for that people need to hate each other. To hate your opponent you need to demonize him, remove his humanity. This is seen in all conflicts through history by all sides. It turns out that religion is one pretty handy way to dehumanize somebody else.
We're told often this is a conflict in which the Islamic world is attempting to impose its ideology on Western nations. Remarks like, "Go be fitted for your burqa." You've all heard them or said them. No need to repeat the many phrases used to stir things up and create hate and scare us into thinking they will impose their religious beliefs.
I don't think they want us to be Muslims at all. I think they just want us to leave them alone. Live and let live! In all the messages I've heard from Osama bin Laden his gripe with us has always been that we use military might to get oil under the guise of being some kind of moral / civil rights police, and he was sick of it and going to give us a taste of our own medicine.
For over four years we've been in a cronyistic, contract driven, take just enough troops to lose, dismiss professionals and pray things go right approach to war. Sit and spin is not a plan. As this war spirals further out of control we still see nothing approaching a viable plan. A President with no ability to control events and no political capital here or abroad to suggest he would be able to gain the upper hand. He has already told us it won't be his responsibility but will fall to the next President.
There is no winning; there is no 'victory.' Permanent occupation is not a viable option. The Soviets learned that lesson. The French learned it in Morocco and Algeria. The Spanish and Romans learned it before them. We should have learned it Vietnam, but I guess those currently in charge missed that war.
Call me what you want. I am an American. America was founded on civil disobedience. When things are wrong I have the right to fight (in my way) for things to improve. I think it's time for a peaceful revolution.
The pendulum will swing; Democrats will be back, as of last mid-term election in the Congress and probably 2008 in the White House. Then it will be the GOP's turn to call the new guy (or gal) names again. It's all a circle. We'll be listening to all the same name-calling, same conspiricies, and same irrelevent arguments. The far left and the far right look so much alike in their methods it's freaky, they should just get married and get a room!
Shouldn't we all think there is a better way?
tracyaphillips said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey#Bibliogr...
Alice could be considered the founder of 'new age' theosophy.
I believe that the writings I paraphrased are from 'Ponder On This',
Which would be a great intro for someone not used to new age stuff. If you were to start with something like "A Treatise On Cosmic Fire", I'm sure you'd find it quite laborious reading.
Alice could be considered the founder of 'new age' theosophy.
I believe that the writings I paraphrased are from 'Ponder On This',
Which would be a great intro for someone not used to new age stuff. If you were to start with something like "A Treatise On Cosmic Fire", I'm sure you'd find it quite laborious reading.
Nathan said:
The problem with saying Economics is the root of all war is that you are saying that there can be only one reason for war.
I would agree that Economics is a big factor if not the cause in many of the wars, which have been fought. However, historically speaking it simply is not true for all wars.
Looking back to biblical history you see that God sent people to war for reward and punishment.
Many of the wars fought in Africa by the differing tribes and in South America have more to do with a cycle of violence rather than an economic gain.
The American Revolution was fought more on the grounds of independence from Great Britain rather than some Economical gain.
The fighting in Ireland amongst the Catholics and Protestants had more to do with hatred than any Economical gain.
The wars waged against Israel by the Middle East were over destruction of the Israeli’s not any great Economical gain from it.
Economics play a part in many wars, but they are by no means the underlying factor or cause of all of them.
I would agree that Economics is a big factor if not the cause in many of the wars, which have been fought. However, historically speaking it simply is not true for all wars.
Looking back to biblical history you see that God sent people to war for reward and punishment.
Many of the wars fought in Africa by the differing tribes and in South America have more to do with a cycle of violence rather than an economic gain.
The American Revolution was fought more on the grounds of independence from Great Britain rather than some Economical gain.
The fighting in Ireland amongst the Catholics and Protestants had more to do with hatred than any Economical gain.
The wars waged against Israel by the Middle East were over destruction of the Israeli’s not any great Economical gain from it.
Economics play a part in many wars, but they are by no means the underlying factor or cause of all of them.
tracyaphillips said:
It seems pretty much all or nothing.
Either entirely unselfish:
"It can be sacrifice and right action, where the motive is right.
The slaying of a man in the act of killing the defenseless is not regarded as murder. The principle remains the same, whether it is killing an individual who is murdering, or fighting a nation, which is warring on the defenseless."
(defending the innocent and defenseless)
Or the complete opposite.
I suppose it could be a combo of both, but not usually.
Usually the humanitarian cause is only masking the economic cause, unfortunatly.
Either entirely unselfish:
"It can be sacrifice and right action, where the motive is right.
The slaying of a man in the act of killing the defenseless is not regarded as murder. The principle remains the same, whether it is killing an individual who is murdering, or fighting a nation, which is warring on the defenseless."
(defending the innocent and defenseless)
Or the complete opposite.
I suppose it could be a combo of both, but not usually.
Usually the humanitarian cause is only masking the economic cause, unfortunatly.
Nathan said:
Linda,
We don’t need to try stirring things up to create hate and scare people. No one is trying to create hate either.
All you have to do is look at the Islamic culture and see for yourself that they are trying to impose their religion and culture. Look to the European countries as they are stopping the teaching of the holocaust in efforts to not offend Muslims. There are more examples.
Look at how the Muslim world reacted to a mere Cartoon of their prophet Mohammad!
There are many examples. Compare living as a Christian in a Muslim country to that of living as a Muslim in a Western country and you will see the glaring difference.
I don’t recall Bin Laden saying anything close to your comments. Can you provide some quotes of his to substantiate your claims? Sounds more like words coming from your mouth rather his.
Here you go again with saying there is no plan for the war in Iraq. Based on what? Why do you insult the many hard working and professional Generals in the Pentagon the Theater commanders who do nothing but plan every single day and night for success? This idea that we have no plan and is nothing more than a DNC talking point. To believe we have no plan you have to choose to ignore the truth of the situation.
You might not like the plan or agree with the plan, but I have yet to see the Democrats offer anything other than defeat.
Even now your post claims there is no victory and there is no winning. So you don’t have a plan at all. You don’t want a plan. No plan is going to be good enough for you when you claim in the next paragraph that there is no victory.
This is classic double speak. You attack the republicans for having no plan and at the same time claim there can be no victory.
We don’t need to try stirring things up to create hate and scare people. No one is trying to create hate either.
All you have to do is look at the Islamic culture and see for yourself that they are trying to impose their religion and culture. Look to the European countries as they are stopping the teaching of the holocaust in efforts to not offend Muslims. There are more examples.
Look at how the Muslim world reacted to a mere Cartoon of their prophet Mohammad!
There are many examples. Compare living as a Christian in a Muslim country to that of living as a Muslim in a Western country and you will see the glaring difference.
I don’t recall Bin Laden saying anything close to your comments. Can you provide some quotes of his to substantiate your claims? Sounds more like words coming from your mouth rather his.
Here you go again with saying there is no plan for the war in Iraq. Based on what? Why do you insult the many hard working and professional Generals in the Pentagon the Theater commanders who do nothing but plan every single day and night for success? This idea that we have no plan and is nothing more than a DNC talking point. To believe we have no plan you have to choose to ignore the truth of the situation.
You might not like the plan or agree with the plan, but I have yet to see the Democrats offer anything other than defeat.
Even now your post claims there is no victory and there is no winning. So you don’t have a plan at all. You don’t want a plan. No plan is going to be good enough for you when you claim in the next paragraph that there is no victory.
This is classic double speak. You attack the republicans for having no plan and at the same time claim there can be no victory.
Wendy said:
Nathan,
I would say Linda has the right to her own opinion, regardless of whether or not you or anyone else agrees with it. If it is her opinion that we are not winning the war, that is HER OPINION and she should not have to defend it. But if you are going to ask her to defend it - then you should defend your stance that we are winning... Except that technically, we aren't even in a war, since Bush declared victory four years ago - which would indicate the end of a war. Funny how that works, isn't it? Perhaps you are right in regards to the Osama Bin Laden statement, as from reading what statements I can find he believes that that US must be destroyed because it is against Islam, not because it uses its force as a guise for oil - but I haven't read many of his statements, and since she is paraphrasing what SHE heard through the statements, who are you to say whether she is right or wrong? She is the only one who can give her interpretation (as she did) because each person will interpret statments on their own...
I would say Linda has the right to her own opinion, regardless of whether or not you or anyone else agrees with it. If it is her opinion that we are not winning the war, that is HER OPINION and she should not have to defend it. But if you are going to ask her to defend it - then you should defend your stance that we are winning... Except that technically, we aren't even in a war, since Bush declared victory four years ago - which would indicate the end of a war. Funny how that works, isn't it? Perhaps you are right in regards to the Osama Bin Laden statement, as from reading what statements I can find he believes that that US must be destroyed because it is against Islam, not because it uses its force as a guise for oil - but I haven't read many of his statements, and since she is paraphrasing what SHE heard through the statements, who are you to say whether she is right or wrong? She is the only one who can give her interpretation (as she did) because each person will interpret statments on their own...
tracyaphillips said:
Nathan, I agree that these extremist Islamic militias and terrorists are well worth fighting against.
I only ask that we not destroy our democracy in the fight.
The time for unity is NOW.
Not after the next election.
I only ask that we not destroy our democracy in the fight.
The time for unity is NOW.
Not after the next election.
Nathan said:
Wendy,
I never said that Linda doesn't have a right to her opinion.
Having the ability and right to form an opinion doesn't make it right. When you are in a discussion and wish to present an argument you do need to qualify it with evidence and support.
Bush never declared victory 4 years ago. That might be your opinion, but you are wrong.
My point is exactly that she was putting her own words into Bin Ladens mouth and that I am not 100% sure of this so I was asking her to show me where Bin Laden said those things.
Who am I to say whether she is right or wrong? I am an ordinary person with the ability to see facts, supporting evidence, logic or the lack there of on any of those just like anyone else.
An interpretation is based on some form of reasoning and can be wrong.
If my "interpretation" is that the when H2O splits it actually splits into Iron and Plutonium am I right? Will my chemistry teacher give me an A for my interpretation?
Of course not. H2O splits into Hydrogen and Oxygen. There is no other "interpretation." People can be wrong and often are.
I never said that Linda doesn't have a right to her opinion.
Having the ability and right to form an opinion doesn't make it right. When you are in a discussion and wish to present an argument you do need to qualify it with evidence and support.
Bush never declared victory 4 years ago. That might be your opinion, but you are wrong.
My point is exactly that she was putting her own words into Bin Ladens mouth and that I am not 100% sure of this so I was asking her to show me where Bin Laden said those things.
Who am I to say whether she is right or wrong? I am an ordinary person with the ability to see facts, supporting evidence, logic or the lack there of on any of those just like anyone else.
An interpretation is based on some form of reasoning and can be wrong.
If my "interpretation" is that the when H2O splits it actually splits into Iron and Plutonium am I right? Will my chemistry teacher give me an A for my interpretation?
Of course not. H2O splits into Hydrogen and Oxygen. There is no other "interpretation." People can be wrong and often are.
Wendy said:
Nathan,
Here you go - from ABC news: 2/5/2003 - Bush declares victory in Iraq
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s846124.htm...
See - just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you are right either...
Here you go - from ABC news: 2/5/2003 - Bush declares victory in Iraq
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s846124.htm...
See - just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you are right either...
Wendy said:
And, Nathan, interpreting a statement is radically different than interpreting scientific data. But I am not going to waste more time arguing semantics.
And my bad on the above post - that wasn't ABC news, it was Australian Broadcasting Corp - which is probably more unbiased than ABC news anyway...
And my bad on the above post - that wasn't ABC news, it was Australian Broadcasting Corp - which is probably more unbiased than ABC news anyway...
WSClark said:
In Nathan's very first post, he refered to Linda Inks as a DUPE.
After that, there was no point in any discussion.
After that, there was no point in any discussion.
lindainks55 said:
I'll never be afraid to say this war in Iraq was a MESS from the start and we owe it to our country to put an end to it. When and if I quote a source (on any subject) I will use those little marks that mean open/close quote and follow with a link to where I found that quote. Usually I just post what I think. Whether it's what someone else said or what I think doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong, and each person is free to agree or disagree. Aren't we all doing the same thing? Do we have an expert among us? If so, I'll bet someone could find another expert who would have an opposing opinion.
Wendy said:
And see, Linda, that was the point I was trying to make before Nathan had to run off with the "i'm right, you're wrong" trip again.
I have to admit that I get a little bit petty about those things from time to time. Not afraid to admit I'm wrong when I am. But when someone tells me I am wrong and I KNOW that I am not (and have the proof to back it up) well, I have a hard time letting that go. Character flaw of mine. I'm also an inherent smartass, but I can keep that a little more under control - although it busts out from time to time, as it did the last time I posted on WEBlog (and btw, man can those people not take sarcasm) but hey, you get what you get...
I have to admit that I get a little bit petty about those things from time to time. Not afraid to admit I'm wrong when I am. But when someone tells me I am wrong and I KNOW that I am not (and have the proof to back it up) well, I have a hard time letting that go. Character flaw of mine. I'm also an inherent smartass, but I can keep that a little more under control - although it busts out from time to time, as it did the last time I posted on WEBlog (and btw, man can those people not take sarcasm) but hey, you get what you get...
lindainks55 said:
I've been wrong enough years it doesn't feel anything but normal to admit I was wrong (AGAIN!). But when it comes to opinions I have as good a chance as any at being right (or wrong). I also have {quoting Nathan}, "the ability to see facts, supporting evidence, logic or the lack there of on any of those just like anyone else."
I spent some time using "the google" to see if I could find actual words spoken by bin Laden. I didn't find much and some of what I found carried disclaimers (my term) about differences in meaning from culture to culture, changes in meaning when language was translated... But the bottom line is I was WRONG to say what I thought he was saying. I don't know. I don't want to make him out to be a good guy.
The people in whatever country are probably more alike than different in that they want an honorable way to make a living, safety and prosperity, time to be with family and friends, peace and contentment, some victories to feel proud of, some challenges to stretch with... Sadly we all have to wonder if the decisions being made by our government are the right ones.
I don't like the decisions being made today by my government. I feel less safe.
I don't think there are any Islamic militants debating on this board so I want us to be civil and more forgiving. We're all Americans and have the good of our country at heart. I notice times when the issue with a statement is the way it is worded. You said it very well when you said, "But I am not going to waste more time arguing semantics." Arguing the semantics reminds me of the question "depends on what the definition of 'is' is." And I'm sure some who argue don't want their words associated with that sentence. tehe
We're all here to talk with one another and we will misspeak, it may come out differently than we meant or be interpreted differently. You know all those things that happen to every human. We aren't planning to publish or make money off our posts!
And I must get to bed. I don't spend much evening time on the computer. Tonight I spent too much.
I spent some time using "the google" to see if I could find actual words spoken by bin Laden. I didn't find much and some of what I found carried disclaimers (my term) about differences in meaning from culture to culture, changes in meaning when language was translated... But the bottom line is I was WRONG to say what I thought he was saying. I don't know. I don't want to make him out to be a good guy.
The people in whatever country are probably more alike than different in that they want an honorable way to make a living, safety and prosperity, time to be with family and friends, peace and contentment, some victories to feel proud of, some challenges to stretch with... Sadly we all have to wonder if the decisions being made by our government are the right ones.
I don't like the decisions being made today by my government. I feel less safe.
I don't think there are any Islamic militants debating on this board so I want us to be civil and more forgiving. We're all Americans and have the good of our country at heart. I notice times when the issue with a statement is the way it is worded. You said it very well when you said, "But I am not going to waste more time arguing semantics." Arguing the semantics reminds me of the question "depends on what the definition of 'is' is." And I'm sure some who argue don't want their words associated with that sentence. tehe
We're all here to talk with one another and we will misspeak, it may come out differently than we meant or be interpreted differently. You know all those things that happen to every human. We aren't planning to publish or make money off our posts!
And I must get to bed. I don't spend much evening time on the computer. Tonight I spent too much.
Nathan said:
Wendy,
I was wrong. Bush did declare victory in Iraq 4 years ago.
I spoke too soon.
Your conclusion that technically the war is over is false though.
The invasion in Iraq was only one part in the continuing war on terror.
Wendy, the point remains about interpretation.
Either Bin Laden said something similar to what Linda claims or he didn't.
Right now I am not seeing any quotes from Bin Laden to back up what she said.
So I am sticking to my original assessment which is that she put her own words there and falsely attributed them to Bin Laden.
Please show me otherwise.
I was wrong. Bush did declare victory in Iraq 4 years ago.
I spoke too soon.
Your conclusion that technically the war is over is false though.
The invasion in Iraq was only one part in the continuing war on terror.
Wendy, the point remains about interpretation.
Either Bin Laden said something similar to what Linda claims or he didn't.
Right now I am not seeing any quotes from Bin Laden to back up what she said.
So I am sticking to my original assessment which is that she put her own words there and falsely attributed them to Bin Laden.
Please show me otherwise.
Wendy said:
Nathan
If you READ my original post - I NEVER said Linda was right - In fact, I actually stated that the reasons I found based on my search was that he hated America because he believed america hated Islam. (or something to that effect - and yes, I am paraphrasing) I did, however say that if that is the way she heard what he said, she has the right to her interpretation. However, in the interest of throwing you a bone (although that is obviously a mistake because I have read your previous rant where you got just as illogical as anyone else...) here you go: Main Entry: in·ter·pre·ta·tion
Pronunciation: in-"t&r-pr&-'tA-sh&n, -p&-
Function: noun
1 : the act or the result of interpreting : EXPLANATION
2 : a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style
3 : a teaching technique that combines factual with stimulating explanatory information
and the definition of INTERPRET to further back the statement: Main Entry: in·ter·pret
Pronunciation: in-'t&r-pr&t, -p&t
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French interpreter, from Latin interpretari, from interpret-, interpres agent, negotiator, interpreter
transitive verb
1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
2 : to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : CONSTRUE
3 : to represent by means of art : bring to realization by performance or direction
intransitive verb : to act as an interpreter between speakers of different languages
synonym see EXPLAIN
see in particular section 2 - so we are both right. Now, quit telling me I am wrong.
If you READ my original post - I NEVER said Linda was right - In fact, I actually stated that the reasons I found based on my search was that he hated America because he believed america hated Islam. (or something to that effect - and yes, I am paraphrasing) I did, however say that if that is the way she heard what he said, she has the right to her interpretation. However, in the interest of throwing you a bone (although that is obviously a mistake because I have read your previous rant where you got just as illogical as anyone else...) here you go: Main Entry: in·ter·pre·ta·tion
Pronunciation: in-"t&r-pr&-'tA-sh&n, -p&-
Function: noun
1 : the act or the result of interpreting : EXPLANATION
2 : a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style
3 : a teaching technique that combines factual with stimulating explanatory information
and the definition of INTERPRET to further back the statement: Main Entry: in·ter·pret
Pronunciation: in-'t&r-pr&t, -p&t
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French interpreter, from Latin interpretari, from interpret-, interpres agent, negotiator, interpreter
transitive verb
1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
2 : to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : CONSTRUE
3 : to represent by means of art : bring to realization by performance or direction
intransitive verb : to act as an interpreter between speakers of different languages
synonym see EXPLAIN
see in particular section 2 - so we are both right. Now, quit telling me I am wrong.
Wendy said:
Tracy,
Thank you. That is just my biggest beef. It's an OPINION - there is no right or wrong in an OPINION. You can disagree. That is your opinion. For Nathan to sit there and say that Linda or I is wrong because he does not agree with our opinions, well, who made him an authority anyways? It's an opinion, he doesn't get to decide if it is right or wrong. The only things I told him that he was wrong about were things that were not opinions, but were stated as fact.
Grrrr... I really need to learn to let go I think :)
Thank you. That is just my biggest beef. It's an OPINION - there is no right or wrong in an OPINION. You can disagree. That is your opinion. For Nathan to sit there and say that Linda or I is wrong because he does not agree with our opinions, well, who made him an authority anyways? It's an opinion, he doesn't get to decide if it is right or wrong. The only things I told him that he was wrong about were things that were not opinions, but were stated as fact.
Grrrr... I really need to learn to let go I think :)
Wendy said:
And Nathan, the invasion in Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. It had to do solely with Bush's agenda regarding Saddam Hussein and the oil. He may have tried to make it seem okay under the guise of the war on terror - but there is not one shred of evidence to back up that claim (other than Bush's word, which is about as useful as, well, I refuse to be rude so I won't say it) and I challenge you to find me some. If it's a quote from Bush, it doesn't apply. And by the way - the "war" in Iraq is not actually a war, as Congress never issued a declaration of War - which per the United States Constitution, is required to declare war.
http://encarta.msn.com/guide_whocandeclarewar/Who_...
http://encarta.msn.com/guide_whocandeclarewar/Who_...
tracyaphillips said:
Wendy, this blogging stuff is addicting.
Yes, I have an addictive personality.
I go through phases of 'letting go' and getting upset all over again.
Why? Words can, and do hurt sometimes.
I have been so upset over blog comments that it kept me awake thinking about it.
Nathan has always wanted to be right. Human nature.
I saw where he admitted to being wrong yesterday.
He's growing faster than I ever did.
I think I was 35 yrs old before I admitted being wrong about much of anything.
In any case, go ahead and be annoyed, just come back!
Yes, I have an addictive personality.
I go through phases of 'letting go' and getting upset all over again.
Why? Words can, and do hurt sometimes.
I have been so upset over blog comments that it kept me awake thinking about it.
Nathan has always wanted to be right. Human nature.
I saw where he admitted to being wrong yesterday.
He's growing faster than I ever did.
I think I was 35 yrs old before I admitted being wrong about much of anything.
In any case, go ahead and be annoyed, just come back!
lindainks55 said:
Words make a difference to me too. I think they show others our interests, sometimes where we have gained knowledge (or NOT!), mainly our character. The following words are at the bottom of every email I ever received from our friend J R:
From the tips of your fingers.....
to the depths of a distant soul.....
words touch hearts
type carefully
J
Aren't those good words!?
From the tips of your fingers.....
to the depths of a distant soul.....
words touch hearts
type carefully
J
Aren't those good words!?
Nathan said:
Wendy,
Where are you getting that an opinion can't be wrong?
Of course it can be wrong!
I have already shown you how. An opinion is based on facts, reasoning, logic or maybe none at all. Either way, those things can be and sometimes are wrong which makes your opinion wrong.
If it is my opinion that you are a sick perverted child molester are you going to sit here and tell me that my opinion is not wrong?
Where are you getting that an opinion can't be wrong?
Of course it can be wrong!
I have already shown you how. An opinion is based on facts, reasoning, logic or maybe none at all. Either way, those things can be and sometimes are wrong which makes your opinion wrong.
If it is my opinion that you are a sick perverted child molester are you going to sit here and tell me that my opinion is not wrong?
Nathan said:
Wendy,
Bush "agenda" was to preemptively strike Saddam before he became a larger threat. The idea was to ensure that he was dealt with before something else could be done.
Saddam was in violation of something like 17 UN mandates, he was in violation of his terms of surrender, he was shooting at American forces...
Congress did pass the use of force to remove Saddam from power wheter or not they actually declared war.
Either way, it is a war like Vietnam, and referred to as such. So I am not sure what your point was there.
As far as quotes go, what are you looking for? I could give you hundreds of quotes from everyone on the left from 1998 about the threat Saddam posed, I could give you a hundred quotes from Powel, Bush, Rice, Kay, and others about the threat Saddam posed.
Bush "agenda" was to preemptively strike Saddam before he became a larger threat. The idea was to ensure that he was dealt with before something else could be done.
Saddam was in violation of something like 17 UN mandates, he was in violation of his terms of surrender, he was shooting at American forces...
Congress did pass the use of force to remove Saddam from power wheter or not they actually declared war.
Either way, it is a war like Vietnam, and referred to as such. So I am not sure what your point was there.
As far as quotes go, what are you looking for? I could give you hundreds of quotes from everyone on the left from 1998 about the threat Saddam posed, I could give you a hundred quotes from Powel, Bush, Rice, Kay, and others about the threat Saddam posed.
lindainks55 said:
In my opinion she may choose to disagree with you but if you hold that opinion of her YOU are the only person who might change it. She could show you some reasons why she thinks your opinion is IN ERROR and why she thinks you should change it. But then we're right back to YOU and whether you want to change or hold onto your original opinion.
Nathan said:
Linda,
It is my opinion that you are a serial killer who should be locked up behind bars for the rest of your life.
Is my opinion true or false?
It is my opinion that you are a serial killer who should be locked up behind bars for the rest of your life.
Is my opinion true or false?
Nathan said:
Sometimes I sit here and wonder about how much better things would be in our discussions if people would take a basic logic class...
Oh well.
Oh well.
lindainks55 said:
Definitions of opinion on the Web:
* a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?"
* public opinion: a belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people; "he asked for a poll of public opinion"
* a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page"
* the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; "opinions are usually written by a single judge"
* the reason for a court's judgment (as opposed to the decision itself)
* impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
* a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?"
* public opinion: a belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people; "he asked for a poll of public opinion"
* a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page"
* the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; "opinions are usually written by a single judge"
* the reason for a court's judgment (as opposed to the decision itself)
* impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Nathan said:
Linda,
You know what I don't see there?
I don't see anything describing why an opinion can't be wrong.
You know what I don't see there?
I don't see anything describing why an opinion can't be wrong.
Nathan said:
Wait a minute...
I just figured out the perfect example.
I have been sitting here saying peoples opinions can be wrong while you have been saying that they can't.
You are saying my opinion about opinions is wrong!
Viola! See? You are arguing that my opinion about opinions being wrong is wrong.
You have proved me right.
Thank you.
I just figured out the perfect example.
I have been sitting here saying peoples opinions can be wrong while you have been saying that they can't.
You are saying my opinion about opinions is wrong!
Viola! See? You are arguing that my opinion about opinions being wrong is wrong.
You have proved me right.
Thank you.
tracyaphillips said:
An opinion can lead to incorrect conclusions.
I'm not sure that helps any, but what the hey.
We're talking semantics.
yuck.
It's hard for anyone to agree on anything when we break down into semantics.
I'm not sure that helps any, but what the hey.
We're talking semantics.
yuck.
It's hard for anyone to agree on anything when we break down into semantics.
lindainks55 said:
Sigh.
Both my opinions and your opinions are based on our individual, personal beliefs or judgments and not founded on proof or certainty.
In my opinion you need to be right and I don't care if you think I'm wrong so I have no opinion of that.
Sigh.
So, this is my opinion and it may be right or it may be wrong, but it's mine and doesn't reflect on you (JUST ME!)
Both my opinions and your opinions are based on our individual, personal beliefs or judgments and not founded on proof or certainty.
In my opinion you need to be right and I don't care if you think I'm wrong so I have no opinion of that.
Sigh.
So, this is my opinion and it may be right or it may be wrong, but it's mine and doesn't reflect on you (JUST ME!)
lindainks55 said:
It is yucky, Tracy.
And has no end.
And the beat goes on. So does life. Some opinions I respect, some I don't. Some intrique me. Others bore me. And it's all my personal opinion anyway. I'll bet someplace there are two someones (or more) who have an opinion that both agrees with and disagrees with me. ;)
The voices are friendly and helpful - no worry there.
This morning they asked me, "Why are you putting your left sock on your right foot, you moron!?!"
I find them opinionated and annoying, but essentially harmless.
And has no end.
And the beat goes on. So does life. Some opinions I respect, some I don't. Some intrique me. Others bore me. And it's all my personal opinion anyway. I'll bet someplace there are two someones (or more) who have an opinion that both agrees with and disagrees with me. ;)
The voices are friendly and helpful - no worry there.
This morning they asked me, "Why are you putting your left sock on your right foot, you moron!?!"
I find them opinionated and annoying, but essentially harmless.
tracyaphillips said:
My opinion is that opinionated people are so annoying.
Annoyed peopled are annoying.
Offended people offend me too.
One more thing, people who are paranoid are out to get me.
I have fear of paranoia.
Confused yet?
Always.
Thanks.
Annoyed peopled are annoying.
Offended people offend me too.
One more thing, people who are paranoid are out to get me.
I have fear of paranoia.
Confused yet?
Always.
Thanks.
Nathan said:
Perhaps we can skip the discussion on whether an opinion can be wrong or not and you could actually comment on my response to your post Linda?
lindainks55 said:
Probably not.
I don't even know what you posted that needs a response.
I don't think you know this so I'll share. I'm unmedicated. I've slipped into silliness. My punishment is to change my socks (they're on the wrong feet), do at least two loads of laundry, go to the grocery store, dust and vacuum. Then I may ask the voices if I may get serious again.
I don't even know what you posted that needs a response.
I don't think you know this so I'll share. I'm unmedicated. I've slipped into silliness. My punishment is to change my socks (they're on the wrong feet), do at least two loads of laundry, go to the grocery store, dust and vacuum. Then I may ask the voices if I may get serious again.
tracyaphillips said:
Ms. Inks...HA!
I can relate.
When people ask what the heck is wrong with me,
I always tellem...
Well, I USED to be on drugs.
NOW I'm on medication.
I can relate.
When people ask what the heck is wrong with me,
I always tellem...
Well, I USED to be on drugs.
NOW I'm on medication.
tracyaphillips said:
Nathan, NOW you get it.
I quit caring so much about point/counterpoint discussion.
Conversation is cool with me, if we actually discuss some issues too, great.
Boring, huh?
I quit caring so much about point/counterpoint discussion.
Conversation is cool with me, if we actually discuss some issues too, great.
Boring, huh?
lindainks55 said:
I don't think I can come up with enough words of praise for how much better if feels to have my socks on the right feet! Do you suppose I've been left of right all along and didn't realize the error of my ways?
Gster said:
Linda- You mean both socks on the right foot? That might cause some alignment problems, making you to walk in circles!
Wendy said:
Nathan,
no YOU miss the point. My question was what makes you the authority that gets to determine whether Linda's opinion was right or wrong. But Tracy is right, we are arguing semantics, and I am not going to do it anymore on here.
Some days I feel like no matter what foot you put the sock on it is wrong anyways, and switching doesn't work either, so I just go barefoot. Today is one of those days - too bad it is too cold outside so I had to make myself wear the stupid socks :)
no YOU miss the point. My question was what makes you the authority that gets to determine whether Linda's opinion was right or wrong. But Tracy is right, we are arguing semantics, and I am not going to do it anymore on here.
Some days I feel like no matter what foot you put the sock on it is wrong anyways, and switching doesn't work either, so I just go barefoot. Today is one of those days - too bad it is too cold outside so I had to make myself wear the stupid socks :)
lindainks55 said:
It really does boil down to several different ways to wear those socks, doesn't it? I don't take myself as seriously as some I guess. But then I have nothing to prove and don't expect anything. Life brings me pleasant unexpected surprises almost every day. I love to laugh and do it often! Many times at myself.
Ole man winter is sure having a hard time letting go! The trees and shrubs in my yard had their new tiny little leaves frozen. They are dark and shriveled. Hope they make new ones again.
Looks like the president will have the opportunity to veto another bill. Makes no more sense than the only other time he has used his veto power. Good news is that federal funding of ALL types stem cell research will happen as soon as we get rid of this guy. We can make lots of progress when we get rid of this guy! It's a bright future!
Wendy, I hope you and your son have a great day! Well, I hope everyone has a great day!
Ole man winter is sure having a hard time letting go! The trees and shrubs in my yard had their new tiny little leaves frozen. They are dark and shriveled. Hope they make new ones again.
Looks like the president will have the opportunity to veto another bill. Makes no more sense than the only other time he has used his veto power. Good news is that federal funding of ALL types stem cell research will happen as soon as we get rid of this guy. We can make lots of progress when we get rid of this guy! It's a bright future!
Wendy, I hope you and your son have a great day! Well, I hope everyone has a great day!
Nathan said:
After some thought, I have to agree somewhat with opinions not being wrong.
You are right, when someone says they like cake or warm milk, that is their opinion and how could they be wrong?
However, what is posted here is not presented as an opinion like what is your favorite color.
When you come here with "facts" associated with your opinion then those facts can be challanged and can be wrong.
When Linda says there is no plan, that is no longer an opnion, it is a statement of fact.
When Linda attributes something as being said by Bin Laden it is no longer a mere opinion, but a statement of fact.
When you say it is your opinion that the war in unwinnable that too is something which can be challanged as wrong.
So, if you like or dislike wearing socks, then how could you be wrong?
But when you come here presenting false information and make false conclusions from the false information it is no longer just your opinion, but a statement of fact which can be argued as being wrong.
So, whenever you actually feel like discussing the things you post here instead of pretending not to hear the truth let me know.
Nathan
You are right, when someone says they like cake or warm milk, that is their opinion and how could they be wrong?
However, what is posted here is not presented as an opinion like what is your favorite color.
When you come here with "facts" associated with your opinion then those facts can be challanged and can be wrong.
When Linda says there is no plan, that is no longer an opnion, it is a statement of fact.
When Linda attributes something as being said by Bin Laden it is no longer a mere opinion, but a statement of fact.
When you say it is your opinion that the war in unwinnable that too is something which can be challanged as wrong.
So, if you like or dislike wearing socks, then how could you be wrong?
But when you come here presenting false information and make false conclusions from the false information it is no longer just your opinion, but a statement of fact which can be argued as being wrong.
So, whenever you actually feel like discussing the things you post here instead of pretending not to hear the truth let me know.
Nathan
tracyaphillips said:
Therein lies the problem.
Truth is a subjective thing.
One man's truth may be another's folly.
People have spent thousands of years pondering on the very nature of truth itself.
Since I started this thread with A. Bailey,
may as well throw in her take on truth.
"Only that which you know for yourself and experience consciously within yourself is of importance and constitutes the truth for you. That which may be told you by others, even by me, serves no vital purpose, except to enhance or corroborate an already known truth, or to create illusions or responsibility until it is either rejected or experienced by you in your own consciousness. Do you understand what I mean?"
Truth is a subjective thing.
One man's truth may be another's folly.
People have spent thousands of years pondering on the very nature of truth itself.
Since I started this thread with A. Bailey,
may as well throw in her take on truth.
"Only that which you know for yourself and experience consciously within yourself is of importance and constitutes the truth for you. That which may be told you by others, even by me, serves no vital purpose, except to enhance or corroborate an already known truth, or to create illusions or responsibility until it is either rejected or experienced by you in your own consciousness. Do you understand what I mean?"
Nathan said:
The very definition of truth negates it being subjective.
Logically speaking, your statement defeats it's self.
Logically speaking, your statement defeats it's self.
tracyaphillips said:
I've had this discussion before.
It can be a long one.
I'll try to get to the bottom line.
Nathan, you are correct. No doubt about it.
That IS the first thing you learn in class about logic. In computer language, mathematics, empirical evidence, etc. You are correct.
Yet, there are things that defy logic.
Quarks and Spin Particles would be one example, however, I believe Ms. Bailey is trying to describe something altogether different.
It can be a long one.
I'll try to get to the bottom line.
Nathan, you are correct. No doubt about it.
That IS the first thing you learn in class about logic. In computer language, mathematics, empirical evidence, etc. You are correct.
Yet, there are things that defy logic.
Quarks and Spin Particles would be one example, however, I believe Ms. Bailey is trying to describe something altogether different.
lindainks55 said:
Nathan you are so absolutely correct, right, and superior to everything I could come up with, I am a complete waste of your time, I am far beneath your intellectual level, there is no logic to anything I say or think, and nothing I will ever share will be worthwhile to you.
I personally could never recognize the truth even if you opened my eyes to it.
I feel completely absolved of my responsibility of pretending in front of you and will never attempt it again. What a weight off my chest to be able to recognize some of my many faults.
I was right about one thing. You aren't a person I want to talk with. I don't like standing next to the skinniest female either -- always makes me feel even fatter.
I personally could never recognize the truth even if you opened my eyes to it.
I feel completely absolved of my responsibility of pretending in front of you and will never attempt it again. What a weight off my chest to be able to recognize some of my many faults.
I was right about one thing. You aren't a person I want to talk with. I don't like standing next to the skinniest female either -- always makes me feel even fatter.
tracyaphillips said:
Nathan, I'm not being condescending either.
Sorry for not being clearer on that.
TRUTH is, I'm not that great at science, math, and probably logic either.
I guess that's where the 'new age' part of Bailey's stuff kicks in. It's about spiritual truths, I think.
Math, physics, and logic never lie.
The spin particle thingy does have the most brilliant minds alive scratching their heads and exclaiming, "WHAT THE....????"
Sorry for not being clearer on that.
TRUTH is, I'm not that great at science, math, and probably logic either.
I guess that's where the 'new age' part of Bailey's stuff kicks in. It's about spiritual truths, I think.
Math, physics, and logic never lie.
The spin particle thingy does have the most brilliant minds alive scratching their heads and exclaiming, "WHAT THE....????"
lindainks55 said:
Gary, you and I have always been able to talk and relate. :) Last time I was around someone this perfect was when my children were teenagers. Today they range in age from 42 down to 34 and have grown up -- thank goodness! My grandchildren (several are teenagers, one will be 20 this winter!) are an improvement on my children and have not gone through the awkward stage their parents did.
Gster said:
Linda- I don't know, I was the kind of kid my mother didn't want me playing with.
Wasn't it WC Fields that said "Children should be seen but not tolerated"?
LOL
Wasn't it WC Fields that said "Children should be seen but not tolerated"?
LOL
Nathan said:
Linda,
I think you are confusing your level of imperfection in comparison to me as my being perfect.
I am sorry to inform you that I am far from being perfect.
I am only more correct than you.
I think you are confusing your level of imperfection in comparison to me as my being perfect.
I am sorry to inform you that I am far from being perfect.
I am only more correct than you.
tracyaphillips said:
WC Fields, ah yes......
He loved children.
Said they were very good with mustard!
He loved children.
Said they were very good with mustard!
Nathan said:
I am not sure whether your collective patronizing takes more or less effort than actually trying to defend your statements?
tracyaphillips said:
Defend what statements?
Heck, you wanna argue about us not having an argument?
This is a Monty Python skit, you know that don't you?
Heck, you wanna argue about us not having an argument?
This is a Monty Python skit, you know that don't you?
tracyaphillips said:
The Cast (in order of appearance.)
M= Man looking for an argument
R= Receptionist
Q= Abuser
A= Arguer (John Cleese)
C= Complainer (Eric Idle)
H= Head Hitter
M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M: Thank you.
(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)
Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!
(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.
(Walks down the stairs. Opens door.)
M: I want to complain.
C: You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.
M: No, I want to complain about...
C: If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother.
M: Oh!
C: Oh my back hurts, it's not a very fine day and I'm sick and tired of this office.
(Slams door. walks down corridor, opens next door.)
M: Hello, I want to... Ooooh!
H: No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go Waaah. Try it again.
M: uuuwwhh!!
H: Better, Better, but Waah, Waah! Put your hand there.
M: No.
H: Now..
M: Waaaaah!!!
H: Good, Good! That's it.
M: Stop hitting me!!
H: What?
M: Stop hitting me!!
H: Stop hitting you?
M: Yes!
H: Why did you come in here then?
M: I wanted to complain.
H: Oh no, that's next door. It's being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here.
M: What a stupid concept.
M= Man looking for an argument
R= Receptionist
Q= Abuser
A= Arguer (John Cleese)
C= Complainer (Eric Idle)
H= Head Hitter
M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M: Thank you.
(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)
Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!
(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.
(Walks down the stairs. Opens door.)
M: I want to complain.
C: You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.
M: No, I want to complain about...
C: If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother.
M: Oh!
C: Oh my back hurts, it's not a very fine day and I'm sick and tired of this office.
(Slams door. walks down corridor, opens next door.)
M: Hello, I want to... Ooooh!
H: No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go Waaah. Try it again.
M: uuuwwhh!!
H: Better, Better, but Waah, Waah! Put your hand there.
M: No.
H: Now..
M: Waaaaah!!!
H: Good, Good! That's it.
M: Stop hitting me!!
H: What?
M: Stop hitting me!!
H: Stop hitting you?
M: Yes!
H: Why did you come in here then?
M: I wanted to complain.
H: Oh no, that's next door. It's being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here.
M: What a stupid concept.
lindainks55 said:
Damn, Tracy! Did you have to go out on "the internets" and find that? Theeeeeennnnnn, did you actually have to copy and come back here and paste? Not to mention the effort it took to mention Monty Python to someone who already knew it was Monty Python before you ever made that effort! Now, just exactly how much effort did that take?
Isn't there anything you can do right!??
Oh, btw, thank you! I needed that.
tracyaphillips said:
Ms. Inks, I have this terrible mental condition.
It's uncontrollable.
Everywhere I look, I see humor.
Sucks to be me at funerals.
It's uncontrollable.
Everywhere I look, I see humor.
Sucks to be me at funerals.
tracyaphillips said:
I'm even going to be funny when I'm DEAD!
In my will,
I have it set up so that my grave marker will say:
"I TOLD YOU I DIDN'T FEEL GOOD!"
In my will,
I have it set up so that my grave marker will say:
"I TOLD YOU I DIDN'T FEEL GOOD!"
tracyaphillips said:
Ms. Inks, to answer your question about what I can do right,
In school I majored in f*#cking up.
Top O' the class!
In school I majored in f*#cking up.
Top O' the class!
lindainks55 said:
Maybe if we let him have the next "last word." which seems to one of the most necessary parts to being serious and correct and better than I will ever be we can then relay the fact that we are dead serious about our inability to remain serious for long periods of time.
Life deals so much I don't care to go looking for more on purpose!
If I truly had to dwell on the war, the current administration, the needs of the United States of America and her citizens that are being ignored. I would be a miserable person. I'm more aware and less able to ignore than I want to be! Those who still support the lunacy are too scary to contemplate. So I don't!
Fun is what makes the rest of it bearable! Sure is a happy place to be around fun people.
Life deals so much I don't care to go looking for more on purpose!
If I truly had to dwell on the war, the current administration, the needs of the United States of America and her citizens that are being ignored. I would be a miserable person. I'm more aware and less able to ignore than I want to be! Those who still support the lunacy are too scary to contemplate. So I don't!
Fun is what makes the rest of it bearable! Sure is a happy place to be around fun people.
lindainks55 said:
OK, in your case -- for short periods of time. But hey, you're good at what you're good at!
tracyaphillips said:
Oh the famous last word victory!
I've seen it a buhzillion times.
It goes something like this:
I'll have it noted that Linda left the blog after my last points were made. She couldn't take the heat, so she left to change them damn socks again!
I WIN!
(never mind that you really didn't care about winning or losing anything)
I've seen it a buhzillion times.
It goes something like this:
I'll have it noted that Linda left the blog after my last points were made. She couldn't take the heat, so she left to change them damn socks again!
I WIN!
(never mind that you really didn't care about winning or losing anything)
Vaughn Tolle said:
Tracy, "back in the day", guys who majored in the same discipline as you got to make floor shift knobs down in metal shop. Probably a more useful skill than the other.
Wendy said:
tracy,
you are definitely more entertaining than the argument was. Ah, well. The problem with being young and opinionated I suppose. Although, the only things on this thread that I introduced as Nathan's definition of "fact" I did indeed provide evidence for. nanananabooboo :) Sorry, got the better of me that time. I'll let it go now...
As for the socks, I think maybe it's nice enough I can handle going without them tonight - should go well with the daquiri I am going to enjoy to take care of the ridiculousness of my workday :)
you are definitely more entertaining than the argument was. Ah, well. The problem with being young and opinionated I suppose. Although, the only things on this thread that I introduced as Nathan's definition of "fact" I did indeed provide evidence for. nanananabooboo :) Sorry, got the better of me that time. I'll let it go now...
As for the socks, I think maybe it's nice enough I can handle going without them tonight - should go well with the daquiri I am going to enjoy to take care of the ridiculousness of my workday :)
Loading....