subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
In article <[email]>,  <[email]> wrote:
|In article <2hk675$[email]>, [email] (Jim Huggins) writes:
|> 1) Secret negotiations between long-time combatants, which could be
|>    terribly complicated by tons of outside comments (many of which
|>     [...]
|> 2) Speculations regarding on-going criminal investigations, which could
|>    tip-off the suspects.  Examples: the World Trade Center bombing, in
|>     [...]
|> 3) Surprise birthday parties.  :-)
|
|Generally I don't accept any of this.  Most of the time members of the
|press have no special security clearance to confidential or secret
|information.  Reporters are just professional researchers and questioners.
|So if the press found out about something, then anyone else theortically
|could find out about it, including "the enemy."

True, though the press certainly can make it known far wider and far
quicker than anyone else.   I just saw this in today's paper:

	  WASHINGTON(AP) -- Peace with Syria will require territorial
	concessions, Israel's chief negotiator said yesterday, setting
	the stage for a resumption of talks on Monday.  [...]
	  The talks resuming Monday will be different from the 11
	previous rounds: The negotiators will meet at secret locations
	instead of at the State Department.
	  [Israel's chief negotiator Itamar] Rabinovich said that it
	had been counterproductive for negotiators to respond to the
	questions of reporters staking out the talks and that the
	effort had contributed to tensions in the negotiations. [...]

So, I think at times there is a place for non-reporting.  Not that
every government request for non-reporting is necessarily good, of
course, but every now and then choosing not to report is to be
encouraged.


author: John K. Taber

subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
[email] wrote:

: On the other hand, a different reporter gets pictures of the "secret" new
: car design by camping out on a hill overlooking the test track and using a
: telephoto lens might be an embarassing leak for the company.  But I wouldn't
: prevent those pictures from being published.  After all, any other competitor
: could have had a "spy" on the same hill taking pictures (and may well have
: had).  I doubt the competitor would be so nice as to make the pictures
: availible to anyone who picked up a copy of the car magazine so the car
: company could determine just how much information was revealed.
: --
: Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
: Domain: [email], Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100

Well, yes, but...  Typically, the reporter calls the company's
communications director (usually entitled something like that)
and asks for confirmation.  This gives the company the opportunity
to bargain with the reporter (or his boss the editor) on the
story.  If you're nobody, there is no bargaining, and the paper
will do what it wants with the story.  If you're powerful, the
paper is more cautious about offending you.

It still may publish.  Your reaction then is to exclude that reporter
from any further news from you.  If you're important enough, this
puts the reporter's organization at a disadvantage.

Usually, reporters are not independent agents.  They don't somehow
magically discover a story.  They are employees like you and me,
with a boss like you and me.  They don't originate stories (except
for silly season nonsense like Big Foot).  They don't control
the source of the stories.

They usually get a story from the owner of the source in the form of
a press release.  In other words, the communications department of
Big Motors writes up the new car for the papers, and mails it to
them.  The editor gets it and assigns it to a reporter.  In fact,
reporters call their stories "assignments".  The press release
provides a phone number and a name to contact.  Many papers run
the story without further verification just as Big Motors wrote it
up for them.  News is expensive, and press releases help contain
costs.

Some will call the contact and ask a couple of questions.  A few
will even call an industry analyst if referenced in the release.
And a very few on rare occasions will call an analyst independently
to cross check the release's claims.  I can think of only one
reporter who did this consistently and that was Izzy Stone.

Most news is disguised ads, for products or politics or ideas.  In
other words junk mail masquerading as news.


author: John De Armond

subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
[email] (Mike McNally) writes:

Opinion asserted as fact without support argument.  Which 1st Amendment
would you be referring to?  The Amendment as written or the one the courts
and Big Media have folded, spindled and mutillated to sanction the
unfettered publishing of anything they can get their hands on without
regard to the harm caused? I reproduce the 1st as written below for your
reference.

   1st Amendment
   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
   religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
   the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
   people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
   a redress of grievances.

I read that Congress shall make no law.  I see nothing about the
executive or judicial branches nor anything affecting the states.
The frequently used argument of incorporation by the 14th just doesn't
fly either.  Below is the relevant part:

   14th Amendment
   Sect. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
   and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
   United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State
   shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
   or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
   State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
   due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction
   the equal protection of the laws.

Nothing there that changes "Congress shall make no law" into "The government
shall not" or "There shall be no restrictions" as the situation seems
to be today.  As a fan and student of those dead white men who wrote
this stuff, I have little doubt that they had any intention of endorsing
the overt lying, corruption and high treason we see every day in the
Big Media.  Of course they would hardly sanction Big Government as it
exist today either.

John


author: Chuck Davis

subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
In article <m5.759018506@vail>, [email] (Mike McNally) writes:

Fight to the death with what? By that time all the gun-owning radicals
(conservatives, NRAists and RKBAnarchists) will have been rounded up (Waco
style). 8-(  Then who will come to our rescue? Surely not Canada or Mexico.


author: Mike McNally

subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
[email] (John De Armond) writes:

That the executive branch can "make law" is a by-product of Congress
granting it that authority.  The judicial branch, though it often
seems to do so anyway, cannot actually create laws.

That "privileges or immunities" bit does it for me.  I'm no lawyer, but
this seems to be some of that plain English you (so rightly) admire about
the document.

But clearly Congress is the law-making arm of the Federal government.

I'm not sure I understand your motivations here, John; as someone well
known for speaking his mind freely and holding strong (and sometimes
unpopular) opinions, I would think you would be wary of a government
that would intervene to deny publishing rights on the basis of some
review process.  (Perhaps I'm putting thoughts in your head wrongly;
I may be confused about where you're at.)

There's a difference between endorsement and acknowledgement of freedom.
I don't "endorse" the vapidity of big media "news", but I have no intention
of advocating that the government should shut them down.  Remember that
what to one person are "lies and distortions" may to another be "truth".


author: Grady Ward

subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
John De Armond ([email]) wrote:

: this stuff, I have little doubt that they had any intention of endorsing
: the overt lying, corruption and high treason we see every day in the
: Big Media.  Of course they would hardly sanction Big Government as it

Oh NO, has the Big Media become just another cypherpunk tentacle too?

Is there NOTHING we can trust anymore?  How about Usenet posts?


author: Karl Kluge

subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
In article <_3v39+#@dixie.com> [email] (John De Armond) writes:

If you were really that big a fan and student of the framers, you would be
well aware that (1) they intended the gov't's powers to be restricted to
exactly those emunerated in the Constitution, so that the lack of a
prohibition on executive or judicial restraint on free speech would not
entitle them to do so, and in fact (2) the reason there wasn't a Bill of
Rights in the original Constitution was rpecisely because some of the framers
were concerned that people would use it in the way you just did to argue that
everything not forbidden to the gov't is permitted. Study some more.


author: Richard Roda

subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
In article <_3v39+#@dixie.com> [email] (John De Armond) writes:
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
There is the 9th amendment that says that the enumeration of certain rights
in the Constitution shall not be construed as to deny or disparage rights
held by the people (or something like that).  Just because the first and
14th amendments do not specify the right does not mean it does not exist.

Also, the first amendment *would* explicitly prevent the application of RICO
to state porn cases.  But I know, some things just are too politically
incorrect to be fettered by a Constitution.


subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
[email] (Mike McNally) writes:

Nope.  Article II, Sect 1 gives all executive powers to the president.
His powers are otherwise rather ill-defined so one must rely on
what the traditional role of an executive is.  The executive branch
is responsible for the day to day operation of the government and
that includes guarding the security of the nation.  Control of the
military was vested in the executive for that reason, among others.
It does not require a law for the executive to exercise control over
the press or speech.  All the president need do is file suit for an
injunction based on a state security.  The court, given the power
in Art III, Sect 2 to resolve all matters of law and equity can
legitimately rule on the suit.  And we haven't even touched
on state or local government powers.  Thus *AS WRITTEN* the
constitution gives the executive branch the power to censor the press,
religion and speech.

I'm no lawyer either but I try not to delegate philosophical thought to
lawyers or anyone else.  Sorry but "priviledges and immunities" doesn't
do it for me.  This is unfortunately extremely poorly worded and has
a strong statist overtone ("priviledges" feh!) but what I read is
that it simply extends the restriction on Congress to the congresses
of the states.

No, you're just not thinking very critically.  I am attacking the
tendency of people to redefine the meaning of the common words used
in the Constitution to suit their immediate purposes.  The same
intellectual fraud that twists the 1st to guarantee the unfettered
right to say and print anything is the same fraud that lets people
say with a straight face that the 2nd amendment somehow has something
to do with the army or national guard and/or that any of the 20,000
gun laws on the books are constitutional.

For that matter, this same fraud is what has permitted the federal
government, something the founders intended to be little more than
an umbrella not unlike the European common market, to become the
smothering, invasive, overwhelming, out of control monster it is
today.

I'm an advocate of almost unfettered free speech.  I believe that
people should be held responsible for lies and misstatements which
harm others.  When _Dateline NBC_ rigs a pickup truck to explode
in a crash and then lies about it or when _60 minutes_ edits words
out of targets' statements, I think there should be criminal sanctions,
something that is now impossible.  But even this is not my point.

The intellectually honest and freedom-preserving way to
change things is to amend the constitution and not munge it up
with NewSpeak garbage.  In order to legitimately guarantee unfettered
freedom of speech, the 1st must be amended.  Yes, amending the
constitution is difficult.  That's the way it should be.

John


author: Arthur Bernard Byrne

subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
In article <[email]>, Grady Ward <[email]> wrote:

	I don't know *what* you would trust Usenet posts for;
"The Net of a Million Lies", anyone?

AB^2


subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
[email] (Karl Kluge) writes:

But that's not what they wrote, now is it?  Where they meant to specify
protection for absolute rights, such in the 2nd amendment, they used
such unambiguous language such as ".. shall not be infringed."

But the constitution that was ratified and is now in effect DOES have
a bill of rights and the first one begins with "Congress shall make no
law".  Now to anyone other than a lawyer, that statment deals only with
congress and with laws.

The problem with splintering the English language in order to make the
constitution say what you want it to say instead of what it really says
is people much more powerful than you, people with guns and tanks
and bombs, can play that game too and you the individual are always the
loser.  Exhibit A:  The Branch Davidians, an incident where government
death squads led an unconstitutional murderous raid against a religious
group based on the excuse of enforcing unconstitutional firearms laws.
Now when the government decides it wants to get you for whatever it is
that you're doing that they don't like, under your rules all they have
to do is redefine the language again.

I shouldn't have to say this but then critical thinking and Usenet tend
to be mutually exclusive.  Please try to separate the concepts of
what we want the constitution to say and what it does say.  I agree
that speech and the press ought to have broad protection but I want
that protection explicitly written into the Constitution instead
of just kinda plucking it from between the lines.

Good idea.  Try it sometime.

John


subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (John De Armond) writes:

   Newsgroups: talk.politics.crypto,alt.privacy.clipper,comp.org.eff.talk
   From: [email] (John De Armond)
   Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:00:37 GMT

   But the constitution that was ratified and is now in effect DOES have
   a bill of rights and the first one begins with "Congress shall make no
   law".  Now to anyone other than a lawyer, that statment deals only with
   congress and with laws.

   The problem with splintering the English language in order to make the
   constitution say what you want it to say instead of what it really says
   is people much more powerful than you, people with guns and tanks
   and bombs, can play that game too and you the individual are always the
   loser.  Exhibit A:  The Branch Davidians, an incident where government
   death squads led an unconstitutional murderous raid against a religious
   group based on the excuse of enforcing unconstitutional firearms laws.
   Now when the government decides it wants to get you for whatever it is
   that you're doing that they don't like, under your rules all they have
   to do is redefine the language again.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of precise Constitutional language,
the 2cd is NOT absolute. It talks about "a well regulated militia." I
think most people would agree that a bunch of religious fanatic looney-
toons in a fortified compund with automatic weapons are not exactly members
of a "well-regulated militia."


subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (John De Armond) writes:

   From: [email] (John De Armond)
   Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:00:37 GMT

   [email] (Karl Kluge) writes:

   But the constitution that was ratified and is now in effect DOES have
   a bill of rights and the first one begins with "Congress shall make no
   law".

And the people who wrote that amendment had absolutely no intention that their
choice of such language would be used to support the perverted interpretation
of the constitution that you've put forward. If you want to claim that that's
how the document should be interpreted, feel free to do so, but don't insult
the memory of the people who wrote it by trying to drape yourself in the
mantle of their authority.

 Now to anyone other than a lawyer, that statment deals only with
   congress and with laws.

To anyone with a brain in their head, the intent was clearly not to
specifically ban Congress from (say) an establishment of religion while
permitting the Executive or Judiciary to do so. The idea that because the 1st
amendment says "Congess shall make no law..." the President could declare
tomorrow that Presbyterianism was the official state religion of the US and it
would be perfectly constitutional can only be described as preverse.

   I shouldn't have to say this but then critical thinking and Usenet tend
   to be mutually exclusive.

And you provide a fine example.

   Please try to separate the concepts of
   what we want the constitution to say and what it does say.  I agree
   that speech and the press ought to have broad protection but I want
   that protection explicitly written into the Constitution instead
   of just kinda plucking it from between the lines.

It is entirely clear what the Framers intended the text to mean.  Federalist
Paper #14: "In the first place it is to be remembered that the general
government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and
administering laws. ITS JURSIDICTION IS LIMITED TO CERTAIN ENUMERATED OBJECTS,
which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be
attained by the separate provisions of any." [emphasis added]

In fact, Alexander Hamilton warned us about idiots like you in Federalist
Paper #84: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to
the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the
proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various
exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a
colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things
shall not be done for which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should
it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no
power is given by which restrictions may be imposed."

If you believe that the people who wrote the Bill of Rights had any intention
that the language of the 1st amendment be interpreted to mean that the
Executive or Judiciary could performs the acts prohibited (create a state
religion, limit free exercise of religion, censor the press), then put up or
shut up -- provide us with documentation as to where exactly they said this.


subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
[email] (Richard Roda) writes:

Has nothing to do with it.  Had the right to free speech, religion and press
NOT been ennumerated in the BOR, what you say would apply.  Since
these rights WERE ennumerated AND constrained (inadvertantly or otherwise),
the 9th and 14th do NOT apply.  This exactly what the antifederalists
who did NOT want a BOR feared.

yep.  So what are YOU doing about it?

John


subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (John De Armond) writes:

   This exactly what the antifederalists who did NOT want a BOR feared.

Note how the first time our putative Constitutional scholar introduces an
issue of fact into the discussion he strikes out. It was the Federalists
who opposed a Bill of Rights, not the anti-Federalists.

Quoting the online Academic American Encyclopedia:

(Article on "Bill of Rights") "The failure of the Constitution to include a
BILL of RIGHTS gave rise to widespread popular dissatisfaction. The people
refused to accept the Federalist claim that a BILL of RIGHTS was not
necessary, since the powers delegated to the new government did not include
authority over individual RIGHTS....  The action of the ratifying conventions
made the movement for a federal BILL of RIGHTS irresistible. Ratification
would probably not have been secured had not the Federalists agreed to the
amendments and promised to secure their adoption."

(Article on "Constitution of the United States") "After it was signed, the
CONSTITUTION was offered for ratification. By its own terms, "the Ratification
of the Conventions of nine States" was required. This was achieved on June 21,
1788, and by 1790 all 13 of the original states had ratified it. Ratification
was vigorously opposed by the ANTI-FEDERALISTS, who feared that a powerful
central government would minimize the role of the people in governance and
threaten individual rights and local interests. The effort to counter the
arguments of the Anti-Federalists led to intense campaigning, including the
writing of The Federalist by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay (see FEDERALIST,
THE). The significant and lasting accomplishment of the opponents was to get
the BILL OF RIGHTS added to the CONSTITUTION."


subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
[email] (Karl Kluge) writes:

But that does not change the fact that the first applies only to the
Federal Congress.

The idiot is the one who tries to twist the langauge to suit their
purposes.  That would be you.  I agree wholeheartedly with Hamilton.
I think the ennumerated BOR is a BAD thing.  But that is exactly what
we have now.  And since the prohibition against infringing the freedoms
of religion, speech and press ARE ennumerated and ARE constrained to
the federal Congress.  And it certainly doesn't apply to the states
nor the local governments.

I agree with your goals.  So now let's fix the error in the BOR with
an amendment instead of splintering words.  If you're not too
much of an idiot, that is.

John


subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (John De Armond) writes:

Or the fact that in the absence of an explicit grant of power to the Executive
to restrict freedom of speech, that restriction is irrelevant.

Repeating the remainder of the Hamilton quote, which you deleted, "They would
contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account,
would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why
declare that things shall not be done for which there is no power to do? Why,
for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be
restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed." He
did not say that the inclusion of an enumerated Bill of Rights would _grant_
power to the Executive to (say) limit free speech through the failure of the
1st amendment to mention a restriction on the Executive branch; he said that
it could be used as a "pretext" to claim such power -- which is precisely what
you are doing. No power is explicitly delegated to the Executive to restrict
free speech, so under the 10th amendment it has no power to do so, despite the
wording of the 1st amendment. If you believe that the people who wrote the 1st
amendment intended it to be interpreted differently, then feel free to quote
them as saying so.

Would you also claim that the 1st amendment as it stands would permit the
imposition of an official state religion through Executive action? If not,
how does that case differ from the free speech issue? If so, I can only call
that a novel interpretation of what the people who wrote the 1st amendment
intended the text to mean.

At least I know which side in the debate opposed having a Bill of Rights in
the Constitution, which is more knowledge of the subject than you've shown.


author: Steve Brinich

subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
Your claim has been that there is an enumerated right to be protected from
Congressional infringements upon free speech and no enumerated right to be
protected from such infringements from other sources.  The latter would thus
seem to be a clear example of what the Ninth Amendment would logically cover.
  (In any case, it is unclear where the executive might derive any power
that does not ultimately rest upon the text of the Constitution or the laws
made by Congress.  Since the former does not, and the latter cannot, provide
power to restrict free speech, it follows that the executive has no such
power.)

Steve Brinich               |                                                |
<[email]>  | If the government wants us to respect the law, |
<GEnie: S.BRINICH1>         |         it should set a better example.        |
<CI$: 71760,3555>           |                                                |
<PGPrint:  (finger for key) |        "Congress Shall Make No Law...."        |
  BB 5E 1E 3D D4 72 52 3A   |    What part of "No" don't you understand?     |
  F8 9C 00 00 41 0D 65 65>  |                                                |


subject: Re: Inman Blames Safire for Withdraw

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (John De Armond) writes:

No, the 9th amendment puts the burden of proof of those who say that a right
does not exist, especially when such a right has been reconized to exist in
the past.  Even though the first amendment says "Congress shall make no..."
does not mean that the right to be free from the state making the same
regulations does not exist.
Hey, I've written a number of letters to the president, and my elected
congresscritters.  Since I had a lot to say and know they probably would not
read a long letter, I divided it up into roughly 4 parts and snail-mailed 1
part per week over a month.  They were basically about how RICO and asset
forfititure is an unconstitutional piece of junk that should be repealed
immediately, about how the War on the Constitution^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
Drugs is a useless waste of money that does nothting but deprive people of
liberty and ensure that the people that would be "helped" by the policy are
actually hurt more by its existence, and finally, that citizens have a right
to use any encryption and export same, and that government controls on
cryptographic software are useless because it can be bought from other
countries, and to scrap the Clipper chip plan.


author: centre yeshe

subject: online teachings videos

text:
Hi,

here are some short teachings by Geshe-la on

      Amitayus Practice

      Preventing Untimely Death

      Ordinary Human Life is Empty

      A New Enlightened World

      A New Presentation of Dharma

      Eight Steps to Happiness

      Cherishing Others Prevents Future Suffering

      How to Cherish Others

      Why Kadampas Emphasize Abandoning Self-cherishing

      How to Reduce Our Self-cherishing

http://www.kadampa.org/english/events/festivals/diaries/2004/summer/teaching
s.htm

Hope you will benefit from these teachings,

Love

Dragpa


subject: Re: online teachings videos

text:
"centre yeshe" <[email]> wrote in message news:<41a1e3a2$0$31608$[email]>...

I can't get to the site via the link you supplied.

(Also my time-machine is being serviced so summer 2004 is a bit tricky
 for me at the moment)


subject: Re: online teachings videos

text:
For me that sort of knocks my confidence
with respect to what benefits there are to be had.

I wouldn't be suprised if it turned out that the
site turns out to be one of those that tries to
get money from seeking off unwitting Dharma seekers.

Julianlzb87


subject: Re: online teachings videos

text:
Correction

For me that sort of knocks my confidence
with respect to what benefits there are to be had.

I wouldn't be suprised if it turned out that the
site turns out to be one of those that tries to
get money from unwitting Dharma seekers.

ps. I am not saying that Dharma teachers do not deserve reward
but not an advance and the price decided by the seeker
with respect to the result.

Julianlzb87

Julianlzb87


author: Wayne

subject: Re: online teachings videos

text:
I was just on the site, no money being asked. Did you bother
to check it out yourself?

"julianlzb87" <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...


author: Viejo Vizcacha

subject: Jewish lobby?

text:
Nobody, absolutely nobody, denies that there is a very powerful Israeli
lobby in Washington.  However, in quite a few instances I have seen this
group labelled as the "Jewish lobby".  But, what has been apparent for
quite some time now, is that a significant portion of Jews outside
Israel are not very supportive of Israeli's policies.  In fact, if I
were to describe the typical unconditional supporter of Israel, I would
not describe him as a Jew from New York or Toronto, but as a Christian
fundamentalist from Texas or Alberta.

Now, some polls seem to confirm that suspicion.
"80 percent of Republicans expressing favorable view of Israel,
according to Gallup, as compared with only 53 percent of Democrats. One
recent study found that only 54 percent of Jews under 35 who aren't
Orthodox are "comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state" (as compared
to more than 80 percent of those over 65). Among younger Jews, only 20
percent rated as "highly attached" to Israel in another poll."

http://www.slate.com/id/2248416/

For some time now, I have been pushing for this proposal: make a single
country for both peoples, but ensure that Jews get to elect 60% of the
members of parliament, at least for the next 150 years.  Is it fair?
Well, it is as fair as Wyoming and California electing the same number
of senators.  But, it is a proposal worth exploring.

ViejoVizcacha


author: Gordon Levi

subject: Re: Jewish lobby?

text:
Viejo Vizcacha <[email]> wrote:

You already know it's not fair. It is also unnecessary. I agree that a
one state solution is the only feasible one and the two state solution
will perpetuate the hostility forever. The basis for the formation of
Israel was as a refuge for Jews and a new state could incorporate that
into a constitution that was difficult to change. Jews would retain,
and former residents of Palestine would gain, the right to migrate to
the new state.

Of course, Israel is not going to agree to the two state solution, let
alone the formation of a single state.


author: Eunometic

subject: Re: Jewish lobby?

text:
On Mar 21, 5:06 am, Viejo Vizcacha <[email]>
wrote:

Jews are highly ethnically self conscious.  This is reflected by high
involvement in Jewish 'groups'.  They are active politically and
donate money.  They do organise amongst themselves, share common
ideology.  In US politics they effectivesly slander and marginalise
ideological opponents.  The ACLU and SPLC are effectively 30% Jewish
and these organisations are coopted into promoting Jewish agendas.
The strongest Jewish agenda is large scale non White multucultural
immigraion directed at minoritising Whites.  Israel is just one of
their interests.

Jews don't care about us. they care about themselves, infact they are
outright hostile in many cases and are the critical mass behined the
US immigration and open borders fiasco.  They don't have a survival
strategy, they have a dominance strategy.  They self identify so
strong they hate us strong than they love themselves.

When they are doing well and people notice them running things the
attitude is "so what and by the way your'rea dirty anti semite"
When they don't have the upper hand they bring up endless whines from
millenia ago.  They've been doing hollohype for a long time.

But, what has been apparent for


subject: Re: Jewish lobby?

text:
On Mar 21, 5:56 am, Viejo Vizcacha <[email]> wrote:

Leon Trotsky, who lived in the United States for years under the
patronage of Billionaire Jacob Schiff plotting the Russian Revolution
along with hundred of other Jewish emigre, identified the creation of
schisms along racial lines in order to promote revolution.  In fact he
coined the word 'racism'   This is in essence one aspect of the nature
of Jewish activism, as minorities they must gain leverege by agitating
for conflict and cultivating resentment;  dived and rule is the
rule..   The jewish promotion of 'minorities' is merely the
exploitation in the form of 'your enemy is my friend'.   This of
course generally leads to them doing the equivalent of shitting where
they eat and live.   In fact the Jewish 'promotion of minorities'  is
nothing more than the cultivation of resentments.  The biggest
implicit racists are the ones accusing others of that 'crime'

Ao those "three murdered kids in mississipi", generally presented as
extraourdinarily caucasian looking were just as interested in
agitation of Black resentments than being helpfull.   In fact the
general American community had already liberated blacks in a legals
sense.  Jewish communists working within and with black activists
staged confrontational events.  For instance the little court house in
Selma had a capacity of registering 50 people per day to voite, it had
in fact registered several Blacks the day before but "Activists"
demanded the little court house register hundreds of voters and 'spun'
the fact that the court house turned them away because they were to
far at the end of the que as proof that Whites weren't allowing blacks
to regiseter.  100% trumpted up.

We all know where this all lead of course:  Black crime is now over 12
times the White rate, it rose astaomically in the 1960s.  Whites are
the victims.   The US crime rate would be around 40% of what is is
without resentment steeped blacks, even less without hispanics.


subject: Re: Jewish lobby?

text:
On Mar 21, 12:52 pm, Archie <[email]> wrote:

Jews represent whatever shade of the political spectrum that works
best for them at the time, this invariably involves damaging the
status quo and the structures they live amongst.  Theordore Herzl
suggested Jews support socialism because it subverts the status quo.
Lets go to right wing movements:  hey how about "neo-conservatism".
Essentially a pro-israel, pro-open borders, pro-big government fake
conservatism packaged to superficially appeal to gentiles.  It worked
and managed to get silly interventions against Israels middle eastern
allies.

Squids squirt ink, skunks produce stink; Jews produce all sorts of
clever ideologies.  They, in general, don't really believe them.


subject: Re: Jewish lobby?

text:
On Mar 21, 2:05 pm, Viejo Vizcacha <[email]> wrote:

Could that be because they were the most active and subversive and
threatening? Just like they were by far the most dominant in the
Russian revolution.   We all knew what Communists did in Russia, the
Ukrain and latter eastern Europe and how they cushed and small nations
such as latvia, estonia and lithuania.  They murdered millions and
helped bring upon the extremes of the Spanish civil war by threatening
Soviet style 'purges'.


subject: Re: Jewish lobby?

text:
On Mar 20, 2:46 pm, Eunometic <[email]> wrote:

That is simply not true.   Two of the three kids murdered in
Mississippi while working for civil rights for blacks were Jews.  If
anything, Jews are in general more community inclined than other
groups.

ViejoVizcacha


author: Archie

subject: Re: Jewish lobby?

text:
On Mar 20, 3:56 pm, Viejo Vizcacha <[email]> wrote:

Perhaps the least homogeneous of all ethnic groups. Jews well
represent all shades of the political spectrum.


subject: Re: Jewish lobby?

text:
On Mar 20, 9:52 pm, Archie <[email]> wrote:

Absolutely.  At the beginning of the Third Reich, about one third of
middle class Jews (shop owners, lawyers, physicians, etc) supported
the Nazis.  And during the last military dictatorship in Argentina,
Jews were 10% of the Leftists abducted and disappeared, even though
they comprise less than 2% of the population of that country.  Just
two opposites that counted with over representation of Jews.

ViejoVizcacha


subject: Re: Jewish lobby?

text:
On 2010-03-21 1:04, Eunometic wrote:

Do you ever get tired of spewing lies?  He was in the US for a few
months, less than three months actually, and he was supported by his
work as a journalist, and by the International Socialist.

I understand that lying is your only line of attack and defense, and
asking you to debate only using the truth would be like asking you to
fight with both hands tied behind your back.  But, for yourself, you
should try truth every once in a while.

VV


author: Lee Rudolph

subject: Re: death (was, Re: Core teaching (was Re: It is not possible))

text:
tara <jackpine@xplornet{removethis}.com> writes:

My observations of many people (including myself) over many years
tell me that both your last sentences are wrong.  I think Keynes,
and Evelyn, and I, among other contributors to this thread, have
all testified to the effect that we have seen people *wallow* in
(the enactment of) grief--as "voluntarily" as can be.

Lee Rudolph


author: Robert Epstein

text:
Lee Rudolph wrote:

Usually the person is trying hard to get over the pain, by whatever
means they can.  This may sometimes include wallowing to try to get the
grief completed or out.  But people do not enjoy being in pain, and if
you cannot understand their motivation you cannot help them.

Robert

= = = =


author: Evelyn Ruut

text:
"Lee Rudolph" <[email]> wrote in message
news:fchj5m$rjk$[email]...

Exactly.

Grief isn't "bad" but "wallowing" is.


subject: enjoyment (was, Re: death (was, Re: Core teaching (was Re: It is not possible)))

text:
Robert Epstein <[email]> writes:

The quantification of that "usually" is an empirical question.
Without having done an empirical study (but having, in my time,
been in a *lot* of groups of people who were more or less convened
for the purpose of exposing/exploring their feelings in public),
I can only guess that I'm right to think there are fewer grievers
who are "trying hard to get over the pain" than you think there are.
I would like to hear from Evelyn, Keynes, and other old farts if any
of them want to chime in here.

It is very common--and there are plenty of books always coming along
to make it more and more common--for people to talk about getting
"grief" (or this or that other emotional construct) "completed or
out".  That way of talking is often (maybe not by you, here; but I
am guessing yes, by you, here and elsewhere in this thread) associated
to a particular kind of reifying theory about emotions (including grief),
which is not only not the only possible theory, but which is--in
my considered opinion--wrong.  Wrong or not, it's hardly self-evident
to me (or, I would guess, to Keynes).  Maybe this difference in
world-views is at the root of your disagreement with Keynes (and
mine with you).

I am very nervous, in general, about those who want to "help" people
by "understand[ing] their motivations", i.e., putting them into one
or another theoretical box and then (as it were) choosing a "help"ing
response according to which box it is.  This is a medical, diagnostic
model.  It is not the only way to be with other people, and it is not
a way I want to be with other people, even--or particularly--with
people "in pain".  --I do not want to impugn your motives, nor question
your (possible) "help"fulness to people "in pain": I just want to say
how uncomfortable it makes me to imagine myself being as (I understand
you to say) you are, in such circumstances.

--To go back a bit, why do you (echoing Tara) say that "people do not
enjoy being in pain", when there appear to be plenty of people who
*do* by every visible criterion?  "The way out is via the door",
but people do not take this way out.  Why not?

Lee Rudolph


author: Déjà Fu

text:
Evelyn Ruut wrote:

Why is it bad? In many societies, it's mandatory
and even the length of time is prescribed. Does
that make it "bad"? In some few cases, it's a
psychological bid for attention and in others,
the very memory calls it back. Do people *enjoy*
that sort of acting? You're all barking up a few
short trees and generalizing from there.


author: Feng

subject: Re: enjoyment (was, Re: death (was, Re: Core teaching (was Re: It is not possible)))

text:
On 15 Sep 2007 18:06:47 -0400, [email] (Lee Rudolph) wrote:

This is your misunderstanding. All people who are in real grief always
try everything they can to get back on their feet. Unfortunately, just
like a person who has suffered a stroke will have to lie in bed for
quite some time, people in grief will not be able to get back on their
feet unless they have fully recovered from the original emotional
shock. It's not because they don't, it's because they can't.

Just because we can't see their emotional wound deep in their
soul(mind), doesn't mean it does not exist or it's the result of some
kind of self-deception. If it's real grief, it's real emotional wound.

"Emotional construct" is a bad choice of word to describe grief.
People do not fabricate an emotional trauma and lock themselves in it
to virtually destroy themselves. There are always a better ways to
commit suicide and "grieve to death" is not one of them. I believe
dying in Abu Ghraib prison should be a better and easier choice.

Here you are absolutely right. People in grief do not need expert
opinions about their emotional condition. They themselves know their
own situation better than anyone else. They don't need experts. They
don't need psychologists. All they need is love.

Because they simply have no ability to take the first step. They are
like an injured person lying in hospital bed badly in need of blood
transfusion. They can not just get up and walk home.


subject:
Re: enjoyment (was, Re: death (was, Re: Core teaching (was Re: It
 is not possible)))

text:
Lee Rudolph wrote:

Lee, I think it's ridiculous to imagine that people enjoy suffering and
that this is the reason that they have a hard time getting to a state of
peace or happiness.  Most people who are suffering have a reason.  They
have some painful circumstance that is oppressing them.  By following a
spiritual path such as some form of Buddhism, some people can learn to
detach from some of that pain and also keep from causing themselves
unnecessary pain by cutting off delusory thoughts.  But in fact even
that is a very long path and most people take a long time to achieve
such an end, if at all.   Life is hard; the path is hard; it's all
difficult.  And there is a lot of pain along the way.  I don't know what
kind of weird motive or interpretation you are attributing to me that
makes you "uncomfortable" about my view.  The way I am with people is
fairly normal.  I am sympathetic for people in pain and try to be nice
to them.  I don't see anything odd or threatening about that.  When
people act arrogantly or sadistically or superior I am much more likely
to respond in a challenging way, but when people are in grief they are
pained and vulnerable and my instinct is to tread lightly and be helpful
if possible.  You see something weird about that?  Or unwholesome as
Keynes does?  I think such convoluted views about grief are what is
weird.  It's a pretty obvious human situation, so why bend over
backwards to make it complicated?

I do think a lot of people, paritcularly those who are on a spiritual
path, are uncomfortable around emotion, think it is lowly and negative
and want to reach a state of equanimity which they interpret as being
free from the "negative" emotions that plague the average person.  I
just don't believe in that model of equanimity.  Personally I think real
equanimity is reached by accepting human experience, including the
arising of emotion and becoming open enough to allow experiences to
arise and fall away without clinging to them or worrying them to death
or being so averse to them that you wind up in combat with yourself.  In
other words, freedom to experience whatever arises, and freedom to let
go so that experience comes and goes freely without breaking one's
equanimity.  That is a goal I can relate to and that also makes sense
without having to fight one's humanity and set up more resistance.

I don't know if you agree with this approach or not, but it is not
complicated, convoluted, weird or intellectual.  It is basically trying
to just "be" with whatever is, and treat it with awareness.  To me, that
is the foundation of the Buddhist, or any other spiritual, path.

Robert

= = = = = = = =

Robert

= = = =


text:
"Lee Rudolph" <[email]> wrote in message
news:fchl1n$1rd$[email]...

Hi Lee,

I can think of a few just off the top.

Denial.   Attachment.   Clinging.  Guilt.  Regret.

All of those, and probably a million other reasons.


text:
Lee Rudolph wrote:

Since you're not a social psychologist, I'll venture that
you haven't explored may societies in which the expression
of grief is mandatory (although still play-acting) and
in which the aggrieved is obligated not to sit gleefully
counting up their inheritance while the body is still warm.

I should probably also not remind you that "grievance" has
been further turned into profit and farce by American law,
but, oops...


author: Tang Huyen

subject: Roundtrip (was Re: enjoyment)

text:
Lee Rudolph wrote:

Normal delusion includes in itself an inclination
to repeat itself, perpetuate itself and propagate
itself, not just within itself or its owner, but also
in others who suffer from it. Mythically, just
before the Buddha awoke, the Devil (Mara)
appeared to him and tried to seduce him back to
delusion. Whether there was any being outside
of him who tried to pull such a trick on him or
not, the story illustrates the above tendency,
which is hard-wired into delusion. Normal
delusion justifies itself and validates itself to
itself in order to preserve itself against any
attempt to undo it. A disillusioned Vietnamese
Communist, Bui Tin or Thanh Tin, wrote (in
Vietnamese, and his books are being translated)
of Communist training, which is strikingly similar
to Buddhist training (perhaps some Vietnamese
Communists were former monks who transposed
Buddhist training into the Communist
programme), and there was also the clause that
just before success, the enemy would attempt to
mislead the practitioner into retreat and therefore
into failure.

This tendency is so to speak the mirror of a
characteristic of the awakened state, namely that
it is outside of the norms and standards of
delusion and therefore cannot be judged by
delusion. More specifically the absence of
mentation in general and the absence of self in
particular cannot be imagined from within
mentation and the self, because mentation and
the self can only judge within their own terms (in
American legalese, they are bound by their own
vested interests and to even think of anything
contrary to them would involve conflicts of
interests, which they are unable to resolve by
self-effacement, precisely). On these boards I
have aroused considerable ire by quoting the
Parable of the Saw (to which I am quite
inadequate), wherein a monk who is being sawn
up should not get angry at his torturers but should
beam friendliness, compassion, sympathetic joy,
and equanimity at them. (In Christianity it is said
that divine wisdom is folly to the world).

To get out of mentation, of self, of doing, involves
an act of faith, in that one accepts something
which one does not know (the absence of
mentation, of self, of doing) and opens oneself up
to it. If one keeps asking what such a state is like,
one will never get it. Once one gets it, there is
preciously little to bring back, because in coming
back one is coming back to mentation, to self, to
doing, and it would be incredibly hard to fit what
is outside of them into them. There is a jump in
kinds, in either direction, which is why it takes an
act of faith to leave mentation, self, and doing and
go outside of them. The saving grace is that the
absence of mentation, of self, of doing redeems
mentation, self, and doing. Transcendence redeems
immanence, within immanence. Awakening
redeems delusion, in place. Which is what grace is
for.

Tang Huyen


author: Keynes

text:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:52:41 -0400, Feng <[email]> wrote:

Who's holding them back?  Doctors?  Psychologists?
Only the patient can cure himself.  But how can he do
that when you and society insist he's not sick at all?

"Just lie there and bleed freely.  Time will heal your wounds.
You probably won't have any more flashbacks, regrets and
repeats than 100 or so a day.  Just remember to get this sick
over and over until your dying day.  It's just natural.
And awfully clever and Noble too."

This is a buddhist forum where we discuss suffering,
it's cause and it's cure.  It goes against the stream of
all the cultural baloney you find so fattening.

Self and what belongs to self are delusions, the only
cause of all suffering.  So buddhists must recognize
self-ish emotions and self-ish acts, and not pursue
them or act them out.

This is medicine for those who can understand it.
But self-righteous people will be scandalized and
will Not hear of it.

My dad was dying of cancer with only days to live.
He flew back from San Diego to Chicago in an ambulence
plane.  This man had divorced my mother and abandoned
his children to poverty and insecurity over 50 years ago.
Since then he had done other selfish and dispicable things
to us.  But he came back for some reason.  When I visited
him, we didn't discuss any of that, or his pain, or his
impending death.  We did small talk.  Words of the
moment, the here and now.  I think that healed him
as much as he could be healed.

After he died, my mother grieved that he had no word
for her or about her.  She still grieves the divorce, and
hoped for just a word of respect or love, which she never
got.  My sister is still bleeding from the divorce and
subsequent events, and she can't get over it.

All natural.  No artifical ingredients.  All bullshit.


text:
"Robert Epstein" <[email]> wrote in message
news:4K2Hi.537$fz2.389@trndny03...

I also agree with that, Robert.


text:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 04:58:40 GMT, Robert Epstein <[email]> wrote:

Because you don't understand it,
and so you are happy to be a slave to unhappiness.

With all your education and experience you can say this?
Don't you realize that the 'natural' selfish emotions lauded,
praised, and accepted by society are the Greatest of Hypocracies?

Basically, 'humanity' stinks.  It's samsara after all.
That's why you see so much evil to self-righteously combat.
You want the world to get right according to your views.
That's what everybody is doing, taking offense and getting
self-righteous.  Of course among all the differing opinions
the only possible wise and correct one is your own. Of this
you are certainly certain.  Just like everybody else.

Is samsara really that 'healthy' for you?


text:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9j=E0_Fu?= <[email]> writes:

...

Indeed I am not, but I have been playing with some of them
quite intensely for several years, so I could pretend to be
one on TV^H^Hthe net...

I am well aware (though not at the level of having "explored")
that there are many such societies; at some point in my recent
maunderings, I think I referred to just such cultural diversity
in the ways emotions in general, and grief in particular, are
expressed.  The reply to Robert and Tara was, however, though I
didn't make it very clear, specifically about what goes on in
the US/Canada.

Oops, indeed.

You'll be getting a letter from my lawyer in the morning.

Lee Rudolph


subject: Re: Roundtrip (was Re: enjoyment)

text:
Tang Huyen wrote:

If you had a television, you'd be able to do without
all this mentational bullshit. Remind me to send you one,
so you can (at least) change the channel. The Media
is the New Buddhism - it thinks for you and relieves
you of that terrible responsibility.


text:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:35:24 -0500, Keynes <[email]>
wrote:

I'm afraid your medicine is too late. The person is suffering NOW. All
your theory about no-self/non-attachment/not-clinging are meaningless
to that person because he can not turn the clock back to undone what
was already done. This is the reason why the person is in grief. The
medicine which reminds him how wrong he was and how hopeless he is,
will only make his condition even worse.

Yes, I agree.

Yes, it is difficult. That's why it's better not to hand out the
medicine too quickly. It may not work.


text:
Keynes wrote:

The question really is, how can you help them, rather than hurting them
further.  I'm sure answering that question would dismiss this debate and
lead to something skillful.

Robert

= = = = =


text:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:11:21 -0400, "Evelyn Ruut" <[email]> wrote:

Dressed as a mulla, Nasrudin entered a town
and was immediately pressed into service as
a judge in a case of sharia law.  The prosecution
lawyer was so persuasive that the mulla jumped
up and exclaimed,"You must be right!"  The
defense objected that it hadn't yet presented
it's case.  That case was put so sharply and
well that the mulla jumped up and exclaimed,
"You must be right!"  The bailiff said,"They
can't both be right."  The mulla jumped up
and exclaimed,"You must be right!"


text:
Evelyn Ruut wrote:

Thanks for letting me know.

Robert

= = = = =


text:
"Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I don't think that he said he wanted the world to get right according to his
views.   It is true that Samsara sucks, and I agree with Robert about
experiencing everything that arises.... and then letting it go.   The
letting it go is important.   There are so many things in life that can
never be reconciled, never be made right, that letting go is the only
sanity.


text:
Keynes wrote:

I think you are viewing my very reasonable approach above, and the
subject of grief and emotions, through an "all-or-nothing" lens.  I
don't think it's skillful and certainly does not leave you centered or
in a state of equanimity.  "Samsara stinks" is a dualistic view.  You
have to go beyond that to awaken.

Robert

= = = = =


text:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:39:36 GMT, Robert Epstein <[email]> wrote:

They live 200 miles away.
I only see them a few times a year.

They're christians.  Not young.  Mostly fundamentalists.
They take a christian pride in self.  They're not going to
accept dharma.  But occasionally I make practical
suggestions that aren't overtly preachy.  Or if the
situation calls for it I can quote Jesus.

One can keep the conversation away from self-destructive
subjects.  Keeping a good mood and humor lightens the
situations pretty well.  We can raise one another up or
bring one another down.  But to do that you have to
know whether you're up or down.

Salvation is a timeless thing.  You can only find it
in this moment.  This moment everyone is saved and
free.  So in every case, mind the moment and there's
not much else to it, buddhist or christian.


text:
"Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

hahaha  a good tale!   You both are very intelligent guys and you both make
good points.   I don't know why your interchanges come off so often as
opposing one another.   I think you are both saying essentially the same
thing, but with a slightly different slant.   Possibly it is because we
speak in generalities here and not in specifics.   Regarding the grief
issue, if a certain person was grieving we could address that more
specifically according to their particular circumstances.   Generalities
always seem to go this way....


text:
Evelyn Ruut wrote:

Letting go may be the most important and most difficult action you can
take.  I agree that it is the key.

Robert

= = = = =


text:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:13:53 -0400, "Evelyn Ruut" <[email]> wrote:

Then why insist that Feng accept his own opinion of truth?
That will change not a thing in tibet or china.
Why does he take offense when hearing dharma?
He is defending his own cock-eyed worldly views
and doing it by killing the messenger.  As if that
killing would justify his own stubbornness.

Letting go is fine.
Recognizing what comes in is even better.

Those painful impossibilities of life, the injustice,
the misery, the hopelessness -- all of that is not real.
It's mistaken understanding, a world model flawed
from beginning to end.  Is there any wonder that we
suffer when we try to go by that abstract model?
Suffering is only defined by that chain of ignorant
abstractions.  Without it, no suffering is possible.

This moment there is not a thing to bind anyone.
Not a pain, not a worry, nothing but joyful freedom.
Gain and loss, life and death do not exist Now or
any-when.  We have to make them up ourselves
out of our own imagination.  And then worry
about it.


text:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:46:29 GMT, Robert Epstein <[email]> wrote:

Which half are you going to enlighten?
Do you suppose you can compromise with stupidity?

Please excuse me for not taking you for a master or
your advice for anything but intellectual pseudo-crap.

You don't know what you're babbling about.
And you don't even know that you don't know.
Self-aware you are Not.  You carry your self-
righteous judgemental self like a
Macy's parade balloon.

Spare me.   Spare yourself.

If you won't take my advice,
just leave it alone and be as
'healthy' and 'natural' as you can be.


text:
Keynes wrote:

Certainly salvation is in the moment, and is of the mind.

Robert

- - - - - -


text:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:05:29 -0400, "Evelyn Ruut" <[email]> wrote:

A grieving person is deaf and blind, completely self absorbed.

If we're lucky, we may find a dispassionate moment to
look at the powerful passionate compulsions that folks
seem to love and admire.  That might involve a touch
of 'inhumanity'.   But if passionate humanity were such
a treasure, why does everyone always complain about it?
They don't like the pain, the hatred, the greed, the killing,
and all the rest of that red-blooded passionate play.  They
love the clinging they call 'love', but only until it bites
them hard in the ass.

"Oh, the balloon, the balloon!"
--  A witness to the Hindenburg disaster


author: Julian

subject: Mosquito spawn

text:
"Robert Epstein"  wrote...

A million mount Sumeru's are but a drop of dew
   on the end of a single hair;
Three thousand words are only a seagull
   floating on the ocean waves.

The two children of the tiny creatures
    in the eyebrow of a mosquito
never stop quarreling between themselves
    as to whose world it is.

Splat!


text:
"Robert Epstein" <[email]> wrote in message
news:C1bHi.1874$Bm1.597@trnddc01...

It is all clearly outlined in the four noble truths.  The third one.  There
is a cure for suffering.


text:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:39:10 -0500, Keynes <[email]>
wrote:

Sir, I'm sorry to say that all I have been doing is to speak my honest
mind in exchange for something more inspiring and valuable to learn
from. I have no intention to offend anyone and I certainly can not
pretend I already know everything about dharma, otherwise I would not
be here. I mean no disrespect, and I'm always ready to accept my
defeat in a debate for truth, and I couldn't be more happy about it.

I think your words on grief have taught me a great deal. I'm grateful
for the knowledge I have learned. It's priceless. I can not thank you
enough.


subject: An all-purpose insult that says it all (was Re: enjoyment)

text:
Keynes wrote:

<<You don't know what you're babbling about.
And you don't even know that you don't know.
Self-aware you are Not.>>

Whether this characterisation applies to its intended
recipient or not, it is true that there are people so
dumb that they don't know that they are dumb, there
are people so forgetful that they don't know that they
are forgetful, there are people so oblivious that they
don't know that they are oblivious, there are people
so clueless that they don't know that they are clueless,
there are people so self-estranged and self-alienated
that they don't know that they are self-estranged and
self-alienated, there are people so loose upstairs that
they don't know that they are loose upstairs, there are
people so monomaniacally obsessed that they don't
know that they are monomaniacally obsessed, etc.

There are people who are zombies who don't know
who they are and what they do, and because they are
zombies who don't know who they are and what they
do, they can't know that fact, though everybody who
deals with them realises it instantly. It jumps right out,
like a Macy's parade balloon. And yet they claim to
be "fully enlightened" or some such.

Tang Huyen


text:
Keynes wrote:

You also don't know what or who you are speaking of, so maybe both of us
should be quieter.

Robert

- - - - -


subject: Re: An all-purpose insult that says it all (was Re: enjoyment)

text:
Tang Huyen wrote:

If you look at what people say about themselves, you can get a pretty
good idea of whether they are deluded about their own status. I always
say I am "half-cooked" at best and have plenty of delusory material and
reactivity to work through, so I hope no one thinks I consider myself
anything in the neighborhood of an enlightened master, as laughable as
that sounds to anyone sane.  You always give the disclaimer that you are
not fully enlightened.  Someone like Luke doesn't shy away from saying
he is advanced, has been doing this for a long time, but hasn't claimed
any final status.  And then there are the Peter Olcotts, who do claim
full enlightenment but have a lot of contradictions and grandiose
claims, but don't seem to see them.

On the other hand, I'm sure we all have things about ourselves and
others that we don't see clearly and think we do. That is true of every
one of us, not just the prematurely "enlightened," don't you think?

Robert

- - - - -


text:
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I know exactly who you are speaking about and I agree with you.   I think
they will know they are not enlightened in some moment or other.   The
suffering of life will teach them.  It comes unbidden, to all.  The clue
stick has perfect timing.    Nothing to do but set a good example and be
serene.   Point the way and live the way yourself and hope they get the
clue.

(I await your stooge check...:-)


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Wall Steet's Initial Response To Treasury

text:
On Feb 10, 3:52 pm, "P" <[email]> wrote:
...
... lots of stuff snipped
...

Time to look up the history of "Sell 'em" Ben Smith, a bear-oriented
trader in
the 1920s and 1930s -- I love his nickname!!
/cms


author: ron

text:
On Feb 10, 3:52 pm, "P" <[email]> wrote:

Wall St is hoping that any bailout includes bailing out the stock
holders of the bad banks.

Since when was there ANY guarantee on stocks? If we take over the bad
debt, to hell with the stockholders...


author: Nappy-Headed Cuddle-Bitch

text:
"P" <[email]> wrote:

So, at what point does the Messiah Administration obtain culpability for the
stock market's shitty performance?

Where are the cries of dismay and outrage from Z? My newsreader must be
filtering them somehow.


text:
Nappy-Headed Cuddle-Bitch wrote:

When it sinks below the GW lows?  After all, it took GW eight years to
roll the market back to 1997.


text:
"clams_casino" <[email]> wrote

So when the market goes below $7552.29, you'll admit The Messiah is
responsible for shitty market performance?


text:
Nappy-Headed Cuddle-Bitch wrote:

I'm not sure how the govenor of AK has much effect on the markets, but
if that makes you feel better.


text:
"clams_casino" <[email]> wrote

I didn't think so.


text:
Nappy-Headed Cuddle-Bitch wrote:

Hint - It's going to take a lot more than 3 weeks to reverse the GW
landslide, never mind show significant gains.  GW worked "hard" for
eight years to get us into this mess.

With your logic, if the Dow ends up over 9000 in four years will you
admit he is / was far superior to GW who presided over an unprecedented
20% loss over his eight years?


text:
"clams_casino" <[email]> wrote:

That depends. The question would be whether or not the policies he
implements are responsible for solid economic recovery/growth which results
in confidence returning to the market.

Right now the market's "bottom" seems to be in the 7800/8000 range, which is
where it has bottomed out 3 or 4 times now before recovering.

At what point are you willing to accept a continued decline in the market as
the result of a failure of the Messiah's policies, rather than attempting to
transfer blame back to Bush?


text:
Nappy-Headed Cuddle-Bitch wrote:

Several months ago, I commented that about 8000 Dow, 1500 Nasdaq & 800
on the S&P seem to be the bottom.

These lows have been tested several times, but still appear to be
holding, indicating the market is likely bottoming out / reflecting the
damage caused by GW policies.

Of course, that doesn't mean there will be a rapid recovery any time soon.

Breaking this lows will be a reflection of  Obama's  leadership, but
that will not  remove any blame from GW for getting us into this mess.


author: Thomas Reynolds

text:
"Nappy-Headed Cuddle-Bitch" <[email]> wrote in message
news:gmurr5$m6r$[email]...
Dead cat bouncing, we are going far lower.


text:
"clams_casino" <[email]> wrote:

If the Down drops to 7500, is it due to the failure on the Messiah's
administration to implement good policies that result in corrective action?

7200?

7000?

At what level does the failure blame on Bush end, and responsibility shift
to the Messiah?


text:
"clams_casino" <[email]> wrote in message
news:kwCkl.16709$[email]...

Congress had no responsibility for monetary practices like policies which
encouraged getting mortgage money to people who simply couldn't afford to
pay them off?  Glad to know that.  Cleans up a lot of the details in one
swell foop!


text:
Thomas Reynolds wrote:

With Fox so negative on the economy, I believe it's a good sign for a
leveling off & a recovery starting later this year.   They've generally
been so wrong for the past eight+ years, so why would it be any
different now?

Then again, I'm not seeing any "dead cat" bounce.  The markets have been
relatively static with noise for the past four months (since mid October).


author: Mike

text:
Nappy-Headed Cuddle-Bitch wrote:

At the point we actually recover from the Bush collapse.

That could be a decade or more away.

When you push someone off a cliff, you wait for them to hit bottom
before you start blaming the paramedics that just arrived at the top of
the hill.


text:
Thomas Reynolds wrote:

So was GW leading this country?  Or are you just making excuses for
him?   Poor GW - What would be the odds that not one, but two recessions
and two wars would randomly occur on his watch?


text:
clams_casino wrote:

Isn't it funny that when Obama says the economy is in trouble, he's
"doing harm," but when Fox News says it, they're "just reporting the facts?"


text:
"clams_casino" <[email]> wrote in message
news:1BEkl.5096$[email]...
You are so thoughtful, mastering all the details like that instead of being
a slogan chanter.  I am appropriately contrite...


author: O

text:
In article <gmv720$o3i$[email]>, Mike <[email]>
wrote:

It's Fox's job to report the facts.  Obama is not a news agency.  He
has to inspire and lead the country.  You don't lead very well from a
position of despair.  See Jimmy Carter's "National Malaise" speech.

That doesn't mean he has to lie, but the President is supposed to have
a better finger on the economy than Fox News.  When the President says
it, it has a bigger impact than anything Fox News can say.

But you know all this....

-Owen


author: P

text:
"clams_casino" <[email]> wrote in message
news:KDKkl.5202$[email]...

Does anyone watch Fox after say, 4pm? There was a time when CNN had the
lead on 'breaking news' during the daytime and off-hours. Now Fox seems to
have caught up. At say, 10am..if there's a breaking story, CNN seems ready
to remain with their programming and run ticker, rather than put assets
there. Fox now seems increasingly the one able to put assets there, with
not the same ability for programming(despite O'Reilly and Hannity #'s)
later during prime time.
MSNBC is equal shit prime time...pablum for the faitful and rhetoric
on-demand..


text:
"P" <[email]> wrote:

I'll watch Fox any time Megyn Kelley is on


author: Mark T.B. Carroll

text:
"P" <[email]> writes:

Our Cox cable service seems to consistently carry the more
right-learning news channels with more reliability.

I don't think we've had a picture on that one for some days now!

(Though I blame incompetence, not malice.)

Mark


text:
Nappy-Headed Cuddle-Bitch wrote:

Equally for Martha MacCallum.

Actually, I like FoxNews between 9-4.   There is typically some slant,
but it's always best to hear both sides.

Now the three stooges before nine  and the clowns (with the exception of
Shepard Smith) that appear after four are just too weird for me.


author: Mr Potatohead

text:
Mark T.B. Carroll wrote:
Not sure I get your point, Mark.
What would you like to have added to the lineup?


text:
Mr Potatohead <[email]> writes:

They're officially on the lineup, it's just that the feed is so bad it's
often unwatchable or simply considered `off air' by our Cox-supplied
DVR. Seeing as those problems are always very channel-specific I'm
guessing the issue's at their end not ours.

Mark


author: DoD

subject:
From Debbie Schlussel... Fireworks at Mt. Rushmore and much more
	patriotic American stuff....

text:
Must See 4th of July Video!: Fireworks @ Mt. Rushmore
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/


author: Al Nakba

subject:
Re: From Debbie Schlussel... Fireworks at Mt. Rushmore and much more
	patriotic American stuff....

text:
On Jul 9, 12:09 pm, DoD <[email]> wrote:

he has long embraced perversity..


text:
On Jul 9, 12:45 pm, Al Nakba <[email]> wrote:

He can't help it. That is his nature.


text:
On Jul 5, 1:23 pm, Jewdas <[email]> wrote:

Don't try talking with yer mouth full of bison cum..


text:
On Jul 7, 11:17 am, "ElParedon" <[email]> wrote:

you are the very example of such asslifting filth..


text:
On Jul 5, 12:22 am, "Helge" <[email]> wrote:

No..it is her doing her duty as a good American, exposing the
asslifting filth and their useful infiodels..


author: ElParedon

subject: THIS IS A LADY OF STEEL

text:
British peer defies Israel lobby
News Release

In a House of Lords debate on Wednesday 3 July, Baroness Jenny Tonge lashed
out at the Israelis for their relentless expansion of settlements on
Palestinian land in defiance of Geneva Conventions and criticized the
international community for failing to take action.

She warned her parliamentary colleagues that the world will never be free of
terrorism unless a just solution to the Israel-Palestine problem is
delivered.

The debate was initiated by Lord Turnberg. Seventeen peers put their names
down to speak but were limited to only two minutes each.

Making full use of this meagre time-slot, Baroness Tonge pressed home her
key message: "If Israel is not persuaded to obey UN resolutions and
especially start to dismantle the settlements in the West Bank,
anti-Semitism will again stalk Europe. Israel will never have peace; the
world will never be free of terrorism unless this problem is resolved.

"Attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq - Iran next - they are not the answer. They
have created more terrorism. The answer is a peaceful and just settlement
for Israel and the Palestinians, and Israel holds ALL the cards."

She said she was was horrified by the treatment of Mohammed Omer, the
prize-winning journalist, who had briefed parliamentarians in London before
returning home to Gaza, only to be beaten unconscious by Israeli security
guards at the Allenby Bridge crossing while an official from the Dutch
Embassy, which had arranged his travel, waited outside. "I am horrified by
the rockets from Gaza terrorizing Israelis," she went on, "and by the
helicopter gunships on their deadly missions, by the monstrous security
wall, the checkpoints, the permit systems..."

The Baroness roundly condemned the power of the Israel lobby, as active here
in Britain as in the USA, and the threat of AIPAC, Friends of Israel and the
Board of Deputies of British Jews. "The vindictive actions against people
who oppose and criticize the lobby, getting them removed from positions they
hold, preventing them speaking... I understand their methods." She spoke of
"the constant accusations of anti-Semitism, when no such sentiment exists,
to silence Israel's critics".

She has bitter experience. In 2004 Member of Parliament Jenny Tonge, as she
was then, outraged her party leader and Friends of Israel in all corners of
Parliament when, addressing a meeting of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign,
she said of Palestinian suicide bombers: "If I had to live in that
situation - and I say that advisedly - I might just consider becoming one
myself." She was promptly sacked from her position on the Liberal Democrat
Party's front bench by Charles Kennedy and the Israel lobby immediately
distorted her remark to read: "If I were Palestinian, I'd be a suicide
bomber."

In a debate in the House of Commons a few months ago Dr Kim Howells, the
minister for the Middle East and a former chairman of Labour Friends of
Israel, again misquoted her and said, in an attempt to blacken her
character: "That is not what a responsible representative in a democracy
should say; such a statement contains elements of the insanity that drives
people to do that."

The Baroness, however, is determined not to allow Israel's apologists to
muzzle her. "Given more time in this debate, I would have expanded on the
influence of the Israel lobby because it directly influences our foreign
policy and is deeply embedded in our public life as well as Parliament."

As for what ought to be done, she says: "The UK should be pushing the
European Union to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which
accounts for 60 per cent of Israel's trade, until such time as Israel shows
respect for human rights and complies with international law. That is
something we could do independently of the USA. It is absurd that we have
just upgraded the agreement to Israel's greater benefit."


author: Helge

subject: Re: From Debbie Schlussel... Fireworks at Mt. Rushmore and much more patriotic American stuff....

text:
"DoD" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Debbie Schlussel is a dual loyalty traitor to the United States.

Is it why you do like her so much?


text:
Wow, that is so great! Makes America stupider and stupider, only 12 injured
by the fireworks, for which Americans paid 3 billion dollars! You sure have
a donkey brain!

"DoD" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: LApert

subject:
Re: From Debbie Schlussel... Fireworks at Mt. Rushmore and much more
     patriotic American stuff....

text:
Al Nakba wrote:

Thats Nakba's mating call.. He just loves being assbanged by the
Southern California Muslims. They of course hold their noses when he is
around. I don't think the Jews like him much either.. The Irish would
off him if the necessity arose.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


text:
"Al Nakba" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Jul 5, 12:22 am, "Helge" <[email]> wrote:

No..it is her doing her duty as a good American, exposing the
asslifting filth and their useful infiodels..

FILTH IS A KIKE LIKE YOURSELF. NOBODY HAS TO EXPOSE YOU SCUM, EVERYBODY SEES
THAT YOU ARE SHIT!


author: Doodoo

subject:
Re: From Debbie Schlussel... Fireworks at Mt. Rushmore and much more
  patriotic American stuff....

text:
Helge wrote:

The idiot thinks she is going to put her legs up in the air for him.
DoD has never had a piece of ass in his life.. Hopes some Jewess will
get hard up enough to give him a little. After all the Jews are all
chasing Shitskes in hope of not having to listen to jewess screechings.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


text:
"Helge" <[email]> wrote in message
news:g4n7g9$uad$[email]...

He likes her because she is a ZioNazi and supports mass murder of
Palestinians


author: Jewdas

text:
ï¿½Dougï¿½ï¿½ wrote:

So you want to kill Americans... I am sure the return of that hope to
you fucking Jews can be arranged in real life. You bastards have
deserved everything and more that has happened to you. Stupid bastard
thinks Iran will not strike back. And like all Jews, wants America to
fight its wars. We have no reason to attack Iran at this time. In fact
we had no valid reason to attack Iraq.. And Afghanistan could have been
avoided if the Jew Neocons and the Bush administration had provided the
proof of guilt that was requested by the Taliban. After all, up to that
point we had diplomatic relations and support of the Taliban in many
things. Instead the Bush propaganda and Mossad teamed up to suck the
American taxpayer and military into a wrongful and murderously
bankrupting war. Dougie... You deserve to die horribly at the hands of
your intended victims.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


author: BeamMeUpScotty

subject: Re: John Bolton Admits All Of These Wars Are For Oil < < < GO NWO!!!

text:
On 10/23/2011 7:36 PM, Mï¿½ebius Pretzel wrote:

yet Obama and company, tell us OIL is irrelevant as solar and wind take
over.


author: Ray Fischer

text:
BeamMeUpScotty  <[email]> wrote:

Why do you keep relying upon such obvious lies?  Do you really have
NOTHING that is true that supports your insanity?

--
Ray Fischer         |  Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
[email]  |    The new GOP ideal


text:
"BeamMeUpScotty" <[email]> wrote in
message news:[email]...

Yes.....not irrelevant.....but reduced in importance by alternate sources of
renewable energy.

1. Less heat pollution
2. Less air pollution
3. Reduced imported oil
4. Fewer oil spill accidents
5. We get oil out of political decisions

We can do it was have the material, we have the brains, we need the will.


text:
On 10/23/2011 8:16 PM, Sid9 wrote:

so you admit there is NO reason/will to end oil and you are
manufacturing a reason with Global Warming.


text:
"BeamMeUpScotty" <[email]> wrote in
message news:[email]...

My words are clear.
I donï¿½t need you interpreting them for me.

#3 is reason enough for the United States


text:
On 10/23/2011 8:36 PM, Sid9 wrote:

["We can do it was have the material"]

believe me that you do need interpreting....

I have to decipher what you wanted to say, to make sense of what you wrote.

But that's OK.  I can get the what you meant, then and now.


author: WolfWolf

text:
Turkish Cypriot leader notes EU responsibility in Cyprus issue
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 2, 2002

Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash has said that responsibility for the
settlement on the island rests with the EU now because it made the Greek
Cypriot side "intransigent". He recalled that according to international
agreements, the Greek Cypriots cannot accede to the EU without resolving the
Cyprus issue or receiving Turkey's consent and warned that the world should
realize that the Turkish nation and government are determined regarding the
Cyprus issue. The following is an excerpt from report by Turkish Cypriot
radio on 2 February:

President [of the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus] Rauf
Denktash has expressed the hope that the direct talks, which were launched
at his initiative, will contribute to the creation of a new partnership in
Cyprus. Denktash said that the ball was not on his court or on the court of
Greek Cypriot administration leader Glavkos Kliridhis, but on the court of
the EU, which made the Greek Cypriot side intransigent. Denktash said that
if the EU told the Greek Cypriot administration of south Cyprus that it was
not the government of the Turkish Cypriots and it would not be admitted into
the EU without an agreement on the island, the Greek Cypriots would approach
the negotiations in a more determined manner. Denktash also said that the
negotiations were tough.

Denktash received the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce delegation led by Mehmet
Yildirim, which is currently visiting the TRNC...

In a statement at the meeting, Denktash expressed his regret over statements
to the effect that Cyprus is obstructing Turkey's EU accession. Denktash
said: Statements are being issued to the effect that Cyprus is no longer an
important place, and Turkey can renounce Cyprus in order to join the EU.
What is more, official EU authorities are openly telling the Greek Cypriots
that they should not be afraid because Turkey is bluffing.

Referring to the economic crisis in the country, Denktash recounted that the
Turkish Cypriots are experiencing a big economic crisis. He recalled that in
Turkey the government has the power and the formula to compensate the bank
depositors legally, and the matter was resolved without anyone suffering a
loss. Denktash added: We do not have the same means. We are trying to
alleviate the suffering of these people one by one through Turkey's
assistance.

Denktash said that a very small minority is taking advantage of this crisis
and presenting the struggle of the Turkish Cypriots for their rights and for
the elimination of the crisis to the world media as though the Turkish
Cypriots are ready for any kind of agreement and they want Turkey to leave
the island. Denktash declared that Turkey will never renounce the agreements
it obtained in 1960. According to the 1960 agreements, Denktash recalled,
Cyprus cannot join an organization in which Turkey is not a member. He said:
If despite this the EU says that it is admitting Cyprus because it is
blackmailed by Greece, Turkey knows where things will lead. This will lead
to a struggle for Turkey's eviction from occupied EU territory.

Underlining that Turkey will not renounce this just course, Denktash said
that the Greek Cypriots will not be able to join the EU because Turkey will
exercise its legal rights. Denktash pointed out that according to
international agreements the Greek Cypriots cannot accede to the EU without
resolving the Cyprus issue or receiving Turkey's consent. Recalling that
this is whey he proposed to conduct face-to-face talks with Kleridis,
Denktash said that if this matter can be settled, they will do so; and if it
cannot be settled, both Turkey and Greece will see the reasons. He added:
The negotiations are continuing, and they are tough...

Commenting on the history of the Cyprus problem, Denktash criticized the
failure to acknowledge the Turkish Cypriot community, which has been
defending the supremacy of the law and justice and international agreements
at the expense of the lives of its members. Denktash expressed the hope that
his sincere initiative will contribute to the creation of a new partnership
in Cyprus. The crisis which we see is approaching can thus be averted,
Denktash remarked, and called on the diplomats of important countries: The
ball is not on our court; nor is it on Kleridis' court. The ball is on your
court, because you made the Greek Cypriot side intransigent by assuring it
that it is the legitimate government and encouraging it to violate the rules
of justice and law...

Denktash noted that he is responsible for defending the national cause, the
people's cause for rights and freedom. The right thing is to establish a new
partnership, he declared.

Denktash referred to European bureaucrats' statements: Negotiations are
possible if you can reach an agreement and we will adjust ourselves to you.
Denktash added: This is what we are discussing. It is not possible to
resolve a 38-year-old problems in a few weeks. However, it is essential that
the Greeks, the Greek Cypriots, and the world realize that the Turkish
nation and government are determined with regard to the Cyprus issue.


subject: Re: Turkish Cypriot leader notes EU responsibility in Cyprus issue

text:
"WolfWolf"
you.
that

A typical Turkish stance: accept invasion, ethnic cleansing and Turkey`s god
given right to dictate the future of a sovereign state or face further bully
tactics. This is what Turkey commonly calls realities. I guess that the only
reality seems to be that Turkeys does not seem to comprehend is that she
will not be destined for the EU.

A few further realities which Turkey is blind to:
Turkey illegally invaded the Republic of Cyprus in 1974, under the most
conspicuous circumstances.

It occupies 37 per cent of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus; having
ethnically cleansed the entire population of the occupied north; and about
200,000 Greek Cypriots (a third of the island's population) were forced to
leave their homes in the space of 15 days. Many innocent civilians lost
their lives and many more are still missing.

More than 120 UN and Security Council resolutions are calling for the
withdrawal of the Turkish army and for the respect of the territorial
integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus.

Turkey wishes to enjoy the economic benefits of the EURO without having to
abide by the basic fundamental rules regarding human right both within and
outside of her borders. Greek Cypriots are prepared to forget the atrocities
committed by the Turks, but they are not prepared to forgo their land for
paltry compensation and accept a "settlement" that will only legalise the
Turkish spoils of war.

More news at: http://www.justice4cyprus.f2s.com/forum/
================================================
Justice4Cyprus.com
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Martin Luther King
http://www.justice4cyprus.com

The Dimensions of the Cyprus Problem:

The 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees created as a result of the Turkish
invasion in 1974 would correspond to:
-120.000.000 in the ex USSR
-110.000.000 in the US
-32.000.000 in the F.R. of Germany
-22.000.000 in Britain
-21.000.000 in France


author: REAL

subject: Re: Turkish Military notes Wolfwolf responsibility in TROLLING issue

text:
WolfWolf wrote:

Another lie made by unREAL's endless fabrication machine.
Why doesn't REAL the liar tell us the whole truth???
The alleged petitions were nothing but part of a campaign of - identity
theft.
Criminals taking the identity cards of innocent ignorants for their own
contemptible, sinister purposes!!
Now since REAL feels no remorse for organ theft - why should he refrain from
identity theft?

REAL's words deserve no credibility whatsoever. REAL is a proven liar!!

WolfWolf

Just change the REAL with WolfWolf and you have WolfWolfs trolling in action
directed at him.


author: June R Harton

text:
"WolfWolf" <[email]> wrote in message
news:a3hsgo$4ng$[email]...

Yes indeed, Denktash, the nortern part of Cyprus is indeed occupied
by the Mikrottomani!!!! You finally admitted it!

from:  Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!


subject: Re: REAL notes his own responsibility in TROLLING issue

text:
"REAL" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
from

So here we have the confession that REAL is a Lexicon of Intentionally
Ambiguous Recommendations (LIAR).

WolfWolf


text:
"June R Harton" <[email]> wrote in message
news:RT778.796$[email]...

Junebugger, take your dirty fingers out of here!!

WolfWolf


text:
"WolfWolf" <[email]> wrote in message
news:a3hsgo$4ng$[email]...

Yes indeed, Denktash, the northern part of Cyprus is indeed occupied
by the Mikrottomani!!!! You finally admitted it!

from:  Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!


author: Nicolas

text:
WolfWolf wrote:

More spam from the same anonymous idiot.

Nicolas


author: choro-nik

text:
June,

Denktash would hardly say something like that.

Would you like to provide the original quotation, in whatever language it
was stated, so we may decide for ourselves?

Or are you an eksipnovlakas? I am sure you are not, June. So why try to pull
a fast one?


text:
"choro-nik" <[email]> wrote in message
news:WTe88.1615$[email]...
pull

lelelelelelele

I may be many things but I am not WolfX2s keeper....he posted it!

from:  Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!


text:
"lelelelelele"s never solved anything June.

the relevant para from WolfWolf's pasting of the BBC translation of the
Turkish Cypriot Report is as follows=

<Denktash said that a very small minority is taking advantage of this crisis
and presenting the struggle of the Turkish Cypriots for their rights and for
the elimination of the crisis to the world media as though the Turkish
Cypriots are ready for any kind of agreement and they want Turkey to leave
the island. Denktash declared that Turkey will never renounce the agreements
it obtained in 1960. According to the 1960 agreements, Denktash recalled,
Cyprus cannot join an organization in which Turkey is not a member. He said:
If despite this the EU says that it is admitting Cyprus because it is
blackmailed by Greece, Turkey knows where things will lead. This will lead
to a struggle for Turkey's eviction from occupied EU territory.>

In other words what they are trying to say is that IF the whole of Cyprus is
admitted to the EU, then the possibility will be created of a struggle to
evict Turkey from what will then be perceived as occupied EU territory.

Now my common sense tells me that the Turkish Cypriot Radio, presumably
Bayrak Radio in this case, either did not phrase that sentence properly OR
the BBC translators mistranslated the essence and/or missed the nuances of
the
particular wording in turkish. And let's not forget that BBC translators are
human as well and in all
probability not all of them are up to the job. The fine nuances of the
wording of the sentence could also have escaped the editor's hawk eye.

Or if could very well be that the Turkish Radio report was broadcast in
English and
that it has NOT been translated by the BBC from the original turkish and I
for one would not trust the competence
of Turkish Cypriot translators' mastery of the english language. Actually I
would not trust the competence
of ANY translator 100 percent, 100 percent of the time.

In all likelihood, Denktash is trying to point out to the various or should
I say specific pitfalls, from his point of view, of the admittance of the
whole of Cyprus to the EU as an entity which could lead to claims that
turkey will find itself to be perceived as "occupying EU territory" --
please note the quotation marks which
changes the nature of the whole thing because this would not be how either
Denktash or Turkey would perceive it. In other words he is trying to imply
that his adversaries will claim that, not that he will accept or agree with
that
interpretation of the situation. If you read the whole report and analyse it
in your mind with a cool logic, this point should become clear to you. I am
of course referring to the reference to the London and Zurich
agreements under which Cyprus has to obtain the agreement of the guarantor
powers, that is Britain, Greece and Turkey, before it can any other
international political or military organization.

Denktash obviously sees this as a very strong argument in his favor during
the current
phase of the Cyprus dispute. To try and brush this under the carpet would
be tantamount to trying to bury your head in the sand like an ostrich.

Having said this I must add that I am not personally a Denktash fan but at
least I do try to coolly analyse every move and every statement from an
unbiased and logical point of view.

But (rightly or wrongly) I expected a more rational and responsible approach
from you.
Kindly leave cheap propaganda point scoring comments to others in this
group.

And let us hope that the present round of talks will lead to a sensible
solution of this problem that has soured turkish-greek relations for the
past half century or more. Our two peoples deserve better.

Let us not mess up the latest opportunity while we are fortunate enough to
have two able and well-meaning foreign
ministers in Athens and Ankara.


text:
"June R Harton" <[email]> wrote in message
news:w_q88.30442$[email]...
it

J________r, your sharp mind has obviously noticed that the article was an
"excerpt from report by Turkish Cypriot radio", so you can hardly claim that
exactly these words were said by Denktash.
So nobody admitted anything, only you confirmed intrinsically the filtering
quality of your 'Ghost of Lies'.
Give it some drops of olive oil, yes - the one paid by EU funds, it may
improve its evacuation capability.

WolfWolf
The European


text:
"choro-nik" <[email]> wrote in message
news:c9G88.5963$[email]...
crisis
for
agreements
said:
is

Exactly. It is an admission that the world is not deceived by the
Mikrottmani.

:)

are

:)

should

The whole EU....you again make my point.

it
am

Not when the mikrottomani illegally are occupying part of it and sent it's
civilians to occupy the territory...face it....Turkey is a simply 'acting
the
pig'...and it will be it's downfall if it doesn't come to it's senses.

approach

:)

Really, i have to repeat this is Turkey's last chance. they had better
civilize up or they are dooming themselves in the not too far distant
future.

Ankara has yet to show that, do you think the whole world is full
of fools. They are being given the chance....they had better
reconsider their position before it is simply too late.

from:  Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!


text:
"WolfWolf" <[email]> wrote in message
news:a3u4tt$afo$[email]...
to

DUH!

DUH

DUH

from:  Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!


text:
"June R Harton" <[email]> wrote in message
news:KJI88.22899$[email]...
leave
recalled,
lead
Cyprus
to
OR
of
I
the
either
imply

J________r, since when are YOU speaking on behalf of the EU???
Remember: get educated first - and get rid of your lelelelele
hallucinations.

analyse
guarantor
during
would
at

J________r, if you take care of your own civilization, we'll advance much
faster, you know?

to

What Ankara is showing is not enough. What matters is what you are seeing.
Half-closed feverish eyes cannot see well, you know?!?

Ask Harry Potter to help you!!

WolfWolf
The European


text:
"WolfWolf" <[email]> wrote in message
news:a40m3a$kt0$[email]...

You are beginning to get it, Troll.

from:  Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!


author: usual suspect

subject: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
objections to the term can finally stop. You can call me a flexitarian,
pescetarian, or, better yet, just call me "usual suspect." I don't have
  time for mixing food with politics unless it involves civil
conversation OVER a meal, not uncivil conversation ABOUT it.

I enjoyed sashimi -- raw fish -- with my sushi today for lunch. I await
all your nasty replies expressing outrage that I contributed to the
death of *one* tuna, because I'd love the opportunity to point out that
the rice in my sushi was responsible for far more animal deaths than the
little bit of fish I ate (on second thought, it was a couple generous
helpings). You wouldn't give a shit if I'd had my usual *vegetarian*
sushi today, even though it would've *still* caused animal deaths.

So I really must ask, Why do you only object to the death of *ONE* tuna?
What is it about *ALL* the frogs, snakes, rats, nutria, raccoons,
rabbits, deer, birds, snails, and other animals killed in the course of
rice production that make their deaths acceptable?

Face it, you only object to the actual eating of animals. You don't give
a damn if they're killed in the billions. If one dead tuna or steer gets
eaten, you say it's bad; if thousands and thousands of animals killed
for rice or other grain production, you find it fully acceptable or even
pass the buck and blame the farmer for farming in a manner you
financially support. Your worldview is so utterly fucked, and you're so
hypocritical.

Special PS to "Beach Runt": You said people who start eating meat again
after a period of abstaining get sick from it. It's been a matter of
years since I've eaten any kind of flesh, and I feel *quite* fine. The
fish was *very* fresh, so I've no reason for concern. You're as clueless
as they come.


author: Abner Hale

subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
usual suspect wrote:
from
totaled
an outbreak
cases of illness
Campylobacter;
produce.
with an
a year,"
national
provided
though
What IS
that
isn't
is
risk
products.
nature,
or
fraction
number
serious illness.
in 117

In "pearl's" case, I got to take issue.  HER odds of giving birth to a
genius are far, far lower than that.  Probably less than one in a
million, given ordinary genetics.


author: Jay Santos

subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
menu boy wrote:
news:[email]...
don't
eat
even
weekends.
choice.
one
declaring
everyone

No, it's an undeniable fact.  Ethics IS prescriptive.  Stupid "vegans"
and others sometimes try to pretend one can choose to be an island unto
oneself when it comes to ethical issues, and that's simply wrong and
untenable.

I'll bet you do.

You mean you could NOT care less what the rest of humanity does, even
though that's a goddamned lie.  The correct expression is "I could NOT
care less..."

There's that "vegan" misanthropy, again.  That's one of the reasons
"veganism" is an evil doctrine:  it preaches self-loathing.


author: The Ghost

subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
usual suspect wrote:

As foretold by someone greater and wiser than you on 7/7/03...

"...you'll start eating meat, particularly fish in the not too distant
future."

What about the CD? Do you KNOW how the tuna was caught?

You have no evidence of *ALL* these deaths; only an article of a Texan book
seller, posted on a newsgroup.

You're feeling quite paranoid, as demonstrated by this outburst of yours.


author: Reynard

subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:23:56 GMT, usual suspect <[email]> wrote:

Yeah sure;

"I am vegan"
usual suspect  2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect  2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect  2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect  2003-09-05

Your views are anything but consistent, so the
question remains; "How can we believe you?"


author: C. James Strutz

subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message
news:gvDAd.17316$[email]...

Being that this is usenet, civil conversation OVER a meal isn't possible.
That leaves only uncivil conversation ABOUT it. :^)  I wonder if you also
enjoyed the increased risk of hepatitis, bacterial contamination, and
intestinal parasites.

You can buy native wild rice that occurs naturally and is harvested without
involving ANY animal deaths.

Because it's at least one less death.

Feel the love....


author: menu boy

subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:gvDAd.17316$[email]...

Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.
You're just a common troll.  Yet another personal choice.  Good luck
with that.