Jim Thompson is a cowardly diletante

xray · Nov 1, 2004

plonk plonk etc.

Sit on the sidelines and judge

I'm too important to get invovled in the issues

but I'm happy to sit

and snipe

when it is convenient for me

'cause I've proved myself to be

better than most of the rest

unless they

happen to agree with me

like Clarence

Paul Burridge · Nov 1, 2004

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:50:29 GMT, xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid>
wrote:

plonk plonk etc.

Sit on the sidelines and judge

I'm too important to get invovled in the issues

but I'm happy to sit

and snipe

when it is convenient for me

'cause I've proved myself to be

better than most of the rest

unless they

happen to agree with me

like Clarence

ROTFL! Is ol' Jim still posting here?
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

Ken Smith · Nov 1, 2004

In article <bb1co09fvmlans3arleu7enimr3tiiqanc@4ax.com>,
xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid> wrote:

plonk plonk etc.

Sit on the sidelines and judge

I'm too important to get invovled in the issues

Jim T. has got it completely wrong on politics but I don't think it is
fair to call him a coward. He likes to snipe. So what?

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

John Larkin · Nov 1, 2004

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:50:29 GMT, xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid>
wrote:

Jim Thompson is a cowardly diletante

There's plenty of evidence that he's neither. Do you know the meaning
of those words?

John

Jim Thompson · Nov 1, 2004

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Paul Burridge · Nov 1, 2004

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 08:25:09 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:50:29 GMT, xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid
wrote:

Jim Thompson is a cowardly diletante

There's plenty of evidence that he's neither. Do you know the meaning
of those words?

I certainly wouldn't label Jim as a dilettante; I don't doubt his
ability in electronics, but he *is* a rather irritating old
fartknocker with an attitude problem. ;-}
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

Bob Stephens · Nov 1, 2004

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:46:33 +0100, Frank Bemelman wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> schreef in bericht
news:fsoco0p4u51hedc3p8fejtelm462uqvb5c@4ax.com...
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:50:29 GMT, xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid
wrote:

[snip]

The village idiot, "xray", can't even spell ;-)

I stopped counting, but how many 'village idiots' do
we have right now? It looks as if the entire village
has gone nuts, one way or another

It takes a village to raise an idiot

Ken Smith · Nov 1, 2004

In article <5uoco05ojeu1dqp3m21vqt49oucse8ljrj@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]

So how have I got it wrong on politics? When it comes to war I'm a
definite hawk... do you want a "Fonda Fairy" for President in such as
these times?

No, I just don't want Bush to be the president. If that means Kerry, oh
well!

I also think that Iraq was started too soon. It took the focus off OBL.

As for "xray", who gives a fuck what he thinks? He can't even spell
;-)

It seems than many people care a lot about what he thinks. They respond
with ever increasing flames. I swear that some people actually think that
minds will be changed in all this.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Rich Grise · Nov 1, 2004

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:33:34 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:01:16 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) wrote:

In article <bb1co09fvmlans3arleu7enimr3tiiqanc@4ax.com>,
xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid> wrote:

plonk plonk etc.

Sit on the sidelines and judge

I'm too important to get invovled in the issues

Jim T. has got it completely wrong on politics but I don't think it is
fair to call him a coward. He likes to snipe. So what?

So how have I got it wrong on politics? When it comes to war I'm a
definite hawk... do you want a "Fonda Fairy" for President in such as
these times?

On everything else I'm quite moderate... Libertarian or even more
laissez faire.

As for "xray", who gives a fuck what he thinks? He can't even spell
;-)

How dare you speak the name Libertarian with your murderer lips?

You have admitted right here, you are a warlover.

Ergo, you are either evil or a heartless dupe.

Murder is bad. People who advocate murder are bad people. People
who love war are bad people. Ergo, as a warlover, you are a bad
person.

Remember, George W. Bush is a dangerous liar and mass murderer.

Thanks,
Rich

Rich Grise · Nov 1, 2004

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:29:38 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <5uoco05ojeu1dqp3m21vqt49oucse8ljrj@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]
So how have I got it wrong on politics? When it comes to war I'm a
definite hawk... do you want a "Fonda Fairy" for President in such as
these times?

No, I just don't want Bush to be the president. If that means Kerry, oh
well!

I also think that Iraq was started too soon. It took the focus off OBL.

As for "xray", who gives a fuck what he thinks? He can't even spell
;-)

It seems than many people care a lot about what he thinks. They respond
with ever increasing flames. I swear that some people actually think that
minds will be changed in all this.

Minds might, but sadly, not the box-o-rocks the Bushites are using
instead of one.

Remember, Bush is a dangerous liar and a mass murderer.
Would Jesus have you vote for the Antichrist?

Thanks,
Rich

John Larkin · Nov 1, 2004

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 17:07:13 +0000, Paul Burridge
<pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 08:25:09 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:50:29 GMT, xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid
wrote:

Jim Thompson is a cowardly diletante

There's plenty of evidence that he's neither. Do you know the meaning
of those words?

I certainly wouldn't label Jim as a dilettante; I don't doubt his
ability in electronics, but he *is* a rather irritating old
fartknocker with an attitude problem. ;-}

Well, he does have an attitude. The problem is yours.

John

Jim Thompson · Nov 1, 2004

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 17:07:13 +0000, Paul Burridge
<pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

I certainly wouldn't label Jim as a dilettante; I don't doubt his
ability in electronics, but he *is* a rather irritating old
fartknocker with an attitude problem. ;-}

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Paul Burridge · Nov 1, 2004

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:54:13 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

Remember, George W. Bush is a dangerous liar and mass murderer.

So is Tony Blair. It didn't stop *him* being elected. :-(
There was a programme on C4 tonight that claimed that the American
electorate is remarkably poorly-informed. I think the inference was
that they will put Bush back in power!
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

Paul Burridge · Nov 1, 2004

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:27:05 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

Well, he does have an attitude. The problem is yours.

Not for several months since he was consigned to my killfile! :-D
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

John Larkin · Nov 1, 2004

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:33:34 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:01:16 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) wrote:

In article <bb1co09fvmlans3arleu7enimr3tiiqanc@4ax.com>,
xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid> wrote:

plonk plonk etc.

Sit on the sidelines and judge

I'm too important to get invovled in the issues

Jim T. has got it completely wrong on politics but I don't think it is
fair to call him a coward. He likes to snipe. So what?

So how have I got it wrong on politics? When it comes to war I'm a
definite hawk... do you want a "Fonda Fairy" for President in such as
these times?

On everything else I'm quite moderate... Libertarian or even more
laissez faire.

As for "xray", who gives a fuck what he thinks? He can't even spell
;-)

...Jim Thompson

Does xray know anything about electronics?

John

Robert Monsen · Nov 1, 2004

Frank Bemelman wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> schreef in bericht
news:fsoco0p4u51hedc3p8fejtelm462uqvb5c@4ax.com...

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:50:29 GMT, xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid
wrote:

[snip]

The village idiot, "xray", can't even spell ;-)

I stopped counting, but how many 'village idiots' do
we have right now? It looks as if the entire village
has gone nuts, one way or another

If everybody in the village is an idiot, even a moron can be king.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

Guy Macon · Nov 2, 2004

Bob Stephens wrote:

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:46:33 +0100, Frank Bemelman wrote:

I stopped counting, but how many 'village idiots' do
we have right now? It looks as if the entire village
has gone nuts, one way or another

It takes a village to raise an idiot

I count 68 idiots and over 100 non-idiots (defined as those who post
about politics and those who don't) here. Alas, the idiots post
a *lot* more often. My killfile is still faster, no matter how
rapidly they flatulate their off-topic political posts.

Rich Grise · Nov 2, 2004

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 01:33:54 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

Bob Stephens wrote:

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:46:33 +0100, Frank Bemelman wrote:

I stopped counting, but how many 'village idiots' do
we have right now? It looks as if the entire village
has gone nuts, one way or another

It takes a village to raise an idiot

I count 68 idiots and over 100 non-idiots (defined as those who post
about politics and those who don't) here. Alas, the idiots post
a *lot* more often. My killfile is still faster, no matter how
rapidly they flatulate their off-topic political posts.

Us killfilees were gonna gossip about Guy Macon behind his back,
but the plan was cancelled due to lack of interest.

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise · Nov 2, 2004

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:12:37 +0000, Robert Monsen wrote:

Frank Bemelman wrote:
"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> schreef in bericht
news:fsoco0p4u51hedc3p8fejtelm462uqvb5c@4ax.com...

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:50:29 GMT, xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid
wrote:

[snip]

The village idiot, "xray", can't even spell ;-)

I stopped counting, but how many 'village idiots' do
we have right now? It looks as if the entire village
has gone nuts, one way or another

If everybody in the village is an idiot, even a moron can be king.

LOL!

Remember, Bush is a dangerous liar and mass murderer.
Would Jesus have you vote for the antichrist?

Thanks,
Rich

John S. Dyson · Nov 2, 2004

In article <f0jdo0hpko4r5eaotmkf6khtovgkimuv74@4ax.com>,
Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> writes:

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:54:13 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

Remember, George W. Bush is a dangerous liar and mass murderer.

So is Tony Blair. It didn't stop *him* being elected. :-(
There was a programme on C4 tonight that claimed that the American
electorate is remarkably poorly-informed. I think the inference was
that they will put Bush back in power!

The 'interesting' thing is that I collect information from almost

all of the sources that are commonly (and not-so-commonly) available
(e.g. both public and retail news sources.) As I become more and
more informed, it becomes more and more obvious that Kerry is a
worse choice than Bush.

(Note that my so called well informed European friends didnt'
know that Kerry and his team had been implying that France
and Germany would come to our 'rescue' in Iraq, while France
at least had claimed -- NO WAY. There is alot of truthful
information about Kerry and his bona-fide and important
flaws that just do not get spread into much of the European
press, yet almost every Bush mistake gets amplified.)

The problem with the Bush vs. Kerry race
is that Bush is flawed (and probably more flawed than most previous
presidents), but Kerry is by far even worse yet -- Kerry is more
flawed in more important ways. From the French
European standpoint, Kerry is a better choice, but not from
the standpoint of defense and support of America. THE PRESIDENTs
MOST IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS EFFECTIVELY TO PROTECT THE NATION.
THE PRESIDENT DOESN"T HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO PROVIDE JOBS,
HEALTHCARE, HDTV, or even make any decisions wrt SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
The president might have SOME indirect influence about certain issues
that are overly championed at the presidential level by the Kerry-types,
but the president has essentially DIRECT AUTHORITY OVER MANY MECHANISMS
THAT DIRECTLY PROTECT THE AMERICAN NATION.

(A moderately weakened America is in the interest of the ongoing
imperialistic French mentality -- whose imperialism is much more
intense than America's imperialism, but America has more actual
wherewithall. In essense, America can truly and effectively be
imperialistic, and tries to avoid it, while France wants to be a
'big boy' imperialist, but just cannot because France just isn't a grown up.)

With Bush, we have someone who is flawed yet qualified to be
president (in the sense of the willpower and staying power to
fight and defeat the enemies of America.) With Kerry, we would
have someone who would / does waffle, and he has shown little
or no ability to 'stay the course'. In almost all cases, Kerry
has also chosen to vote against many of our most useful and
successful military systems. In the Kerry world, we'd be yet
another 2nd rate power like France (all show, no substance, but
not really much 'show' either

).

Without being biased at all, Kerry would definitely be the first
choice for Al Queda, France, North Korea and perhaps even China.
Kerry should be proud of those credentials, even if Bush is my
own first choice (in my case, I am not limited to NYT type sources,
but actually have access to pay information services, e.g. one
service is known as a commercially funded CIA.)

The biggest problem that I see WRT most presidential elections is
to attribute general domestic economic health to the president, and
unless the president has done some kind of large scale action (or
a major bill), then he has little control. The president might
have some "jawboning" influence, but little/no control. For example,
if Clinton is responsible for the booming economy in the 1998 through
2000 timeframe, then he is also responsible for the bubble that
started bursting before Bush was even nominated. If anything, Clinton
would be guilty of inaction so that the bubble could have been better
managed. (The techboom wasn't due to Clinton -- but the screwed
up bust handed to Bush was either due to Clinton or not. If Clinton
didn't screw up the Bust, then he certainly didn't create the tech
boom!!!)

John

Jim Thompson is a cowardly diletante

xray

Guest

Paul Burridge

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Paul Burridge

Guest

Bob Stephens

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Paul Burridge

Guest

Paul Burridge

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Robert Monsen

Guest

Guy Macon

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

John S. Dyson

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor