OT: Al Franken

[Seth Koster]

Tim, I certainly understand how you might have thought he was being
sarcastic, and I take no offense at your assumption that my abilities
to detect sarcasm were suspect at best. I do assure you, however,
that I have waded through enough of Steve's posts to be pretty sure
that he is, to put it quite bluntly, a raving lunatic. I honestly
think some psychological help might be in order. I don't joke around
about these things, as when I was young a close friend took his own
life in a situation where I believe counseling might have helped.
-------------
And it has given you the life-long delusion that you can detect why
in people and prevent it. Go back to school, boy.

No, it merely gave me the impetus to suggest possible courses of
action to those I feel might be in need. You, Steve, are in need,
IMO. I gave no indication that I thought I could prevent suicide,
which is why I recommended professional help. Thank you for your
interest in my further education.

In
Steve's case I fear that the life or lives taken may not be his.
----------------
Given the political chance, sure. But don't worry, it would have
good result.

I don't argue what results are good with insane people, as insane
people are not working from a reasonable perception of reality. I do
worry, though, about what happens when insane people act on those
perceptions.

I am curious as to what 'taking the piss' means and refers to.
I assume it has to do with being sarcastic, considering the
context, but I have absolutely no idea how or why.
-----------------
As I understand it from a short Google, it seems to be not taking
someone seriously.

As you are quite mad, I think I'll look at other posters responses
for answers, but I appreciate the effort.

 

[Seth Koster]

"Taking the piss" is an English locution. John Woodgate would probably
be a more reliable source than I am, but IIRR it means feeding someone
an implausible story which the victim will find believable because it
is a story that they want to believe, or because their critical
faculties aren't up to much.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Thanks for the education, Bill.

 

[Seth Koster]

None of this is an attack or meant in jest, I really think you might
find some use from either an intensive psycho-therapy regimen or a
voluntary commitment.
-----------------
You're a idiot and a moron. Do you expect to defeat ALL your political
opponents by convincing them they're insane? If so you should just
give up now, as you're not very good at it.

I have no interest in defeating you, and I certainly don't consider
you a political opponent of mine. I consider you a poor deluded
sociopath who might need some help. As to your arguments, I am not
interested in debating an insane person because it is quite pointless.
Now that I have become aware of your madness, I will refrain from
responding to your posts. I have said what I think you needed to
hear, and I do not feel further restatement would be useful.

 

[KR Williams]

In article <408C8F33.6D@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

KR Williams wrote:

In article <cg1o80tntkea2hovojk1rku6pduvfgdfa4@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com says...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:02:36 GMT, "Tom Del Rosso"
tdnews01@att.net.invalid> wrote:


I think the anarchists expect people to be civilized,

And use bombs to prove it.

Communism is infinitely optimistic, and engages in best-case design. I
wouldn't want to drive over a bridge designed on best-case
assumptions.

...or designed by someone who thought that someone else should be
responsible for his work.

--
Keith
-----------------
Nonsense, calling Communists "optimistic" is like calling Nazis
"laid-back".

You're right, Steevie. Nazis were laid-back compared to
communists. It is "optimistic" to assume either tyrant cares
about the individual, however.

We Communists believe that the only individual perfection possible
is best accomplished from without, by brutal enforcement of the
right laws.

You perfect ones can find your own planet, thanks. Us imperfect
humans will have to get along trading (grody capitalists that we
all are) amongst each other. ..works for us, and since we'll
work our asses off to better ourselves, you're the *one* who will
be asked to leave!

--
Keith

 

[KR Williams]

In article <408cf714$0$7786$7a628cd7@news.club-internet.fr>,
grsNOSPAM@NO-SPAMmail.com says...

We Communists believe that the only individual perfection possible
is best accomplished from without, by brutal enforcement of the
right laws.

"brutal enforcement of the right laws" ?

It's extremely dangerous. Who is to say what is right and what is
wrong, to begin with? And what do you mean by "brutal enforcement" ?

At least Stevie is honest about communism! He want's to *kill*
you to achieve his Nirvana. Remember that one thing about
communists/socialists/progressives (all the same).

--
Keith

 

[KR Williams]

In article <408C923F.1918@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

KR Williams wrote:

In article <abqo801u7592ounv8fokcgkfj567kk1mnf@4ax.com>,
tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] says...
qtc333@hotmail.com (Seth Koster) wrote:

I agree absolutely, we'd have nuked Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Teheran,
Bagdadh, Kabul, Islamabad, Damascus, Amman, Cairo, and a few others
with 10 kTonners, and then taken over the oil[...]

You do realize you are insane, right?

Seth, meet sarcasm.

You obviously don't know RSW very well! He does belive this and
yes, *is* insane.

--
Keith
-------------
No, even worse: I believe that, and I'm NOT insane.

Of course you believe that you're not insane. I agree with you
(that you believe that you're not insane), but quite like Ted
Kaczynski, your faculties have left the facilities.

--
Keith

 

[Bill Sloman]

Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY]> wrote in message news:<nvnq80dk2r9hvbuftq76hk7tkc24tge99j@4ax.com>...

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:
[taking the piss]
"Taking the piss" is an English locution. John Woodgate would probably
be a more reliable source than I am, but IIRR it means feeding someone
an implausible story which the victim will find believable because it
is a story that they want to believe, or because their critical
faculties aren't up to much.

An accurate definition, but only a subset. It's used more generally to
mean making fun of someone, so you can take the piss out of someone by
making fun of their silly shoes as well as by telling them a fantastic
story as you describe.

This site has a theory on the origin of the phrase. I don't know how
accurate it is, but it seems plausible enough to me.

http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-tak2.htm

Thanks for the education Tim. I wasn't aware of that derivation, but
it certainly does sound plausible and fits the usage very nicely, so
I'm now definitely better-informed than I was, even if the derivation
is useful only as a mnemonic device.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:54:06 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

Please don't besmurch the name of that noble breakfast (and around
here, occasionally, dinner) food.

Anybody wany my recipe for fried grits?
John

Hey, the grits are *in*, thanks John. Probably the only (edible) grits
on the block. Is your recipe just this:

(presumably cook first according to directions)
"refrigerate overnight, slice into thin slabs, and pan-fry in butter
the next day; serve with syrup like pancakes. Yum."

Or is there more to it?

Is there some way I should try first that's particularly accessible?
There are a bunch of recipes on the box (lots of room on unilingual
boxes!).

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:05:18 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:54:06 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

Please don't besmurch the name of that noble breakfast (and around
here, occasionally, dinner) food.

Anybody wany my recipe for fried grits?
John

Hey, the grits are *in*, thanks John. Probably the only (edible) grits
on the block. Is your recipe just this:

(presumably cook first according to directions)
"refrigerate overnight, slice into thin slabs, and pan-fry in butter
the next day; serve with syrup like pancakes. Yum."

Or is there more to it?

Is there some way I should try first that's particularly accessible?
There are a bunch of recipes on the box (lots of room on unilingual
boxes!).

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Oh, ignore the stuff on the box.

The ratio is 1 part grits to 4 water. Try 1/3 cup grits to 1.33 cups
water maybe. Boil the water in a teflon pot, add a pat of butter and
some salt, and *stir* in the grits (like polenta, it will clump if you
just dump it in.) Reduce to minimal barely-bubbling simmer and cook
covered for 15-20 minutes until it's not, well, gritty. Stir once in a
while if it makes you feel useful. Add a splash of water if it looks
too stiff; the intent is to stay barely thixotropic.

Serve with lots of butter, salt, black pepper, and fried or scrambled
eggs.

The next-day fried grits is as noted above. You may need a bigger
batch to create left-overs.

Hope you like it; some people don't. Mo (from Boston) and Liz (born
here) both love it.

No trouble with Customs, I take it. We labeled it "GIFT-PARROT FOOD"
just in case.

Remember, Grits is always singular.

John

 

[Harry Dellamano]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:8ugt80l5n5g3ahjjbhosmn0u8m9jlsq4g1@4ax.com...

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:05:18 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:54:06 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

Please don't besmurch the name of that noble breakfast (and around
here, occasionally, dinner) food.

Anybody wany my recipe for fried grits?
John

Hey, the grits are *in*, thanks John. Probably the only (edible) grits
on the block. Is your recipe just this:

(presumably cook first according to directions)
"refrigerate overnight, slice into thin slabs, and pan-fry in butter
the next day; serve with syrup like pancakes. Yum."

Or is there more to it?

Is there some way I should try first that's particularly accessible?
There are a bunch of recipes on the box (lots of room on unilingual
boxes!).

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


Oh, ignore the stuff on the box.

The ratio is 1 part grits to 4 water. Try 1/3 cup grits to 1.33 cups
water maybe. Boil the water in a teflon pot, add a pat of butter and
some salt, and *stir* in the grits (like polenta, it will clump if you
just dump it in.) Reduce to minimal barely-bubbling simmer and cook
covered for 15-20 minutes until it's not, well, gritty. Stir once in a
while if it makes you feel useful. Add a splash of water if it looks
too stiff; the intent is to stay barely thixotropic.

Serve with lots of butter, salt, black pepper, and fried or scrambled
eggs.

The next-day fried grits is as noted above. You may need a bigger
batch to create left-overs.

Hope you like it; some people don't. Mo (from Boston) and Liz (born
here) both love it.

No trouble with Customs, I take it. We labeled it "GIFT-PARROT FOOD"
just in case.

Remember, Grits is always singular.

John

Now when you say "polenta" you are getting into my territory, brought up on

that stuff. The magic formula is 3:1 for 20 minutes simmering. Very close to
your grits. Serve with sprinkled cheese, tomato sauce and a meat, chicken,
sausage and transparent cooked peppers and onions. Red wine works well here.

regards
Harry

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Seth Koster wrote:

Tim, I certainly understand how you might have thought he was being
sarcastic, and I take no offense at your assumption that my abilities
to detect sarcasm were suspect at best. I do assure you, however,
that I have waded through enough of Steve's posts to be pretty sure
that he is, to put it quite bluntly, a raving lunatic. I honestly
think some psychological help might be in order. I don't joke around
about these things, as when I was young a close friend took his own
life in a situation where I believe counseling might have helped.
-------------
And it has given you the life-long delusion that you can detect why
in people and prevent it. Go back to school, boy.


No, it merely gave me the impetus to suggest possible courses of
action to those I feel might be in need. You, Steve, are in need,
IMO.
-----------

Nonsense.

I gave no indication that I thought I could prevent suicide,
which is why I recommended professional help. Thank you for your
interest in my further education.
-----------------------------

Delusion.

In
Steve's case I fear that the life or lives taken may not be his.
----------------
Given the political chance, sure. But don't worry, it would have
good result.

I don't argue what results are good with insane people, as insane
people are not working from a reasonable perception of reality.
--------------

Except you're not the arbiter of that.

I do
worry, though, about what happens when insane people act on those
perceptions.
------------------

Which ones? You see, the ones you think are, aren't.

As you are quite mad, I think I'll look at other posters responses
for answers, but I appreciate the effort.
------------------

Beware of taking your own posturing too seriously.
Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Seth Koster wrote:

None of this is an attack or meant in jest, I really think you might
find some use from either an intensive psycho-therapy regimen or a
voluntary commitment.
-----------------
You're a idiot and a moron. Do you expect to defeat ALL your political
opponents by convincing them they're insane? If so you should just
give up now, as you're not very good at it.


I have no interest in defeating you, and I certainly don't consider
you a political opponent of mine. I consider you a poor deluded
sociopath who might need some help.
------------

You're merely an immature posturer.

As to your arguments, I am not
interested in debating an insane person because it is quite pointless.
--------------

And you certainly can't win, since insanity is SO VERY persuasive,
as everyone knows.

Now that I have become aware of your madness, I will refrain from
responding to your posts. I have said what I think you needed to
hear, and I do not feel further restatement would be useful.
-------------------------

You loser, you're posturing up a storm, be careful backing out of
here that you don't trip on your exaggerated dick-size.
Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

KR Williams wrote:

In article <408C8F33.6D@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <cg1o80tntkea2hovojk1rku6pduvfgdfa4@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com says...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:02:36 GMT, "Tom Del Rosso"
tdnews01@att.net.invalid> wrote:


I think the anarchists expect people to be civilized,

And use bombs to prove it.

Communism is infinitely optimistic, and engages in best-case design. I
wouldn't want to drive over a bridge designed on best-case
assumptions.

...or designed by someone who thought that someone else should be
responsible for his work.

--
Keith
-----------------
Nonsense, calling Communists "optimistic" is like calling Nazis
"laid-back".

You're right, Steevie. Nazis were laid-back compared to
communists. It is "optimistic" to assume either tyrant cares
about the individual, however.
-------------------

Fascists are tyrants, Communists are not.

We Communists believe that the only individual perfection possible
is best accomplished from without, by brutal enforcement of the
right laws.

You perfect ones can find your own planet, thanks. Us imperfect
humans will have to get along trading (grody capitalists that we
all are) amongst each other.
----------------------

You are mischaracterizing. Only you're alleging I favor some
"perfection". I say perfection isn't individually possible OR
even desirable or important. The Laws can administer fairness.

..works for us,
--------------

Actually, it doesn't... seen your homeless, your poor, vast mile
upon mile of them?

and since we'll
work our asses off to better ourselves, you're the *one* who will
be asked to leave!
Keith
------------------

You have no idea how to do that.
Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

KR Williams wrote:

In article <408cf714$0$7786$7a628cd7@news.club-internet.fr>,
grsNOSPAM@NO-SPAMmail.com says...
We Communists believe that the only individual perfection possible
is best accomplished from without, by brutal enforcement of the
right laws.

"brutal enforcement of the right laws" ?

It's extremely dangerous. Who is to say what is right and what is
wrong, to begin with? And what do you mean by "brutal enforcement" ?

At least Stevie is honest about communism! He want's to *kill*
you to achieve his Nirvana.
------------

Only if you oppose fairness, and no it's not Nirvana, just a State,
better than the rest, but nothing like perfect.

Remember that one thing about
communists/socialists/progressives (all the same).
Keith
-------------------------

Yes, they all want fairness.
Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

KR Williams wrote:

In article <408C923F.1918@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <abqo801u7592ounv8fokcgkfj567kk1mnf@4ax.com>,
tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] says...
qtc333@hotmail.com (Seth Koster) wrote:

I agree absolutely, we'd have nuked Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Teheran,
Bagdadh, Kabul, Islamabad, Damascus, Amman, Cairo, and a few others
with 10 kTonners, and then taken over the oil[...]

You do realize you are insane, right?

Seth, meet sarcasm.

You obviously don't know RSW very well! He does belive this and
yes, *is* insane.

--
Keith
-------------
No, even worse: I believe that, and I'm NOT insane.

Of course you believe that you're not insane. I agree with you
(that you believe that you're not insane), but quite like Ted
Kaczynski, your faculties have left the facilities.
Keith
----------------------------

You're nothing but a petty liar with no visible means of support.
Steve

 

[Richard Henry]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:408EE387.3CA6@armory.com...

KR Williams wrote:

You're right, Steevie. Nazis were laid-back compared to
communists. It is "optimistic" to assume either tyrant cares
about the individual, however.
-------------------
Fascists are tyrants, Communists are not.

Not even the ones that kill the unbelievers?

Ecuse me, I meant "administer fairness" to the recalcitrants.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:408EE387.3CA6@armory.com...
KR Williams wrote:

You're right, Steevie. Nazis were laid-back compared to
communists. It is "optimistic" to assume either tyrant cares
about the individual, however.
-------------------
Fascists are tyrants, Communists are not.

Not even the ones that kill the unbelievers?
---------------

Absolutely. Belief in Evil is evidence of political danger to all.

If you permit a group to propagate a belief that the People don't
have a right that they do, then that group will inevitably attempt
to threaten that right, and thus merit killing. Do it before all
that and save time and trouble.

Examples are the abuse of children by Fundies, the suppression of
sexuality and good speech by Fundies, the membership of whose
religion and whose religious brainwashing of their children is
threatened by pro-sexuality and good speech. Kill them.

-Steve
--

 

[loedown]

Can you take it elsewhere?

Have you read the title of this newsgroup, I am sure it doesn't say Fascist,
Monarchist, Nazcist etc

Also I am not being an administrator, just keeping it on topic

Paul

 

[KR Williams]

In article <408EE387.3CA6@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

KR Williams wrote:

In article <408C8F33.6D@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <cg1o80tntkea2hovojk1rku6pduvfgdfa4@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com says...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:02:36 GMT, "Tom Del Rosso"
tdnews01@att.net.invalid> wrote:


I think the anarchists expect people to be civilized,

And use bombs to prove it.

Communism is infinitely optimistic, and engages in best-case design. I
wouldn't want to drive over a bridge designed on best-case
assumptions.

...or designed by someone who thought that someone else should be
responsible for his work.

--
Keith
-----------------
Nonsense, calling Communists "optimistic" is like calling Nazis
"laid-back".

You're right, Steevie. Nazis were laid-back compared to
communists. It is "optimistic" to assume either tyrant cares
about the individual, however.
-------------------
Fascists are tyrants, Communists are not.

Those of *YOU* that will kill anyone with another opinion of the
work they "must" do, *ARE* tyrants, your moron! You are a tyrant
wannabe and would be, except you're too damned lazy to even be a
capitalist.

We Communists believe that the only individual perfection possible
is best accomplished from without, by brutal enforcement of the
right laws.

You perfect ones can find your own planet, thanks. Us imperfect
humans will have to get along trading (grody capitalists that we
all are) amongst each other.
----------------------
You are mischaracterizing. Only you're alleging I favor some
"perfection". I say perfection isn't individually possible OR
even desirable or important. The Laws can administer fairness.


..works for us,
--------------
Actually, it doesn't... seen your homeless, your poor, vast mile
upon mile of them?

If they're homeless, it's because they *want* to be. If they're
poor it's because they *want* to be. If they're druggies, it's
because they *WANT* to be. There is a common thread here
steevie.

and since we'll
work our asses off to better ourselves, you're the *one* who will
be asked to leave!
Keith
------------------
You have no idea how to do that.

Sure you do Steevie! Wallmart sells ammo cheap. I'm sure you
can borrow an accelerator.

--
Keith

 

[KR Williams]

In article <408EE446.2482@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

KR Williams wrote:

In article <408C923F.1918@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <abqo801u7592ounv8fokcgkfj567kk1mnf@4ax.com>,
tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] says...
qtc333@hotmail.com (Seth Koster) wrote:

I agree absolutely, we'd have nuked Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Teheran,
Bagdadh, Kabul, Islamabad, Damascus, Amman, Cairo, and a few others
with 10 kTonners, and then taken over the oil[...]

You do realize you are insane, right?

Seth, meet sarcasm.

You obviously don't know RSW very well! He does belive this and
yes, *is* insane.

--
Keith
-------------
No, even worse: I believe that, and I'm NOT insane.

Of course you believe that you're not insane. I agree with you
(that you believe that you're not insane), but quite like Ted
Kaczynski, your faculties have left the facilities.
Keith
----------------------------
You're nothing but a petty liar with no visible means of support.

You're the liar (and a grand one), like all communist stooges.
You *are* quite insane.

--
Keith