I fear I may be promoted to Chef en Chef of Village Idiots for real on Friday Georges and be off to fight the foe you mention armed only with a platoon of partially trained punka wallahs brandishing business textbooks they claim to have read once.
On 7 Sep, 01:43, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > I call him .... OreO Obama.... aka Silly Vanilli... > nominal9 > > On Sep 5, 10:20 am, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > NOTE: Due to IMO general interest of the issue I post the present to > > several lists. The Village Idiot en chef of the Village Idiots list > > will perhaps ask, who is Richard. > > So, Richard is a good friend, a sound physicist, philosopher and > > writer with whom we have friendly quarrels stemming mainly from the > > fact that he is thoroughly educated and I have no education at all. > > ================== > > G old: > > I got a lot of reactions (to my "Obama in Wonderland"). > > Certain called it poignant satire and I found it most gratifying, > > others suggested additionally some supplements, which I > > considered with appreciation. But many qualified it (arbitrarily of > > course) as absurdity, calumny, defamation and scandalmongering. > > I thank them from all my heart; I intended my "Obama" to be > > a ecrit a scandale and they prove that I'm not far off the mark. > > ================= > > Richard: > > > Georges, > > > > I am not sufficiently insightful and certainly do not know you well enough > > to have see the Obama piece anything other than a screed against him. Next > > time, > > if there is one, I will be more aware of the possibility that you are not > > being very serious. > > =================== > > G: > > And you will be right. I'm never serious. Being serious means being > > mentally - and often physically - dressed as a butler, never quitting > > the tie and the bowler hat only to put on a topper when referring to > > such Presidents as Carter or Obama and to such Nobel Prizes as > > Al Gore or Arafat. As I don't possess - neither metaphorically nor > > literally - any ties, bowler hats or toppers, I could not be serious, > > even if I wanted. > > > All I endeavor is to be sincere, i.e. to act in good faith and not to > > lie to myself. > > > Now, that in no way opposes "ecrit a scandale". This French term has > > nothing to do with "feuille-" or "presse a scandale", but denotes > > any writing intending to stir up scandals in order to get more > > publicity, wider public and stronger impact. > > > P.G.Woodehouse writes in "Cocktail Time": > > > -Just as all American publishers hope that if they are good and lead > > upright lives, their books will be banned in Boston, so do all English > > publishers pray that theirs will be denounced from the pulpit by a > > bishop. Full statistics are not to hand, but it is estimated by > > competent judges that a good bishop denouncing from the pulpit with > > the right organ note in his voice, can add between ten and fifteen > > thousand to the sales.- > > > One step higher is to get indicted and risk condemnation for > > slander or defamation. > > > The best example and the most famous "ecrit a scandale" is Zola's > > "J'accuse". He risked prison, but saved Dreyfus from rabid > > anti-Semites. > > > If I get in trouble for defaming Obama, Islamism or the nymphomaniac > > E. Roosevelt, it will be a small price for getting a chance to > > contribute a bit to save Israel and the West from concurrent rabid > > anti-human Islamism. > > > Georges. > > > =================== --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
