Krimel said to dmb:
I have tried to take what you have said and respond to the substance of your
remarks as near as I can make it out. I am never sure whether I am talking down
to you or over your head and responses like this one do little to clarify the
mystery. ... If you see no substance in any of the styles I have attempted, I
am at a loss.
dmb replies:
You've tried to respond to the SUBSTANCE of my remarks as near as you can make
them out? So, you're saying that you sincerely and actually think I am
proposing 1) Life without concepts 2) having everyone convert to Buddhism 3)
atoms are decision makers and 4) the Romantic/Classic split is an invitation to
spend your life singing Kumbaya.
That's your best effort to respond to the substance of my remarks? Sorry, but I
find that impossible to believe. There is no way you could be that stupid.
Nobody could be that stupid.
Did you see the debate on the Daily Show wherein one guy insisted the anchors
on Fox were being stupid about the imam behind the Islamic cultural center in
lower Manhattan? The other guy insisted they were not stupid, but evil. The guy
making a case for stupidity said they had to be stupid because if they weren't
then they are just plain evil. The guy making the case for evil said they had
to be evil because if they weren't then they are just plain stupid. It was
funny because it's so true. Turns out the money behind the so-called mosque at
ground zero comes from a Saudi prince who also owns a substantial chunk of
Fox's parent corporation. Rupert Murdoch's business partner is being demonized
on FOX news as a financier of terrorism. Former Bush administration officials
who sat right next to him on the plane with the imam as they traveled around
together doing diplomacy for Bush are now going on FOX news to paint their
former pal as a monster. As I see it, the former Bushies kn
ow better and they are just being evil liars but the "news" anchors on FOX
really are quite stupid. During the daily show bit, for example, they showed
tape of a blonde FOX complaining that somebody had called her an "ignoramus",
the meaning of which she did not know. So she looked it up and read the
definition to the TV audience. Then she mocked the person who called her an
ignoramus for being wrong because, she figured, she was not a lawyer. Somehow,
reading the definition out loud gave her the idea that an "ignoramus" is a
certain kind of lawyer.
Imagine that. A woman so ignorant that she doesn't even know what "ignoramus"
means and even when she looks it up, she still gets it wrong. And this woman is
paid a six-figure salary to inform a national audience! Her attempt to refute
the charge only proved the charge.
I'm not saying you're a blonde news anchor but there are just two plausible
explanations for your behavior.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
