Post a response to this discussion thread
I do not claim that the following is proof of the actual submission of certain posts to this forum; their reproduction is merely intended for referencing for those reading my previous posts in this thread. They have been cut and pasted word-for-word:
Illinois_Stan's post:
J_Smithers_Es-Kodos, hold on there! I know your tentacles are twitching, ready to type a correction concerning the heading of my post. But it's a *joke.* I know its subtlety eludes you; it's really intended for the others in Crankyland. Its aptness should become even more apparent (to them, not to you) after they read the following.
First let me specify that the version of the OED I used is the second edition, copyright 1989. That's the big one, the one with twenty volumes. The third edition isn't due until the year 2010, so I guess we'll have to wait awhile to see if its editors "miss-quoted [sic] a line, or quoted a mistaken use of 'rantings'." Unless you want to do the work of looking up the reference they gave.
Now, on to "literal" matters:
Here's a literal analysis of the word *antisemitic*.
It has an A!!!!
It has an N!!!!
It has a T!!!!
It has an I!!!!
Sometimes at this point it has a hyphen!!!! It has an S!!!!
Some people capitalize this letter, some do not!!!! It has
an E!!!! It has an M!!!! It has another I!!!! It
has another T!!!! It has a third I!!!! It has a C!!!!
That "literal" enough for you?
Oh, wait! You say that that's not what *literal* means? But it *has* to mean that! Here's the etymology (from www.m- w.com):
<quote>
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin litteralis, from Latin, of a letter, from littera letter
<unquote>
But, you protest, *literal* doesn't *literally* mean "by the letter."
In other words, it does not mean what it's etymology would lead one to think it means.
So it is with *antisemitic."
Post in question from Bigot-Boy (alias Sodomite-Boy, alias GenX-Boy, alias Wulfgar):
Still sput-sput-sputtering like an incontinent lawn-mower, I see.
"That's your most shoddy and childish post yet. You even used multiple exclamation marks -- only children learning to write make that mistake."
Izzat so? A "mistake"? Nope-I does it on purposes!!!! Wheeee!!!! I likes them thar exclamation pontses, Cletus!!!!!
"I'm not going to bother to correct your other grammatical mistakes, which are too numerous to catalogue."
Since you aren't even qualified to tie your own shoes, I find it hard to believe that you have the wit to "correct" anything, especially the non-existent "mistakes" that you allege.
"It would be hard to find a sentence with more than four mistakes in it anyway; I think you beat your record with that one."
Non sequitur.
"But it is nice to be able to take credit for teaching you how to use a dash."
Non sequitur again-no one could learn anything from you-indeed, one could learn more from a tube-worm.
"On to other things closer to my heart (your mind, predictably, has raced ahead to invent an ingenious comeback about how I could only talk metaphorically about having a heart)."
No. Everyone has a heart-except for plants, viruses, bacilli and Spawn of Yog-Sothoth...which of those are you? I'm holding out for a semi-sentient strain of slithering, tentacled Ebola, myself...
"First, any dictionary definition will tell you that a Palestinian Arab is one especially now living in Israel or Israeli-occupied territory. This is not an "artificial construct", it is a distinct peoples with a distinct identity."
Really? I find no entries for "Palestinian Arab". Under "Palestinian", I find THIS:
Main Entry: Pal·es·tine
Pronunciation: 'pa-l&-"stIn
Variant(s): or Latin Pal·aes·ti·na /"pa-l&-'stE-n&, -'stI-/
Usage: geographical name
1 ancient region SW Asia bordering on E coast of the
Mediterranean & extending E of Jordan River
2 former country bordering on the Mediterranean on W &
Dead Sea on E; a part of the Ottoman Empire 1516-1917, a
British mandate 1923-48; now divided between Israel &
Jordan with Arab Palestinians in the West Bank having
limited self-rule since 1993
- Pal·es·tin·ian /"pa-l&-'sti-nE-&n, -ny&n/ adjective or
noun
"If anything, I'm sure most people indigenous to the Arab countries in the Middle East would tell you that there is no such thing as "Arabs", only Iraqis, or Iranians, or..."
Uh-huh. And your evidence for THAT statement is...what? Oh, you pulled that out of your ass? Thought so.
BTW, Iranians aren't Arabs in any sense of the term. They're Persians. Different ethnicity and languages. That's almost like calling Turks Arabs. A common mistake for the uneducated to make. There's an assumption on the part of many that all followers of Islam are Arabs. That's like saying that all Catholics are Italians, or all Soviet citizens were Communists, or all Albanians like watermelon and fried chicken...
"Being someone who is always in a natural state of ill-informed bias, you took the side of Israel for the most simplistic and nonsensical reasons. I have already addressed these in the Lost Souls forum."
You have addressed nothing; you make cries of "Up the revolt!" (along, nonsensically, with claims of being a "Zionist"-how odd...), while conveniently ignoring the historical record. The fact is, the Brits fucked up, when they promised "Palestine" to both the Jews and their Arab allies. They divided the area between Israel and Transjordan (now Jordan) in an attempt to rectify that error, but the Arabs wanted none of that-all or nothing. As a consequence, all of their wars of aggression against Israel have met with resounding, bloody, and (for them) dick-shrivelingly embarrassing defeat.
It is interesting to see that the "Palestinians" are hardly treated any better by their Arab brethren than they are by the Israelis; kept in refugee camps and treated like dirt, used as pawns in the greater Arab plan to wipe out Israel...
"What I find most infuriating about your feckless handling of such a sad and serious matter, however, is you insistence on ignoring previously stated facts and then bringing your ill-informed arguments full circle."
What's sad is that you are using the situation to display your anti-Semitism, Racist-Boy. BTW, the word is "your", as in "your insistance"..
*"…but who's throwing the rocks and firebombs, inviting a violent response?"*
"As the facts bear out, and as I and others have already stated, it is Sharon who must bear the blame for sparking this recent conflict and "inviting a violent response". I suggest you read the letter below and set yourself straight about the facts."
Oh, you mean when Sharon went to visit The Temple Mount, ONE OF THE SINGLE MOST HOLY SITES IN THE JEWISH FAITH?!? You mean to say that Jews should not be allowed access to their Holy Places, just because someone else has built a mosque or two there? The Israelis have never, to my knowledge, denied the Islamic residents of Israel access to their own holy places, and I challenge you to produce credible evidence otherwise.
*"…there are PLENTY of the bastards armed with AK-47s, gunning for Israeli blood. They don't want 'peace', Baby, they want the deaths of every Jew in Israel."*
"That's your prejudice talking again Bigot-Boy. What they want is there own homeland, just like the Israelis."
Uh, no, that's the stated desire of the "Palestinians" and their Arab allies. Look it up, mush-for-brains. And what about Jordan? Shouldn't that word be "their"?
"And your euphemism describing the Israeli's excessive use of force (even the UN has declaimed it) as "trying to keep order" is sick-making at best, if not criminally stupid."
My "euphemism"? Gee, when you have assholes throwing rocks and fire-bombs, shooting off AK-47s, rioting in the streets and murdering police, what do you do? This isn't peaceful sign-waving, this is a bloody war-and the Israelis are trying to contain things. Again, if they so desired, they could execute every "Palestinian" in Israel. However, they do not do that. They attempt to find other resolutions.
BTW, here's what "declaim" means:
Main Entry: de·claim
Pronunciation: di-'klAm, dE-
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English declamen, from Latin declamare, from de- + clamare to cry out; akin to Latin calare to call -- more at LOW
Date: 14th century
intransitive senses
1 : to speak rhetorically; specifically : to recite something as an exercise in elocution
2 : to speak pompously or bombastically : HARANGUE
transitive senses : to deliver rhetorically; specifically : to recite in elocution
- de·claim·er noun
- dec·la·ma·tion /"de-kl&-'mA-sh&n/ noun
So if you mean that the UN has talked about the situation in a long-winded and ultimately pointless manner, then, by gum, you've got it!!!
"Finally, I'll leave you with this astute letter published recently in the SCM Post, regarding the clashes. Perhaps, in actually learning some of the facts of the situation, you may pause to think next time instead of firing off that hate-spewing mouth of yours."
The SCM Post? WTF is that? I note that you don't provide a URL. What are you hiding? And, of course, the letter-writer doesn't have an agenda, no, they are writing from a position of stainless purity...*snicker*
"The temperature gauge in this turkey just popped; yep, he's done."
Don't try to make clever quips, Slithers; they fall flatter than a botched souffle`. Besides, it's merely an attempt to ape my style...which is a compliment, after a fashion, I realize, but you do it so ineptly and inelegantly. You have no sense of rhythm, meter, or tone. You just aren't terribly good at it, I'm afraid.
"Letter:
The violence was incited by the visit of the leader of the Likud Party, Ariel Sharon, to Al-Haram Al-Sharif, a sacred place for Muslims. "
Which, as previously mentioned, is located on The Temple Mount, one of the most holy, if not the holiest, sites of the Jewish faith.
"Such a visit was aimed at demonstrating Israel's "sovereignty" over Jerusalem."
Ah, if only we were all mind-readers to the extent that this letter-writer is!
"Such sovereignty is rejected by the international community, as can be seen in the UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 which stated that Israel should withdraw from Palestinian territories which it occupied during the 1967 war, including East Jerusalem."
Actually, Israel occupies areas taken, in part, from JORDAN, which, with its allies, attempted to conquer Israel in the 1967 war. They lost, Israel won. Get over it.
"As for the recent events, the UN Security Council has condemned Israel's use of "excessive force" against the Palestinian civilians which includes the use of automatic weapons helicopters, tanks and rockets."
The UN Security Council sometimes reminds me of a grand jury-you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich...the same "Palestinian" civilians that were firing AK-47s, hurling rocks and fire-bombs?
"Such excessive use of force, almost unheard of in the suppression of demonstrations has led to the death of more than 100 Palestinians and is the main reason for the escalation of violence."
When people are "demonstrating" with signs and slogans, perhaps; when they are attacking you with intent to harm or kill, that's another matter entirely. Let's leave out that rocks can and do kill, that there are fire-bombs and AK-47 rounds being lobbed at Israeli police and soldiers; unlike UN troops, the Israelis SHOOT BACK. Boo-hoo-hoo.
"Some Israeli analysts doubt the sacredness of Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, as there is a similar tomb in Hebron in the Cave of Patriarchs."
Really? I say "produce some evidence, then".
"Moreover, the Palestinian Authority condemned the attack on Joseph's Tomb and promised to restore this site as soon as possible. On the other hand, Jewish settlers and the Israeli Army have destroyed several hundred mosques since the establishment of the state of Israel, without a single apology from Israel."
Uh-huh.
"During the recent events, a 200-year-old mosque was destroyed by Jewish settlers."
So, two wrongs make a right? This hardly seems logical or reasonable.
"The two Israeli soldiers who were killed in a police station, died after 10 days of violence."
Yup, violence instigated by "Palestinians" after using the flimsy excuse that Sharon, by going to one of Judaism's sacred sites, was "defiling" or somehow threatening the "sacredness" of mosques built to, among other reasons, mock the sacredness of the site to Jews.
"During the same period, 90 Palestinians were killed by Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers."
Yeah, and? When you throw rocks and fire-bombs and shoot at people, you really can't cry when they shoot back.
"About 15 Palestinian policemen were injured while trying to defend those two Israeli soldiers, at a time when Palestinian civilians were being killed by the Israeli Army."
So, you mean they were doing their JOBS, while other "Palestinians" were throwing rocks, fire- bombs, and shooting at people because a Jewish man went to visit a most sacred Jewish holy site? Obviously, their lives meant more than their duties-I'd almost wager that they were "injured" while trying to get out of the way of their murdering brethren.
"According to international law, the Palestinian people have the absolute right to defend themselves against Israel which has no right to be on their land and which shows no respect for human rights especially the Palestinians' right of self-determination."
What of Israel's right to exist in peace? And what elements of international law apply? I'd like to see some specifics on this point, not merely a pro-Palestinian tract. So far this letter is not much more than unsupported propaganda (note, Slithers, how it is spelled correctly).
"There will be no peace without justice."
And justice is achieved via mob violence and terrorism?
"The only way to achieve peace is through the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The mere fact that Israel has not yet implemented the two resolutions, after 30 years, shows clearly who is responsible for the escalation of violence in the Middle East."
I suppose that the fact that Israel has been, since it's inception, fighting wars against aggressors and terrorists whose stated purpose has always been to "drive the Jews into the sea" has nothing to do with anything. If these aggressors lose some territory because they made unrighteous wars, boo-fucking-hoo.
[U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242
NOVEMBER 22, 1967
Following the June '67, Six-Day War, the situation in the Middle East was discussed by the UN General Assembly, which referred the issue to the Security Council. After lengthy discussion, a final draft for a Security Council resolution was presented by the British Ambassador, Lord Caradon, on November 22, 1967. It was adopted on the same day.
This resolution, numbered 242, established provisions and principles which, it was hoped, would lead to a solution of the conflict. Resolution 242 was to become the cornerstone of Middle East diplomatic efforts in the coming decades.
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1.Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2.Affirms further the necessity
For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3.Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4.Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 338
October 22, 1973
In the later stages of the Yom Kippur War -- after Israel repulsed the Syrian attack on the Golan Heights and established a bridgehead on the Egyptian side of the Suez Canal -- international efforts to stop the fighting were intensified. US Secretary of State Kissinger flew to Moscow on October 20, and, together with the Soviet Government, the US proposed a cease-fire resolution in the UN Security Council. The Council met on 21 October at the urgent request of both the US and the USSR, and by 14 votes to none, adopted the following resolution:
The Security Council,
1.Calls upon all parties to present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy;
2.Calls upon all parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;
3.Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.]
Sounds like Israel isn't the only one that needs to abide by these two resolutions, doesn't it? And were Israel to abide by them, history has shown that the Arab nations would smile, and descend upon them murderously.
"Have you noticed that when someone finds himself in a losing argument"
Who's losing? It certainly isn't me, sweetie.
" backed into a corner, he becomes frustrated and angry and often starts to shout?"
Yeah, I've seen that-it's not pretty. When are you going to stop doing it?
I see what you're trying to get at, sweetie. Here's the skinny-if I'm "shouting", I usually make liberal use of exclamation points.
"Bigot-Boy, a psychologist's wet dream and a study in insecurity does just this in his last post, using the all-cap's key to vent his tortured ego."
Nope; I will (as any who have bothered to READ any of my posts) defy the Internet conventions about all-caps (correct version-no apostrophe; BTW, you lost another comma, there, Binkie) in order to emphasize a word or statement.
BTW, I note that your alleged disdain for "name-calling" does not include yourself, Racist-Boy. Nice, that. And thanks for showing how much that you secretly idolize me by ripping off my style. I can feel the love from here.
"Interesting isn't it?"
"Interesting" in the sense that "It's 'interesting' how Slithers is wrong again...as usual."
This you addressed to my new buddy, Illinois_Stan:
"Regarding your last haughty post: my my, we are eager to prove our intellect, aren't we? You'll have to try much harder. I would say that it is a simple matter of using your brain, but then I am addressing you.
Obviously, your edition of the OED has miss-quoted a line, or quoted a mistaken use of "rantings". Even OED editors make mistakes. There is no plural form in any of several editions (OED and others) I have checked, and none of them include your example; there shouldn't be: "rantings" is nonsensical, just as "wildly extravagant talkings" would be."
Uh-uh, honey-you don't get to accept the dictionary definitions when they support you, and discard them when they don't. Although I kinda hope that Stan just made it up to sweat a poseur like you into running around looking it up.
So nice doing business with you, Racist-Boy. Run along, now, that's a good sub-human sub-literate Lovecraftian genetic mistake(pats Slithers on his scaly head from within the safe confines of an armored Haz-Mat suit whilst holding it at bay with an Elder Sign)...
Post a response to this discussion thread