Vocaboly.com

[lightbulb]

<rexy@ij.net> wrote in message
news:1110614698.704475.26100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[Charles Riggs]

On 11 Mar 2005 17:56:29 -0800, de781@yahoo.com wrote:

[Charles Riggs]

On 12 Mar 2005 05:22:51 GMT, Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:

[Charles Riggs]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:58:21 -0500, "lightbulb"
<lightbulb@chartermi.net> wrote:

[Guest]

What is why? And what does it matter about the salutes? And what does
it
matter about any of it? It does. The worst slaughter of humanity
occurred because of your socialist philosophy and your apathy in the
socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): 65 million in
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 35 million in the Peoples'
Republic of China, 21 million under the National Socialist German
Workers' Party. That's why you are not about to dispute anything that
I claim.

If you (Mike) want to support or tolerate socialism, fine. You are so
stupid you don't even understand the topic. Socialism has a history of
infamous supporters and a history of solid stupid philosophy. Good for
you, Mike, you believe in something.

Now take it to the next level and add some reason to your beliefs.
Think about why the flag is in front of every school and in classrooms.
It was promoted in an effort by the author of the pledge of
allegiance to nationalize the entire US economy and to have government
take over all schools to create "military socialism" and an "industrial
army" by having children robotically chant in military formation for 12
years on the ring of a government bell, like Pavlov's lapdogs of the
state. That's pure socialist propaganda that serves no true end other
than promoting the socialism that you still defend because you don't
even know its history. The problem for you is that even though you
know that I am right about the saluting bit, it doesn't matter to you
because you have learned to like socialism and don't want it to stop
growing. What points are you supposed to gain by pointing out that you
were duped by socialism and that your want it to keep growing? You'll
only attract other kooks like those that committed the worst slaughter
in world history. If you weren't so duped and apathetic, and with some
enthusiasm and thought, you could be making a difference with regard to
something worthwhile. Get a real cause, dude.

You saw the quote on my site from the guy who won't say the Pledge of
Allegiance because of it horrid history. Your stupid pro-National
socialist attitude shows that you are an idiot who wants to pretend
that the connection is irrelevant. In America, we have a
constitutional obligation to respect others' rights to not have their
lifes and property stolen by socialism. As you said you "don't care if
the Pledge was written by socialists." And you have already conceded
that it was written by Nazis (Nazi being short for National Socialist).
You have never written or spoken the actual name of the monstrous
Party in your life because you are so intellectually dishonest.
you're turning people off with your stupidity. You can browbeat the
uninformed and the intellectually unformed. That's no challenge for
someone like you. Grow up and help
people. If you want to actually stop being a dupe, then take a few
pointers from my website.

You took your socialist shtick to this group post. Great. That's your
right. Now
you're known as a kook to hundreds of people. How can that be healthy
for
your ego? If you want to be a kook and imply that people supporting
national socialism and being an ignoramus is good or anything like
that, you can dry up and blow away. Nobody needs to hear your crap.
You can find government schools in America that have children
robotically chant the socialist pledge in military formation for 12
years on the ring of a government bell, like Pavlov's lapdogs of the
state.

You are so philosophically monstrous that you say "So what if the Nazis
adopted the same salute?" Yet you admit that salute conjures images of
evil now. And it wasn't just the salute, as you know. Your learning
the news about the salute is 60+ years late. Your learning the news
about the origin of the Pledge is approximately 100 years late. Next
you'll announce with your pride and support that the moon is secretly
populated by Nazis (National Socialists) who ran out of American flags,
so you took them some more in '68. Whee. Yours is a pretty stupid
mountain to climb. As my favorite Greek always says, "I'm
double-parked; I don't have time for your shit."

[Carsten Kruse]

lightbulb wrote:

[Mickwick]

In alt.usage.english, Rexy wrote:

[...]

[lightbulb]

"Carsten Kruse" <c-kruse@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:zldaijvkzotx$.7dd1gw8bxyyr$.dlg@40tude.net...

[lightbulb]

<rexy@ij.net> wrote in message
news:1110635783.622910.209440@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

[snipped it all, what else could be done?]

Either quote and respond in a manner that is distinguishable from original
post, or buzz off.

Mike G.

[Guest]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 05:17:02 -0500, Jim Ward
<tomcatpolka@NyOaShPoAoM.com> wrote:

[Guest]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 03:56:46 -0500, "lightbulb"
<lightbulb@chartermi.net> wrote:

[Guest]

Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:17:39 +0000, Mickwick <mickwick@use.reply.to>
wrote:
[-]

[don groves]

In article <d0u2p8$a16$1@pcls4.std.com>, R J Valentine at
rj@TheWorld.com hath writ:

[Donna Richoux]

R J Valentine <rj@TheWorld.com> wrote:

[R J Valentine]

From: R J Valentine <rj@TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: disinteresting [WAS: Salute to the flag of USA was NAZI salute]
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
References: <1110586037.035511.61490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <kEuYd.576$S86.58@fe02.lga> <39fclaF5vnllfU1@individual.net> <vVvYd.2949$9E7.2743@fe03.lga> <jZvYd.1562$qW.389@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> <d0u2p8$a16$1@pcls4.std.com> <1gtby5o.kaym2k805y7yN%trio@euronet.nl>
Organization: TheWorld.com

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:14:52 +0100 Donna Richoux <trio@euronet.nl> wrote:

} R J Valentine <rj@TheWorld.com> wrote:
}
}> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 06:27:27 GMT Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthlink.net> wrote:
}>
}> } lightbulb wrote:
}> }> "Areff" <me@privacy.net> wrote
}> }
}> }>>lightbulb wrote:
}> }>>>Is there an award for Most Disinteresting Post?
}> }
}> }>>Oy!
}> }
}> }> That's proper awardspeak. And "disinteresting" is exactly what I meant.
}> }
}> } It avoids another "I could/couldn't care less" thread.
}>
}> How is that different from Most Uninteresting Post, if that's what it
}> avoids. How does the post make him neutral about a contested issue if
}> not?
}>
}> The question was well-Oy!ed.
}
} Maybe lightbulb knew that "disinteresting" would distract us from the
} previous discussion, and for that reason was exactly what he meant.
}
} I don't think that you can have a disinteresting *anything*, in the
} classical sense. It's not transitive, and it's usually used as an
} adjective -- you can be disinterested, by having no financial stake
} (interest) in an outcome, but you really don't disinterest a thing.
}
} Now, just a month ago I was trying to think of examples of verbs that
} are usually in the "to be Xed" form instead of "to X". Will I remember
} this, next time I need one? I doubt it.
}
} As I said, I'm discussing the classical sense. The merging with
} "uninterested" is probably accepted now, even by conservative
} dictionaries.

Yeah, but did you notice how a well-Oy!ed English usage can bring in even
the eternally disinterested (in the classical sense) Donna Richoux?

--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net>