The Famous Statue Topple

[myfiles3000]

see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...article2842.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/images/CHALIB~1.gif

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@12 April 2003 - 12:43
see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...article2842.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm)

I'm sorry...I fail to see your point.

Are you saying we only picked out people who were against Saddam, to be there?

Or are you saying we only allowed 150 people into the square?

I see quite a crowd to the upper left in that picture.

What are they doing?

How long had the statue been down when this picture was taken.

Pulling that statue down could have been quite dangerous if we had just allowed anyone into the square.

Can you please elaborate.

Maybe if we could speak to the photographer who took this picture. He could surely shed some light on what we are seeing there.

Thanks though.

Its a good long distance shot of the scene.

Peace

[kAb]

i also don't see your point.

if they HAD allowed all iraqis in, it would be chaos and a suicide bomber's paridise.

[j2k4]

It warms the cockles of my heart to see this anti-U.S. spin questioned.

[ne1GotZardoz]

It occured to me that I said "upper left" when I meant upper right.

BTW...What are cockles?

[myfiles3000]

Do you think that its *possible* that people from the pentagon, state department, DoD, various armed forces, etc, were actively involved in the preparation of the event? Do you doubt that in a world of live-via-satellite and internet reporting, and where public opinion both domestically and abroad has such enormous consequences, that the occupying force wouldn't consider putting on a little show -- which just happened to be across the street from a hotel that housed hundreds of foreign journalists -- in order to lend some credibility to OEF?

I get the feeling that you perhaps haven't studied history or political science, or state use of mass media during armed conflict.

If i may, I offer the following bit of wisdom: there's a fine line between patriotic and naive.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@12 April 2003 - 17:18
Do you think that its *possible* that people from the pentagon, state department, DoD, various armed forces, etc, were actively involved in the preparation of the event? Do you doubt that in a world of live-via-satellite and internet reporting, and where public opinion both domestically and abroad has such enormous consequences, that the occupying force wouldn't consider putting on a little show -- which just happened to be across the street from a hotel that housed hundreds of foreign journalists -- in order to lend some credibility to OEF?

I get the feeling that you perhaps haven't studied history or political science, or state use of mass media during armed conflict.

If i may, I offer the following bit of wisdom: there's a fine line between patriotic and naive.
Ok...I get it.

You're saying that the US did what any other country would do.

Ok...I'm still confused...

If you know that its something that any country would do, then you must also know that most everyone knows that its something any country would do in that situation.

If you don't know that, then I'm afraid YOU are the one who is being naive.

But thats all speculation on your part anyway.

None of those picture have any connection to a specific moment in time, and only one of them have a connection to a specific place.

I could put any number of captions to them that would be just as valid based on the limited information the pictures alone give.

Agreed though, it is possible that your supposition is correct.

It is also possible that the picture showing the crowd around the statue was taken after a great number of the citizens left.

And the lower right picture of Chalabi could have been taken in Paris for all I know.

Peace

[Spindulik]

Manipulated or not. It happened on live TV.

I fail to see much in manipulation. The statue has been there, the people are from there. The camera man is just there. The army helped the people do what they wanted.

The news media clearly says that this statue event is a psycological tactic that will have an impact on the people's view that Sadam's regime is over. So yes, this is manipulation in that respect.

I think they should have manipulated it more, for the safety of the people. There were clearly dozens of "OSHA violations" at that scene, if it were a regular construction jobsite in the USA.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by Spindulik@13 April 2003 - 00:09

I think they should have manipulated it more, for the safety of the people. There were clearly dozens of "OHSA violations" at that scene, if it were a regular construction jobsite in the USA.
You spelled 'OSHA' wrong.


You're right otherwise of course.

Not that it'll matter to myfiles3000. He knows the truth of what happened.

He just wants to confuse the issue with everyone else.


I think he has Alqaeda ties...Yeah...Thats the ticket.


Him and a few other Alqaeda sympathizers on here.


Trying to manipulate what we see on TV to mean something entirely different.

Hmmm...I probably shouldn't do that. He has just as much right to missrepresent the information as the next guy. What IS the law on that?

Peace

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz+13 April 2003 - 12:55--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 13 April 2003 - 12:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Spindulik@13 April 2003 - 00:09

I think they should have manipulated it more, for the safety of the people. There were clearly dozens of "OHSA violations" at that scene, if it were a regular construction jobsite in the USA.
You spelled &#39;OSHA&#39; wrong.


You&#39;re right otherwise of course.

Not that it&#39;ll matter to myfiles3000. He knows the truth of what happened.

He just wants to confuse the issue with everyone else.


I think he has Alqaeda ties...Yeah...Thats the ticket.


Him and a few other Alqaeda sympathizers on here.


Trying to manipulate what we see on TV to mean something entirely different.

Hmmm...I probably shouldn&#39;t do that. He has just as much right to missrepresent the information as the next guy. What IS the law on that?

Peace [/b][/quote]
Erm.....Al-Queada were the US allies in this event, so i doubt it.

Or at least I assume so, as all their training grounds are in the area controlled by, and the people that hid them from Saddam Hussain were, the Kurdish Militia.

The Kurdish Militia that were fighting with the USA in Northern Iraq....


Like I said before elsewhere:

Anyone remember that great US sitcom "SOAP"?



I agree though, you have to question the report that started the whole thread. Just as you have to question anything you read anywhere these days.

[myfiles3000]

Don&#39;t have time to respond now, but you might be interested in this Australian ABC piece on Fox and Al-Jazeera war coverage.

Fox v. Al Jazeera (http://www.abc.net.au/broadbandnews/ram/news.ram)

NE1, just a matter of time before the specious link between Al Qaida and Iraq was made. what are you thinking?

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@13 April 2003 - 18:28
Don&#39;t have time to respond now, but you might be interested in this Australian ABC piece on Fox and Al-Jazeera war coverage.

Fox v. Al Jazeera (http://www.abc.net.au/broadbandnews/ram/news.ram)

NE1, just a matter of time before the specious link between Al Qaida and Iraq was made. what are you thinking?
Dircet Links of that nature are against the board rules i think....

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@13 April 2003 - 12:09
Erm.....Al-Queada were the US allies in this event, so i doubt it.

Or at least I assume so, as all their training grounds are in the area controlled by, and the people that hid them from Saddam Hussain were, the Kurdish Militia.

The Kurdish Militia that were fighting with the USA in Northern Iraq....


Like I said before elsewhere:

Anyone remember that great US sitcom "SOAP"?

That would be interesting, considering that one of the many reasons we wanted to take down Saddam was due to his possible funding of Alqaeda operations.

Alqaeda, as it is known today, was never on the US side.

They have their own agenda which is mainly about terrorism for profit.

That we once had ties with them is not to say they were the same organization that they have become over time.

And...That we once had ties with them is not an excuse for siding with them today.

Their motives have changed. All their noble pursuits to protect the Muslim community have become destorted
by their need to maintain power.

Without checks and balances, they have become the proverbial Beast.

Thats what happens when the people have no control over their king. In the case of Al Qaeda, Ben Ladin.
In the case of Iraq, Saddam.

If it ever was time to change the rules in the Middle East, its time now.

Peace

[myfiles3000]

NE1, i don&#39;t see your point. First of all, saddam was a state dictator, imposing rule top-down within a sovereign state. OBL is the leader of a grass-roots terrorist organization of voluntary membership. I don&#39;t see any substantial similarity between the two forms of leadership or organization. However, I agree with you that checks and balances are needed, and that&#39;s why Shrub&#39;s rejection of UN protocol is so deplored by the majority of world opinion. as for not being being able to control your king, well, consider the following quote:

"The irony of a man who lost an election and won a court case "installing" democracy in the Arab world is not lost on many. Not least because if we had anything like representative democracies in the west he would be in no position to do so."

Gary Younge
Monday March 10, 2003
The Guardian
.........
Their motives have changed. All their noble pursuits to protect the Muslim community have become destorted
by their need to maintain power.

Without checks and balances, they have become the proverbial Beast.

Thats what happens when the people have no control over their king. In the case of Al Qaeda, Ben Ladin.
In the case of Iraq, Saddam.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@12 April 2003 - 17:18
Do you think that its *possible* that people from the pentagon, state department, DoD, various armed forces, etc, were actively involved in the preparation of the event? Do you doubt that in a world of live-via-satellite and internet reporting, and where public opinion both domestically and abroad has such enormous consequences, that the occupying force wouldn&#39;t consider putting on a little show -- which just happened to be across the street from a hotel that housed hundreds of foreign journalists -- in order to lend some credibility to OEF?

I get the feeling that you perhaps haven&#39;t studied history or political science, or state use of mass media during armed conflict.

If i may, I offer the following bit of wisdom: there&#39;s a fine line between patriotic and naive.
Yes, it was SO thoughtful of Saddam to place the statue thusly. He always claimed to have great foresight.

[myfiles3000]

j2k4, i realize English might not be your first language as this is an international community, but please try to follow the discussion more carefully. this thread concerns possible US activities to win the battle for public opinion, so I&#39;m not sure how you misconstrued the discussion as suggesting that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the Fardus Square incident. But to clarify: no, I&#39;m not suggesting that the enemy of the US is lending a hand in the US propaganda campaign. I&#39;m happy to clarify offline if you like.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@13 April 2003 - 20:01
j2k4, i realize English might not be your first language as this is an international community, but please try to follow the discussion more carefully. this thread concerns possible US activities to win the battle for public opinion, so I&#39;m not sure how you misconstrued the discussion as suggesting that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the Fardus Square incident. But to clarify: no, I&#39;m not suggesting that the enemy of the US is lending a hand in the US propaganda campaign. I&#39;m happy to clarify offline if you like.
I considered resisting this urge, but to my own delight, I have failed. How could YOU fail to recognize excellent American satire, as practiced by a decorated practitioner of English (that would be me)?
I will elaborate:
Many in this admittedly International forum attribute none but the worst intentions to the U.S. (again, that would be me), including the utilization of spin and propaganda at every opportunity, while also portraying us as crude and lacking in subtlety: incapable of nuance.
Since you are absolutely correct in this conclusion, I, as a proud defender of all things American (including our lack of subtlety), was merely assaying an opening wherein a bit of irony might be utilized to further our perception as louts.
I did this by pointing out (watch for it now) how Saddam, in his all-encompassing wisdom and prescience saw his way clear to erect said statue in such convenient proximity to short-term lodging that, in the case of war, would surely be peopled by a much larger than usual group of international journalists&#33;

Spiro Agnew, a spectacularly corrupt American of years past, had, in any case, a degree of eloquence -he used a phrase once I feel I must reproduce here, as it describes you to a tee: You, sir, are a "nattering nabob of negativism".
Yes, Yes-PERFECT&#33;&#33;&#33;

[clocker]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@14 April 2003 - 02:01
j2k4, i realize English might not be your first language as this is an international community
I think Latin is actually his first language, but I would urge caution in any case...

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by j2k4+13 April 2003 - 20:40--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 April 2003 - 20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--myfiles3000@13 April 2003 - 20:01
j2k4, i realize English might not be your first language as this is an international community, but please try to follow the discussion more carefully. this thread concerns possible US activities to win the battle for public opinion, so I&#39;m not sure how you misconstrued the discussion as suggesting that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the Fardus Square incident. But to clarify: no, I&#39;m not suggesting that the enemy of the US is lending a hand in the US propaganda campaign. I&#39;m happy to clarify offline if you like.
I considered resisting this urge, but to my own delight, I have failed. How could YOU fail to recognize excellent American satire, as practiced by a decorated practitioner of English (that would be me)?
I will elaborate:
Many in this admittedly International forum attribute none but the worst intentions to the U.S. (again, that would be me), including the utilization of spin and propaganda at every opportunity, while also portraying us as crude and lacking in subtlety: incapable of nuance.
Since you are absolutely correct in this conclusion, I, as a proud defender of all things American (including our lack of subtlety), was merely assaying an opening wherein a bit of irony might be utilized to further our perception as louts.
I did this by pointing out (watch for it now) how Saddam, in his all-encompassing wisdom and prescience saw his way clear to erect said statue in such convenient proximity to short-term lodging that, in the case of war, would surely be peopled by a much larger than usual group of international journalists&#33;

Spiro Agnew, a spectacularly corrupt American of years past, had, in any case, a degree of eloquence -he used a phrase once I feel I must reproduce here, as it describes you to a tee: You, sir, are a "nattering nabob of negativism".
Yes, Yes-PERFECT&#33;&#33;&#33; [/b][/quote]
J2k4,

You&#39;re RIGHT&#33;&#33;&#33;


Why didn&#39;t I see that before??

Myfiles...I know you&#39;re a bit slow, so I&#39;ll translate J2k4&#39;s amazing insight into my best attempt atMiddle Eastern English for your benefit.

Saddam put statue in square next to hotel where news peoples stay, so when regime fall down, go boom, US must to bringing that statue down as all other statues were, and then you can make big deal over how american propaganda machine is making big deal over small thing.


Is that true?

Saddam&#39;s thing is small?

No wonder he had doubles.

Hmmm...Lets see now...4 doubles...How many wives again?

Peace

[ne1GotZardoz]

Has anyone noticed that myfiles3000 seems to have a problem quoting text?

Must be me.

Peace

:rolleyes:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@13 April 2003 - 21:55
Has anyone noticed that myfiles3000 seems to have a problem quoting text?

Must be me.

Peace

:rolleyes:
I noticed; it&#39;s not just you. :P

I wonder where myfiles3000 went?

I hope he/she doesn&#39;t think ill of me, or that I am an "ugly" American.

I hope he/she doesn&#39;t feel I was mis-leading him/her?

Well? Was I? :huh:

[myfiles3000]

NE1, yes i have a problem quoting -- and yet, somehow, i brave the world with chin raised high, determined to have my say, even if people judge me on the format of my postings, not the content. The good lord gives me the strenth to go on, one day at a time. I&#39;m still waiting for an explanation on the AQ/Iraq theme your were foisting earlier today, but so far you&#39;ve only managed to parakeet j2k4&#39;s postings, criticize me for not having aesthetically pleasing posts, and mimick, in fashion most juvenile, "Middle Eastern English."

j2k4: my reputation as a gentleman would be unfounded if I weren&#39;t to concede that I may have taken your comments at face value, and thereby underestimated your intellect. But I hardly think you know me well enough to describe me to a tee. I&#39;m not that easy.

Agnew? you mean Dick&#39;s lapdog? didn&#39;t he used to talk about an unelected elite that ran American media counter to majority views? hmmmmm.....

[myfiles3000]

I&#39;m sorry if i came on a little strong, I have a tendency to intimidate people. I&#39;ll tone it down a little if it would make you feel more comfortable.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@14 April 2003 - 06:16
I&#39;m sorry if i came on a little strong, I have a tendency to intimidate people. I&#39;ll tone it down a little if it would make you feel more comfortable.
Intimidate? Nah-

I wasn&#39;t criticizing you, but you have to admit, &#39;twas YOU who were guilty of not reading adequately.
I do take issue with your characterization of the statue-toppling event; the number of "attendees" is always subject to the focal settings of the camera and also to the intent of it&#39;s operator. The picture you chose seemed to rather fortuitously fit your pre-supposition of propaganda.
In any case, neither the picture nor your supposition proves anything as they don&#39;t rise to the level of documentation. I feel your post was merely an attempt to provoke, and provoke it did; you just didn&#39;t get the reaction you wanted, at least from me.

Personally, I think the money we gave those actors was very well-spent. :lol:

P.S. I have to admit-I WAS making fun of you, just a bit, anyway. Sorry-

P.P.S. I am a gentleman, too. I wasn&#39;t trying to describe you, only your posts-I apologize for the mis-understanding there.
You&#39;re right about Spiro, of course, but he shore cud tawk prittee.

[Barbarossa]

If it was staged as a publicity stunt I thought it was very badly orchestrated, what with the draping the face with the stars and stripes which was hastily taken down, then the fact that it took ages to pull it down, and even then it more slid down rather than crashed down.


It would have been a much more effective demonstration (and much better telly) if they&#39;d have blown the crap out of it with a bazooka... :P

The first bloke who ran up and smacked him over the head with his shoe though, that was absolute class&#33; :D :D

[j2k4]

Originally posted by barbarossa@14 April 2003 - 09:44
The first bloke who ran up and smacked him over the head with his shoe though, that was absolute class! :D :D
It was, at that; you must never forget, though, Barbarossa, only ONE "Iraqi" was doing the hitting-it would probably be advisable to review the tape AND the hitter's technique so as to ascertain, and thereby certify, the truth of his "Iraqiness". I've heard he may have been Israeli. Honest. I read a "link"... :ph34r: :ph34r:

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by j2k4@14 April 2003 - 14:47
In any case, neither the picture nor your supposition proves anything as they don&#39;t rise to the level of documentation.
Documentation, you say? Like, the falsified British intelligence report Powell referred to in making his case against Saddam in front of the whole world? The documentation purporting to be secret British intelligence, that pasted entire excerpts verbatim without citing the source from a 10 year old grad paper? Or perhaps you prefer the type of documentation referred to by the Pentagon, alleging Iraqi purchase of &#39;yellow cake&#39; from a certain african nation, which turned out to be such an embarrassingly inept forgery that it was rejected by the UN atomic agency as soon as they saw it.

As for the flag draped on the statue, one curious fact: it&#39;s was flying at the pentagon on 9/11. The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 is conveniently overlooked. They&#39;re all brown anyway, all arabs, close enough.

[j2k4]

(SIGH)

Once again, now.
The pointlessness of absolute reliance on ANY "news source", or "link", should be apparent to EVERYBODY.
Anybody who doesn&#39;t use their own DISCRETION when gleaning info from WHEREVER is bound to leap to the wrong conclusion.
Those who engage in "conspiracy" theory are also engaging in useless activity. To proffer a "picture" (especially one with no exact chronological context) as indicative of ANYTHING is MIS-LEADING and of no greater import than the most egregious propaganda.
This is the activity of the judgementally impaired.

myfiles3000-If you must insist that you were right in your original post, then I must insist that you are lost to reason.

To post in such a way indicates a fundamental dishonesty.

[myfiles3000]

Now its my time to sigh in exasperation.

SIGH.

the "conspiracy theory" label, always an effortless way to discredit someone.

All i&#39;m saying is this: since the rise of mass media, semiotics plays a huge role in the popular understanding of world events. every war has its images, moments, that come to define the conflict, and are loaded with biases that aren&#39;t properly understood. ne1GotZardoz, in saying that everyone knows that everyone uses propaganda and I would be naive to think otherwise, doesn&#39;t realize the contradiction of his statement -- like advertising, it wouldn&#39;t be used if it didn&#39;t work, and propaganda can&#39;t work if everyone is fully conscious of what&#39;s going on.

There&#39;s been a lot of talk in the past week comparing Fardus Square with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the statue footage has been heavily relied on as implicit justification of the invasion of Iraq, particularly as the WMD have still yet to be found -- "well, even if there aren&#39;t any WMD--and we&#39;re not saying there&#39;s not--we&#39;re still justified because look at all these people that hated saddam."

But the two events have nothing in common, the fall of the wall was a true popular uprising, a true *reflection* of events (media as mirror). The photo (from Reuters) paints a different picture: not a huge crowd of people, not a spontaneous, organic expression of the masses, but a carefully managed PR event with as much fidelity with the truth as the average ad. A creation.

I never counselled &#39;absolute reliance&#39; on anything. the photo adds a different perspective to the story than is normally told, and is worthy of consideration. that is has no "exact chrono context", well, what were you expecting, a time stamp? big ben in the background? to denounce the photo in such stark, binary terms seems unreasonable to me. This is after all, war.

j2k4, if you&#39;re going to suggest i&#39;m "fundamentally dishonest, and lost to reason," you&#39;re going to have to do better than that. Please, explain it to me like i&#39;m a 3 year old, what makes my original post so objectionable? Where i come from, the free exchange of information meeting a certain threshold of credibility -- certainly the case with this photo -- is encouraged, not denounced. Marketplace of ideas, etc.

[ClubDiggler]

Hmmm Interesting debate.

It seems to me that if one must read between the lines regarding
the media; one must also do the same regarding this post and other
sources of information. Skepticism goes both ways.

Anyway I do find it plausible that this one event might be at least
partly orchestrated by the U.S. (Perhaps not in its entirety)

There is no way to tell how many, if any individuals performing the ritual
were members of Mr. Ahmed Chalabi. Also the pictures of Chalabi shown
do not specificaly place him at the scene. Maybe other pictures may show more
clearly his surroundings. It does not matter anyway.

That particular incident is not the only one shown where Iraqis demonstrate hapiness
and gratitude towards coalition forces.

Amongst the many media displays, I particularly remember an old man beating a poster
of Saddam using his shoe and talking about how Saddam killed his sons.

I do find it possible to believe that the US may have something to do with some theatrics.

I certainly do not find it possible to believe that the US has orchestrated every single display of
gratitude and happines seen from the Iraqi people.

If this is true; I think Hollywood just found a wonderful source of talent&#33;

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by ClubDiggler@15 April 2003 - 00:15
I certainly do not find it possible to believe that the US has orchestrated every single display of
gratitude and happines seen from the Iraqi people.
agreed. that would be your run of the mill paranoid schizophrenic off the meds and covered in foil. I haven&#39;t been like that in months.

ps - i just want the person who&#39;s been trying to hack into my computer since i posted anti-american ideas on this board to know that I&#39;m on to you. And I&#39;m currently in discussion with a certain foreign power that&#39;s very interested in your activities, and who you work for, and all I&#39;m going to say is this time you went too far.

[hobbes]

Yeah, I think the US has a monopoly on propaganda and we ALL misjudged Saddam.

I mean, in his video release he was just casually strolling down the streets of Baghdad, giving a shout out to his homies, while black smoke billowed in the backround. People spontaneously surrounded him, declaring their love and he proceded to KISS A FRIGGIN&#39; BABY&#33;.

That was not staged, that was real&#33; Got any aerial photos of that session. Hell, drop back 20 feet and you would see the cue cards, see the man releasing the doves of freedom from their cages, to fly over his head.

I heard that when the stautue of Saddam fell and cracked in half, candy poured out of the center as Saddam is so sweet on the inside. This was editted out by Western conspirators.

I actually analyized the footage from the statue scene. IF you use the right filter, you can see that the burly Iraqi pounding on the base with a sledgehammer, is no more than Donald Rumsfeld in a specially designed robot.

Open you eyes America, Iraq loves Saddam, and we are no where, we are snake&#33;

In fact, we do this ALL for Israel. Have you guys be catching all this anti-semitism (sp) from DiogenesUK and Fallenknight308 (who provides a nice link). I love it, what twisted paranoids they are.

[ClubDiggler]

hobbes,

That was some awesome stuff you wrote.
In all seriousness, people really like to write some great conspiracy stories. Those
are the best. Hey, really you should pass some of that material to Clancey or Demille.
I think they are running out of fresh ideas lately. B)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@14 April 2003 - 13:30
Now its my time to sigh in exasperation.

SIGH.

the "conspiracy theory" label, always an effortless way to discredit someone.

All i&#39;m saying is this: since the rise of mass media, semiotics plays a huge role in the popular understanding of world events. every war has its images, moments, that come to define the conflict, and are loaded with biases that aren&#39;t properly understood. ne1GotZardoz, in saying that everyone knows that everyone uses propaganda and I would be naive to think otherwise, doesn&#39;t realize the contradiction of his statement -- like advertising, it wouldn&#39;t be used if it didn&#39;t work, and propaganda can&#39;t work if everyone is fully conscious of what&#39;s going on.

There&#39;s been a lot of talk in the past week comparing Fardus Square with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the statue footage has been heavily relied on as implicit justification of the invasion of Iraq, particularly as the WMD have still yet to be found -- "well, even if there aren&#39;t any WMD--and we&#39;re not saying there&#39;s not--we&#39;re still justified because look at all these people that hated saddam."

But the two events have nothing in common, the fall of the wall was a true popular uprising, a true *reflection* of events (media as mirror). The photo (from Reuters) paints a different picture: not a huge crowd of people, not a spontaneous, organic expression of the masses, but a carefully managed PR event with as much fidelity with the truth as the average ad. A creation.

I never counselled &#39;absolute reliance&#39; on anything. the photo adds a different perspective to the story than is normally told, and is worthy of consideration. that is has no "exact chrono context", well, what were you expecting, a time stamp? big ben in the background? to denounce the photo in such stark, binary terms seems unreasonable to me. This is after all, war.&nbsp;

j2k4, if you&#39;re going to suggest i&#39;m "fundamentally dishonest, and lost to reason," you&#39;re going to have to do better than that. Please, explain it to me like i&#39;m a 3 year old, what makes my original post so objectionable? Where i come from, the free exchange of information meeting a certain threshold of credibility -- certainly the case with this photo -- is encouraged, not denounced. Marketplace of ideas, etc.
It was indeed an "effortless" application of the "conspiracy" label; to waste time blasting a hole in the wall when the front door is left wide open runs counter to my inclination toward economy.
Semiotics or not, Mass media having risen (or not), the secret of deciphering the images and written/oral presentations of ANY media is to be screened or vetted judiciously by the consumer&#39;s (presumably) well-developed mental (read: NOT EMOTIONAL) faculties. This should be considered the minimum requirement for even watching T.V., reading newspapers or any periodicals. Regrettably, this is an impossible standard to observe. I will state, however, that to pronounce upon improperly digested material in an "International" forum is, to put it plainly, irresponsible.
To attempt to escape the derision you have invited by saying "All I&#39;m saying is......." and then trying to sidestep the obvious intent of your original post by obfuscation is nothing more than changing oars so as to row out of the other side of the boat.
How in the hell can a media consumer be "fully conscious of what&#39;s going on" in a fully propagandized world? I submit he needs something he cannot get by bits and pieces, he MUST consume as much of the media pie as he can, and one picture doesn&#39;t fill the bill. Beyond the requisite investment of time, experience is also required. Your picture was pretty much a stand-alone item, presented by itself-you didn&#39;t give the potential consumers (members of the forum) any side dishes, just a lousy entree.
You are correct in stating you "never counselled &#39;absolute reliance&#39; ". The problem was, you "counselled" NOTHING. Just threw the picture out there and almost dared a different conclusion than the one YOU reached.
Let me tell you what I gathered by looking at your picture (I waited for you to point this out yourself, but you didn&#39;t):
The tank has just begun to approach the statue; this is a clear indication that whatever crowd was in attendance when the statue finally fell, it had not assembled yet-at the point the picture was taken, nothing had occurred that would prompt a crowd to gather: why would a crowd gather to watch frustrated Iraqis throw shoes and sundry trash at a statue? THAT was happening all over Baghdad&#33;
I watched the entire event on T.V.; the views shown only included the area immediately around the statue, and then pulled back slightly to get the tank in the frame. The only thing that struck me other than the obvious zeal of the crowd was the fact that I noticed more and more people continously rushing to join the festivities. I suppose the "event staff" might have organized the "150" Iraqis to run laps through the frame, but somehow I don&#39;t think so.
Anyway-I&#39;ve banged on long enough; I thought you were merely irresponsible when I first read your post, but I upped the charge to dishonesty when you tried to defend it so vociferously.
You will notice, if you indeed read this, nowhere have I suggested that you are not free to post anything you like in this forum (I&#39;m not a mod; I couldn&#39;t
stop you in any case). I do wish you had taken my post in the spirit I meant it; i.e., you needed to provide some balance. You ignored me, as is surely your right. Rest assured, though: If you don&#39;t provide the balance, I&#39;m gonna try.
Also, don&#39;t insult me, yourself, and everybody else here by asking for the "3-year-old" explanation-it is plain you are at least a very precocious 10-year-old.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@13 April 2003 - 22:44
I&#39;m still waiting for an explanation on the AQ/Iraq theme your were foisting earlier today, but so far you&#39;ve only managed to parakeet j2k4&#39;s postings, criticize me for not having aesthetically pleasing posts, and mimick, in fashion most juvenile, "Middle Eastern English."


Actually, I&#39;m still trying to figure out why you think Saddam put a statute of himself next to a strategically placed hotel, knowing full well that American News Media would film it being torn down?


Is this another of your conspiracy theories?

Are you behind it?


Where were you on the morning of September 11, 2001?

Don&#39;t take speculation as fact, my friend.

Thats the stuff that wars are made of and we&#39;ve had quite enough of those, thank you.

Peace

Edited to add this:

Personally, I prefer a day at the zoo with a loved one, to trying to figure out if maybe something could have happened a certain way.

Especially when the available information, in all honesty, points to several possibilities, only one of which is yours.

Again, Peace

[DiogenesUK]

Originally posted by hobbes@15 April 2003 - 02:13
Yeah, I think the US has a monopoly on propaganda and we ALL misjudged Saddam.

I mean, in his video release he was just casually strolling down the streets of Baghdad, giving a shout out to his homies, while black smoke billowed in the backround. People spontaneously surrounded him, declaring their love and he proceded to KISS A FRIGGIN&#39; BABY&#33;.

That was not staged, that was real&#33; Got any aerial photos of that session. Hell, drop back 20 feet and you would see the cue cards, see the man releasing the doves of freedom from their cages, to fly over his head.

I heard that when the stautue of Saddam fell and cracked in half, candy poured out of the center as Saddam is so sweet on the inside. This was editted out by Western conspirators.

I actually analyized the footage from the statue scene. IF you use the right filter, you can see that the burly Iraqi pounding on the base with a sledgehammer, is no more than Donald Rumsfeld in a specially designed robot.

Open you eyes America, Iraq loves Saddam, and we are no where, we are snake&#33;

In fact, we do this ALL for Israel. Have you guys be catching all this anti-semitism (sp) from DiogenesUK and Fallenknight308 (who provides a nice link). I love it, what twisted paranoids they are.
I understand entirely your misgivings regarding my posts,but speaking as an Israeli/American living here in the UK,I feel I have a right to express my opinions & doubts about the motives for this farcical situation.

As I&#39;ve stated on several occasions,I supported the overthrow of Saddam & his cohorts,but I&#39;ve seen enough puppet governments to know one when I see one,and Bush &#39;leads&#39; one of the all-time classics of that genre.

Of course I realise that any criticism of Israel is taboo,that&#39;s exactly why they can carry out their own ethnic cleansing with impunity.

Just wait &#39;til their clerics,who hold the balance of power there, decide it&#39;s the pre-ordained time to say bye-bye to this planet,there&#39;s nothing the Americans or anyone else will be able to do about it.

I have many good friends in Israel,but they aren&#39;t fooled by any of the rhetoric passing for fact in the &#39;fog of war&#39;


Shalom

[j2k4]

Originally posted by DiogenesUK@15 April 2003 - 03:56

Just wait &#39;til their clerics,who hold the balance of power there, decide it&#39;s the pre-ordained time to say bye-bye to this planet,there&#39;s nothing the Americans or anyone else will be able to do about it.

Now, THERE is a provocative statement-care to expand and expound, DiogenesUK?
I await any response with &#39;bated breath, as I must step away for a while.........

[hobbes]

J2K4,

I awoke this morning to find my dictionary empty. Suspicious, I checked the forum and found all the words in your posts above. Could you please return them when your done.

Thanks in advance.


Diogenes,

You seem to have a unique perspective. My experience with Jewish people has been largely positive. I grew up in a suburb where most of the population was Jewish. My best friends were Jewish and I can never remember religion being an issue. My apperance is overtly non-Jewish, almost the stereotypical antithesis, but this never seemed to bother the parents of any of my friends. I felt as welcome in their homes as I did at the homes of my nonJewish friends.

Without going into my life story, I find it hard to understand how these people I grew up with would support what you are describing in Israel.

Most Americans couldn&#39;t find Israel on a map, most Americans could care less about it. We do have a very active and powerful Jewish contingent in our population who lobby for pro-Israeli policies for sure, but Americans are not Pro-Israel and it is certainly no sacred cow, which is above criticism.

Your comments intrigue me, please clarify.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@15 April 2003 - 08:19
J2K4,

I awoke this morning to find my dictionary empty. Suspicious, I checked the forum and found all the words in your posts above. Could you please return them when your done.

Thanks in advance.
Done for the nonce-feel free.

You already own a nice selection; may I borrow yours occasionally?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by j2k4+15 April 2003 - 18:36--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 15 April 2003 - 18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--hobbes@15 April 2003 - 08:19
J2K4,

I awoke this morning to find my dictionary empty. Suspicious, I checked the forum and found all the words in your posts above.&nbsp; Could you please return them when your done.

Thanks in advance.
Done for the nonce-feel free.

You already own a nice selection; may I borrow yours occasionally? [/b][/quote]
Oh come on now, you know the majority of my vocabulary is compromised of neologisms.

Feel free to use them, but watch out for the man with the butterfly net.

[sArA]

@hobbes,

Well hello there matey&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Just thought I would pop in and fly off like the proverbial butterfly.....can&#39;t catch me with your net as this madame is as elusive as the widow hiding in your toilet bowl....she bites before you see her...and is so small and fast...she quickly hides in dark corners where you cannot find her....

[hobbes]

That&#39;s why I&#39;ve taken to use the tub. :blink:

[clocker]

My God, you two....

GET A ROOM&#33; ;)

[MagicNakor]

I&#39;ll second that. ;)

:ninja:

[hobbes]

Nah, I&#39;m going to go surrender to the Iraqi information minister, again.

I&#39;m kind of addicted to it.

[sArA]

He he....... :ph34r:

[myfiles3000]

j2k4, honestly. I mean really. For a self-proclaimed "Practitioner of Reason" you&#39;re producing a lot of fluff. Does the quote "never use a bigger word where a smaller word would do" ring a bell? It&#39;s time to take the next bold step, and leave behind the pursuit of words for their own sake. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to use words as the means to an end -- coherent expression. nice, simple, rationale communication. No temper tantrums, no hissy-fits, no mud-slinging, just a dignified difference of opinion.

For example...


I will state, however, that to pronounce upon improperly digested material in an "International" forum is, to put it plainly, irresponsible.

Pronounce? What I did was post a picture and a link and no comment. I didn&#39;t pronounce anything. It&#39;s impossible to determine what you mean by "improperly digested", perhaps you would like to vet all my posts, and the fact that this is an "international" forum is completely irrelevant (ah, but the deridian trace...).


To attempt to escape the derision you have invited by saying "All I&#39;m saying is......." and then trying to sidestep the obvious intent of your original post by obfuscation is nothing more than changing oars so as to row out of the other side of the boat.

Please share your interpretation of my intent, which i later scrambled to obfuscate. I posted a photo with no comment. When asked for clarification, I suggested the possiblity of manipulation. Thats all i did.


Your picture was pretty much a stand-alone item, presented by itself-you didn&#39;t give the potential consumers (members of the forum) any side dishes, just a lousy entree.
The problem was, you "counselled" NOTHING. Just threw the picture out there and almost dared a different conclusion than the one YOU reached.

How can I win? I didn&#39;t offer any editorial initially, and my later comment was the suggestion of a possibility&#33;
First I had an &#39;irresponsible obvious intent", then I did &#39;NOTHING&#39; beyond putting information to the world for consideration. What do you want me to do, commission a congressional study? For gods sake, man, take it or leave it, but chill.

[/QUOTE]I thought you were merely irresponsible when I first read your post, but I upped the charge to dishonesty when you tried to defend it so vociferously.


I have no idea what you&#39;re talking about, but &#39;vociferously&#39; is a pretty big word. The tweenies approve.

Also, don&#39;t insult me, yourself, and everybody else here by asking for the "3-year-old" explanation-it is plain you are at least a very precocious "10-year-old".[QUOTE]

You&#39;re all smoke and mirrors. Break it down into nice, digestible, bite-sized chunks of meaning. Articulate in rationale, clearly expressed language what I did that was irresponsible and dishonest.

[sArA]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@16 April 2003 - 03:33










Articulate in rationale, clearly expressed language what I did that was irresponsible and dishonest.
@ myfiles

Oh you too.....and I thought I was the only victim of the attack of the overly verbose and articulate....or is that verbal abuse and anally retentive&#33;&#33; lmfao&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

(I can dare to say this cos my antagonist seems to not be online just now ha ha) :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

[ClubDiggler]

dis don make no sense bro&#33; I don understan shit&#33;

No, seriously I think my head&#39;s spinning. I must say; forgive my
ignorance but maaaaan I used to have a dictionary in the cabinet under
the TV and now that sucker is planted right here by the computer. :rolleyes:

I am enjoying the show though&#33; Keep up the good work&#33;

By the way, I agree with clocker there&#39;s a couple here in desperate need of a room.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@15 April 2003 - 21:33
j2k4, honestly. I mean really. For a self-proclaimed "Practitioner of Reason" you&#39;re producing a lot of fluff. Does the quote "never use a bigger word where a smaller word would do" ring a bell? It&#39;s time to take the next bold step, and leave behind the pursuit of words for their own sake. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to use words as the means to an end -- coherent expression. nice, simple, rationale communication. No temper tantrums, no hissy-fits, no mud-slinging, just a dignified difference of opinion.

For example...


I will state, however, that to pronounce upon improperly digested material in an "International" forum is, to put it plainly, irresponsible.

Pronounce? What I did was post a picture and a link and no comment. I didn&#39;t pronounce anything. It&#39;s impossible to determine what you mean by "improperly digested", perhaps you would like to vet all my posts, and the fact that this is an "international" forum is completely irrelevant (ah, but the deridian trace...).


To attempt to escape the derision you have invited by saying "All I&#39;m saying is......." and then trying to sidestep the obvious intent of your original post by obfuscation is nothing more than changing oars so as to row out of the other side of the boat.

Please share your interpretation of my intent, which i later scrambled to obfuscate. I posted a photo with no comment. When asked for clarification, I suggested the possiblity of manipulation. Thats all i did.


Your picture was pretty much a stand-alone item, presented by itself-you didn&#39;t give the potential consumers (members of the forum) any side dishes, just a lousy entree.
The problem was, you "counselled" NOTHING. Just threw the picture out there and almost dared a different conclusion than the one YOU reached.

How can I win? I didn&#39;t offer any editorial initially, and my later comment was the suggestion of a possibility&#33;
First I had an &#39;irresponsible obvious intent", then I did &#39;NOTHING&#39; beyond putting information to the world for consideration. What do you want me to do, commission a congressional study? For gods sake, man, take it or leave it, but chill.

I thought you were merely irresponsible when I first read your post, but I upped the charge to dishonesty when you tried to defend it so vociferously.


I have no idea what you&#39;re talking about, but &#39;vociferously&#39; is a pretty big word. The tweenies approve.

Also, don&#39;t insult me, yourself, and everybody else here by asking for the "3-year-old" explanation-it is plain you are at least a very precocious "10-year-old".


You&#39;re all smoke and mirrors. Break it down into nice, digestible, bite-sized chunks of meaning. Articulate in rationale, clearly expressed language what I did that was irresponsible and dishonest.
myfiles-

At this point I&#39;ll settle for labeling you a provocateur.

I plead guilty to nothing, other than "desiring the extra syllable".

You don&#39;t do too bad yourself, you know? Semiotics? Deridian trace? You win the "obscure reference" contest.

Perhaps I needed to reassure myself English IS my first language, astounded as I was that anyone would think otherwise.

It is apparent to all that you love words at least as much as I do.

You didn&#39;t have any trouble understanding my posts; others who are interested can understand also. Don&#39;t sell them short.

I don&#39;t mind if I send someone scurrying for a dictionary-I&#39;m a big fan of the dictionary; I try to keep reference materials handy, just in case.

The language I used to articulate my perception of the flaws in your posts was, I feel, sufficiently clear as to need no "further" clarification.

There you go, nice bite-sized chunks. You may commence your digestion forthwith.

[j2k4]

Sara5564-

"Verbose"-------one of my favorite words; in fact, check out my profile.

[clocker]

Bravo&#33;
Gentlemen, surely this thread is the definitive proof that this forum could easily support a Bookworld.
Beautifully written, the both of you.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@15 April 2003 - 23:24
Bravo&#33;
Gentlemen, surely this thread is the definitive proof that this forum could easily support a Bookworld.
Beautifully written, the both of you.
I thank you, and I&#39;m sure myfiles does/will/would, too.

We had good help-Our fellow members, Mssrs. Webster, Roget, et.al.

Now I propose we work on getting you "un"-nonplussed... :D :D

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 April 2003 - 05:47


Now I propose we work on getting you "un"-nonplussed... :D :D
Done.

[sArA]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 April 2003 - 04:52
Sara5564-

"Verbose"-------one of my favorite words; in fact, check out my profile.
I perused your profile J2k4.....

however....does verbosity improve clarity where comprehensibility is a required feature of discourse?

:lol: :lol:

[clocker]

Originally posted by sara5564@16 April 2003 - 15:21


however....does verbosity improve clarity where comprehensibility is a required feature of discourse?

:lol: :lol:
After a leisurely perusal of the forum I&#39;ve concluded that "comprehensibility" ranks WAY down on the list of requirements to post.
Having a flash avatar and sig are much more important.
Get with the program. ;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by sara5564+16 April 2003 - 09:21--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sara5564 @ 16 April 2003 - 09:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@16 April 2003 - 04:52
Sara5564-

"Verbose"-------one of my favorite words; in fact, check out my profile.
I perused your profile J2k4.....

however....does verbosity improve clarity where comprehensibility is a required feature of discourse?

:lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
Yes-

I do not necessarily regard verbosity as pejorative, though it can certainly seem so when one is on the receiving end of the invective.

For it&#39;s own sake? No---but words ARE the seasoning of ALL discourse; some things/sentiments cannot be communicated without full access. :)

Surely you agree?

[sArA]

Originally posted by j2k4+16 April 2003 - 17:52--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 16 April 2003 - 17:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -sara5564@16 April 2003 - 09:21
<!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@16 April 2003 - 04:52
Sara5564-

"Verbose"-------one of my favorite words; in fact, check out my profile.
I perused your profile J2k4.....

however....does verbosity improve clarity where comprehensibility is a required feature of discourse?

:lol: :lol:
Yes-

I do not necessarily regard verbosity as pejorative, though it can certainly seem so when one is on the receiving end of the invective.

For it&#39;s own sake? No---but words ARE the seasoning of ALL discourse; some things/sentiments cannot be communicated without full access. :)

Surely you agree? [/b][/quote]
sometimes.....

But in legal documents and other forms of small print, the use of 25 words where just 2 or 3 will do, merely serves to confuse the reader thereby enabling the authors considerable scope for obfuscation.

However, the copious use of seasoning can, if not tempered with restraint, also make the dish too pungent for digestion. This can subsequently lead to an unsatisfactory dialectic and intellectual constipation&#33;

Do you not also agree?

B) :blink: :D

[clocker]

Originally posted by sara5564@16 April 2003 - 18:58


However, the copious use of seasoning can, if not tempered with restraint, also make the dish too pungent for digestion. This can subsequently lead to an unsatisfactory dialectic and intellectual constipation&#33;

Do you not also agree?

B) :blink: :D
I&#39;m sure j2 would love to answer, but he&#39;s been in the bathroom for HOURS now.... :P

[sArA]

ha ha....well, my warning of intellectual constipation must have come a little late for him then&#33;

:D :D

Shame I only have another 10 mins or so until I go home, then wont be back online until later tonight...

ho hum...will just have to wait until then to see his next juicy response&#33;

[j2k4]

:lol: :lol:
Originally posted by sara5564@16 April 2003 - 13:20
ha ha....well, my warning of intellectual constipation must have come a little late for him then&#33;

:D&nbsp; :D

Shame I only have another 10 mins or so until I go home, then wont be back online until later tonight...

ho hum...will just have to wait until then to see his next juicy response&#33;
1) You are correct-I believe our two views reflect a symmetry and synergy as regards our linguistic preferences.

2) Although I have been recruited for radio work (never an aspiration-pay generally sucks, as I&#39;m sure you&#39;re aware), and have been told I possess a "voice" (never quite believed that; don&#39;t have the discipline to continually harness my elision and slurring tendencies-just lazy), I do aspire to write well, I have done a few things I&#39;m proud of, having to do with a prior position I held.

3) We (well, maybe ten of us, anyway) have an appreciation for composition here-You, Clocker, Hobbes and old what&#39;s-his-name...myfiles3000(&#33;) all leap to mind-some others, let&#39;s see, DiogenesUK, OMC, some others whose names regrettably escape me.

4) I believe we all do/have done our share of critical reading, too. There is a quality of logic and analysis to your posts I enjoy.

5) It&#39;s an outlet for me-not many opportunities on a day-to-day basis for these types of exchange. Kinda like a health spa for the mental faculties.

6) I&#39;m going a little long, here, so.......back to the bathroom :lol: :lol:

[ne1GotZardoz]

Ok, let me see if I&#39;ve got this straight...


This entire thread is the result of Myfiles, feeling that a picture was worth a thousand words, but failing to realize that they were all in the form of questions?


Amazing.

I need to take a mental shower now to rid myself of the intellectual mud that has been slung around in here.

Please don&#39;t missunderstand...I enjoy a good wallow as much as the next guy, but I think it got just a bit deep in here.

At this point, I believe it is safe to say this whole topic is full of it. ;)

Peace

[ne1GotZardoz]

And for the record, being able to use big words does not mean one should.

That is to say, inteligence does not presuppose wisdom.

I can&#39;t believe it but I&#39;m in agreement with myfiles on this point.

The aspiration of a true writer is not the ability to fill large volumes with complicated terms and phrases, (unless he&#39;s a lawyer).
A true writer seeks to communicate universal wisdoms in terms even a novice reader can understand.

Why do you think most great works are written on a 5th grade level?

Even Shakespeare&#39;s works, in their time, were written to convey some of the deepest thoughts of that great mind, in terms no man or woman could fail to understand.

Poe, Azimov, Bradbury, Feist, King, Koontz, Aristotle, Socrates, Confucius, Mohamad, Moses, Ghandi, Jesus of Nazareth, Martin Luther King, John F. Kenedy, etc.

They did not waste their energy writing or speaking to the intellectual community.

If they had, people would have yawned, (even the intellectuals), and picked up the morning news of their time.

They targeted their message to the common man.

The fact is, intelectual jargon is even boring to intelectuals.

Thats why its used in legal doccuments and disclaimers.

Thats why people say, "nobody ever reads that stuff".

Peace

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@18 April 2003 - 05:17
That is to say, inteligence does not presuppose wisdom.
more to the point, big words don&#39;t imply intelligence -- surely there&#39;s a stronger correlation between wisdom and intelligence than intelligence and big words, wouldn&#39;t you say?
I&#39;m flattered you&#39;d agree with me, ne1, i&#39;m tolerable on occasion.

[hobbes]

J2K4 and I have had this discussion before and it all comes down to matter of style.

I prefer to post like a kick in the nuts, obvious to anyone, and painful if you are not well protected.

He prefers to dance around and distract you with his literary skills, only when he&#39;s gone do you realize you have been pantsed (your pants are around your ankles).

Just know this about J2k4, he is not just out to fight, but to discuss. I posted something which I am sure pissed him off. He decided to spot me this one and hold his own (my Rush Limbaugh post). He never uttered a word about it, but in reading other posts (celebrities you have met) and reading between the lines (Yes, i figured it out before discovering that thread) it became apparent that he would have loved to have countered me on this one, but he chose the bigger picture and the higher road and moved on. I noted this, kudos to him.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by myfiles3000+17 April 2003 - 23:47--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 17 April 2003 - 23:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ne1GotZardoz@18 April 2003 - 05:17
That is to say, inteligence does not presuppose wisdom.
more to the point, big words don&#39;t imply intelligence -- surely there&#39;s a stronger correlation between wisdom and intelligence than intelligence and big words, wouldn&#39;t you say?
I&#39;m flattered you&#39;d agree with me, ne1, i&#39;m tolerable on occasion. [/b][/quote]
Again I find myself in agreement with you.


Scary.

However, my point is still valid. There are alot of inteligent fools out there.


And probably just as many uninteligent sages.

Go to a college frat house on a Friday night to prove the former, then have a chat with a Waffle House cook at 3am any night of the week to prove the later.

Or your local bartender. ;)

Peace

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@18 April 2003 - 05:17
And for the record, being able to use big words does not mean one should...

Certainly not. I know a guy who enjoyed showing off his vocabulary. He and I often tangled, because he thought he was the only one to have a wide vocabulary. Unfortunately, he was incorrect. ;)

That&#39;s not my point, though. One day, he corrected his drill sergeant&#39;s grammar.

His hubris disappeared pretty quick. :lol: Far more enjoyable to speak with, now that he&#39;s not trying to prove vocabulary equals intelligence.

:ninja:

[hobbes]

There is something to be said about a well written post.

Intelligent has 2 l&#39;s

A sage is defined as someone who is characterized by wisdom and good judgement.

I guess there is a fine line between using vocabulary, spelling, grammar and punctuation to hone your post to a razors edge and using supercilious lexicons to confuse and obfuscate.

By the way, I am wearing a thong&#33;

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by hobbes@18 April 2003 - 06:43
...I guess there is a fine line between using vocabulary, spelling, grammar and punctuation to hone your post to a razors edge and using supercilious lexicons to confuse and obfuscate...
Indeed. And I&#39;ve noticed people here tend to slip off of that edge.

I really didn&#39;t want to know about the thong part. ;)

How would a rabbit wear a thong... :huh:

:ninja:

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by hobbes@18 April 2003 - 00:43

By the way, I am wearing a thong&#33;
That&#39;s waaay too much info.

I hope you&#39;re a voluptuous female.

If you&#39;re a fat guy, we have a problem.

:huh:

[clocker]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@17 April 2003 - 22:17


Why do you think most great works are written on a 5th grade level?

Even Shakespeare&#39;s works, in their time, were written to convey some of the deepest thoughts of that great mind, in terms no man or woman could fail to understand.

Poe, Azimov, Bradbury, Feist, King, Koontz, Aristotle, Socrates, Confucius, Mohamad, Moses, Ghandi, Jesus of Nazareth, Martin Luther King, John F. Kenedy, etc.

They did not waste their energy writing or speaking to the intellectual community.

If they had, people would have yawned, (even the intellectuals), and picked up the morning news of their time.

They targeted their message to the common man.


That is simply NOT TRUE&#33;

Linking Poe, Asimov and Koontz(?) with Aristotle, Jesus and Kennedy requires a intellectual leap that I am unwilling to make.

Apparently the 5th grade in your world is far different than mine.

By your definition Dr. Seuss was a great thinker.

[DiogenesUK]

Wow,this is interesting.

Maybe we&#39;ll see a few more attacks on intellectuals in this place that could&#39;ve come right from Stalin/Polpot/Pinochet/Saddams&#39; little corners of the world. :blink:

[hobbes]

Originally posted by DiogenesUK@18 April 2003 - 17:23
Wow,this is interesting.

Maybe we&#39;ll see a few more attacks on intellectuals in this place that could&#39;ve come right from Stalin/Polpot/Pinochet/Saddams&#39; little corners of the world.&nbsp; :blink:
You certainly have a selective attention. Don&#39;t you follow-up on your posts? All you do is post other people words and snipe at America with your sarcastic quips.

People have asked you clarify your comments so we have some basis for discussion. You either don&#39;t follow-up your posts or you choose not to. If the latter, which is suspected, it certainly undermines the credibilty of any subsequent posts.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by clocker+18 April 2003 - 08:09--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 18 April 2003 - 08:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ne1GotZardoz@17 April 2003 - 22:17


Why do you think most great works are written on a 5th grade level?

Even Shakespeare&#39;s works, in their time, were written to convey some of the deepest thoughts of that great mind, in terms no man or woman could fail to understand.

Poe, Azimov, Bradbury, Feist, King, Koontz, Aristotle, Socrates, Confucius, Mohamad, Moses, Ghandi, Jesus of Nazareth, Martin Luther King, John F. Kenedy, etc.

They did not waste their energy writing or speaking to the intellectual community.

If they had, people would have yawned, (even the intellectuals), and picked up the morning news of their time.

They targeted their message to the common man.


That is simply NOT TRUE&#33;

Linking Poe, Asimov and Koontz(?) with Aristotle, Jesus and Kennedy requires a intellectual leap that I am unwilling to make.

Apparently the 5th grade in your world is far different than mine.

By your definition Dr. Seuss was a great thinker. [/b][/quote]
You have obviously not &#39;read&#39; Dr Suess.

Or you lack the intellect to understand the wisdom of his works.

Aimed at children, loved and understood by most adults.

Perhaps you should re-read Horton Hears a Who.

Or the Peanut Butter Battle Book.

Wisdom is not limited to the intelectually elite. In fact, it usually escapes them.

Wisdom is the result of experience tempered with an attempt at understanding.

Have you ever read or studied the people I mentioned?

Have you considered them in the context of my post?

Or did you simply see a group of names and miss the connection?

Peace

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by DiogenesUK@18 April 2003 - 11:23
Wow,this is interesting.

Maybe we&#39;ll see a few more attacks on intellectuals in this place that could&#39;ve come right from Stalin/Polpot/Pinochet/Saddams&#39; little corners of the world. :blink:
I&#39;m sorry...I thought they WERE intellectuals.

Or at least that THEY considered themselves to be.

Peace

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by clocker@18 April 2003 - 14:09
[QUOTE=ne1GotZardoz,17 April 2003 - 22:17]
By your definition Dr. Seuss was a great thinker.
Dont underestimate Dr. Seuss, he&#39;s not as harmless as he looks.
Dr. Seuss Goes To War: The World War II Editorial Cartoons Of Theodor Seuss Geisel
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/

[sArA]

Oh what fun&#33; Oh what joy&#33;

This thread so far has been a delight to read&#33;

Some clearly bright people debating and posturing about what it means to be intelligent, among other things...

Well, Shakespear&#39;s wise fool in King Lear was a perfect example of wisdom in the form of apparently simple messages with underlying complex truths.

Likewise, truth from the mouths of babes also proves that being well read and having a wide vocabulary is not the only indicator of insight.

Personally, I like a little of both, I am the only one of my closest friends to have the little bits of paper to prove how many years I spent at college....but they are my closest friends for obvious reasons, they have wit, intelligence, insight and powerful observation and analytical skills, way beyond many of those I work with, whose educational levels would indicate otherwise.

The intellectual therefore does not (in my opinion) require a huge vocabulary of obscure words but an ability to see beyond the end of one&#39;s nose.

Saying that....it is rather fun to bandy semantics with those who do....

:D

[Bass]

Originally posted by sara5564@18 April 2003 - 21:14
Personally, I like a little of both, I am the only one of my closest friends to have the little bits of paper to prove how many years I spent at college....but they are my closest friends for obvious reasons, they have wit, intelligence, insight and powerful observation and analytical skills, way beyond many of those I work with, whose educational levels would indicate otherwise.


All but for me, I`ve always been a bit fik, but we`re still best mates. :lol:
see ya Sara.

[sArA]

Originally posted by Bass@18 April 2003 - 21:32

All but for me, I`ve always been a bit fik, but we`re still best mates. :lol:
see ya Sara.
Ha ha ha......Bass, you are one of those I was refering to you wally&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Looking forward to a good ole chin wag when I go back to the UK matey....

[Bass]

Sara, you have this totally wonderful ability to drag yourself down to my level, and I too, am so much looking forward to a good chat over a nice hot cuppa&#33;
what a lovely woman&#33; :lol:
see ya,
Bass.xxx

[DiogenesUK]

Originally posted by hobbes+18 April 2003 - 18:24--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 18 April 2003 - 18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--DiogenesUK@18 April 2003 - 17:23
Wow,this is interesting.

Maybe we&#39;ll see a few more attacks on intellectuals in this place that could&#39;ve come right from Stalin/Polpot/Pinochet/Saddams&#39; little corners of the world.&nbsp; :blink:
You certainly have a selective attention. Don&#39;t you follow-up on your posts? All you do is post other people words and snipe at America with your sarcastic quips.

People have asked you clarify your comments so we have some basis for discussion. You either don&#39;t follow-up your posts or you choose not to. If the latter, which is suspected, it certainly undermines the credibilty of any subsequent posts.[/b][/quote]
That&#39;s fair comment Hobbes,I&#39;ll have a look at replying later,no problem.

My snipes have been at the U.S. administration,but I can see that maybe hasn&#39;t been made clear.I&#39;m well aware that almost 1/2 of the population,maybe more,(but that&#39;s another story),didn&#39;t vote for this lot,and probably only a small percentage who did elect them actually guessed what was coming.

These boards are just a bit of ever so slightly anarchic fun to me,much like sitting around with folks in the pub putting the world to rights,knowing that we can&#39;t do a damn thing about it, & having a laugh,I&#39;m sorry if I cause offence.I may well cause more,who cares? I find many comments here offensive too.....people will get over it,as they say.

I&#39;ve already tried apologising to folks to whom I&#39;ve been rude & out of order,by my own admission.Any more than that I can&#39;t really do,other than being slightly more careful in future.But I do stand by my comments regarding the hypocrisy of a few on here.They want a (perceived) strong government on the one hand,then bleat sadly when their rights to appropriate copyrighted material are threatened by the very workings of that same administration.

Still,why have only one set of standards when we can have several eh??? :lol: :lol: :lol:




Take care

[hobbes]

From: why do we download (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=27192&hl=)- ah, hyperlinks, a work in progress for the computer challenged. I&#39;m not sure how to link directly to my post, just the thread.


I would agree with that and the link above proves it.

I am right handed, but left footed, I think that aptly describes my political philosphy. Depends on the issue. I have no preconceived template that the data presented to me must be distorted to fit.

Brains not working ATM, so I&#39;ll just post this till I can find the coffee.

[DiogenesUK]

Originally posted by hobbes@15 April 2003 - 14:19
J2K4,

I awoke this morning to find my dictionary empty. Suspicious, I checked the forum and found all the words in your posts above.&nbsp; Could you please return them when your done.

Thanks in advance.


Diogenes,

You seem to have a unique perspective. My experience with Jewish people has been largely positive. I grew up in a suburb where most of the population was Jewish. My best friends were Jewish and I can never remember religion being an issue. My apperance is overtly non-Jewish, almost the stereotypical antithesis, but this never seemed to bother the parents of any of my friends. I felt as welcome in their homes as I did at the homes of my nonJewish friends.

Without going into my life story, I find it hard to understand how these people I grew up with would support what you are describing in Israel.

Most Americans couldn&#39;t find Israel on a map, most Americans could care less about it.&nbsp; We do have a very active and powerful Jewish contingent in our population who lobby for pro-Israeli policies for sure, but Americans are not Pro-Israel and it is certainly no sacred cow, which is above criticism.

Your comments intrigue me, please clarify.
I too,find it impossible to believe that any of my friends would countenance such an apocryphal event,it&#39;s just something that was passed on to me by an Israeli friend.

Maybe it&#39;s just another bit of paranoia eh,who knows.One thing&#39;s for sure,there won&#39;t be anyone around to say " I told you so" if any of it&#39;s true. :unsure:

http://www.jewsformorality.org/armageddon.htm

http://www.iraqwar.org/fundamentalists.htm

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by DiogenesUK@18 April 2003 - 17:23
But I do stand by my comments regarding the hypocrisy of a few on here.They want a (perceived) strong government on the one hand,then bleat sadly when their rights to appropriate copyrighted material are threatened by the very workings of that same administration.

Still,why have only one set of standards when we can have several eh??? :lol: :lol: :lol:




Take care
Agreed that we should be paying for this service.

I wouldn&#39;t though.

I simply cannot afford it.

If I have extra money to throw around, and this venue is no longer available for free, I&#39;ll buy the CD.

Its better quality really and I get the cool inserts that often come with store bought media.

But you&#39;re looking at a poor guy here.
Single dad raising a 9 year old.

I love that I can download the entire works of Shakespeare in the prefered PDF format, or Harry Potter E-books complete with images.
And even the movie if I&#39;m catching up on bills at the time.

If I had the money, I would support the movie and music industry more.
They look so much better in their official authorized cases don&#39;t they?

They are not losing any money from me.

I&#39;m just pissed that I still haven&#39;t found Zardoz on here. Excelent movie.
70&#39;s Post Apocalypse flick starring Sean Connery.

I&#39;m just flat out surprised that its not here. I would expect some Connery fans to have all his works.

hint...hint :blink: :blink:

[hobbes]

Holy coincidences batman&#33;

I was just about to start a thread titled "Explain your name" because I was sick and tired of reading and rereading your name to figure out what it meant and how to pronounce it.

Anyone got Zardoz?- how obvious. Would have been easier if I had heard of that movie.

Download the SNL celebrity Jeopardy skits for a little Connery fix.



Dio,

I didn&#39;t but scan your links, but I got the point. If it were funny, I would laugh, but it is just sad.

All the signs are pointing to Armaggedon and soon, just listen to the evidence.

This scared me once when I was 5 when they told me about the Bear (Russia) and the Eagle (America) coming into conflict over whatever. All signs were pointing to the fulfillment of prophecy. Christ was coming SOON&#33;

Man, they just keep the same template and distort reality to fit it, as I alluded to before. I&#39;ve seen so many of these, with their "irrefutable" evidence, that the whole schtick has become a platitude.

Check back in 20 years, you will see the same thing. They will swear that they really, really, really are sure this time.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by DiogenesUK@18 April 2003 - 18:26

I too,find it impossible to believe that any of my friends would countenance such an apocryphal event,it&#39;s just something that was passed on to me by an Israeli friend.

Maybe it&#39;s just another bit of paranoia eh,who knows.One thing&#39;s for sure,there won&#39;t be anyone around to say " I told you so" if any of it&#39;s true. :unsure:

http://www.jewsformorality.org/armageddon.htm

http://www.iraqwar.org/fundamentalists.htm
I look at it this way...

If the world doesn&#39;t come to an end, it doesn&#39;t matter. Life goes on.


If the world does come to an end, it still doesn&#39;t matter because no-one will be around to miss it.

Either way, the only way it matters is if I waste the few precious years human beings are given to live, on worrying whether or not its going to happen.

I mean...Hey...The end comes to all mankind...eventually.

Peace

[DiogenesUK]

I&#39;m with you guys on this armageddon thing,life&#39;s short enough as it is to be fretting about what some demagogue or other&#39;s planning for us.

It&#39;s just so sad that people in authority haven&#39;t anything better to do than shorten what is already a tenuous hold on life for many.

I&#39;ll shut up now before I&#39;m accused of being a hippy.........don&#39;t worry,I&#39;m not middle class enough for that one :P



Take care

[ne1GotZardoz]

On that note, this is my last post in the Ongoing US/Coalition forums.

There&#39;s really nothing left to discuss on that topic and you&#39;ll notice that everyone has now strayed off topic anyway.


Peace

[hobbes]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@19 April 2003 - 15:19
On that note, this is my last post in the Ongoing US/Coalition forums.

There&#39;s really nothing left to discuss on that topic and you&#39;ll notice that everyone has now strayed off topic anyway.


Peace
Seems that this forum has sort of selected out the more serious type of poster and there has been a rather inspiring exchange of ideas and view points. Trust me, I come from the Anarchy Online forum (just an online game) and this is so much more enjoyable. I don&#39;t have to re-invent the wheel everyday.

Shame we can&#39;t somehow preserve this more mature area so we are not thrown back in the "Whose got the cutest butt" social forum.

Hey, I&#39;m all for taking about "boobies" and such, but it seems that more serious discussions are immisible with this silly (but healthy) banter.

What I&#39;m saying is that I don&#39;t want to be thrown back into the kiddie pool. Give us an adult section.

[MagicNakor]

Which is another one of my reasons for wanting a Bookworld. ;)

People that don&#39;t read (as in read books on a constant basis, not people who are illiterate) are far less likely to stop by Bookworld. It won&#39;t be either of use, or of interest to them.

:ninja:

[sArA]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@20 April 2003 - 04:14
Which is another one of my reasons for wanting a Bookworld. ;)

People that don&#39;t read (as in read books on a constant basis, not people who are illiterate) are far less likely to stop by Bookworld. It won&#39;t be either of use, or of interest to them.

:ninja:


Ohhhhhyes please, bookworld would be great or at least something similar....of course, we could just keep a thread running on the lounge......

I mean, there is no reason why there cannot be a thread entitled bookworld...although to discuss different topics could be tricky within one thread...having said that...the way the mods set up the Iraq/coalition threads in one place may be a solution....dunno....we need the mods to actually put their oar in here........

[MagicNakor]

Go vote for Bookworld. Link&#39;s in my sig. ;)

:ninja:

[j2k4]

I&#39;ve just brought myself up to speed-on this thread, anyway-and I think you have struck on some great ideas.
Perhaps we can hijack the thread and re-name it; something incorporating the Bookworld/talksmart-hangout idea, a&#39;la "World&#39;s Biggest Spam Post...".

Sara-I am in total agreement as to your take on education as it does/doesn&#39;t relate to true intelligence. At work, I answer to four engineers of various stripe; the type who have 4-6-8 years of uni behind them-only to emerge with a sixth-grade equivalence? You know what I mean. I&#39;ve tripped over smarter people in the street. :D

THAT IS NOT TO SAY ALL ATTENDEES OF HIGHER EDUCATION ARE SIMILARLY "STUNTED". It goes both ways.

[DiogenesUK]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@21 April 2003 - 00:35
Go vote for Bookworld. Link&#39;s in my sig. ;)

:ninja:
What an excellent idea,I haven&#39;t had a look at your link yet,but certainly will do so shortly.

Just wondered,has this one been submitted?

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

Not that it&#39;s even remotely relevant of course :lol: :lol: :lol:

[MagicNakor]

I don&#39;t know. Someone might have it in e-book form. ;) I don&#39;t, but that&#39;s because I have it in "paper book" form.

:ninja:

[hobbes]

Let me summarize this thread for the late arrivers.

The coalition forces toppled Saddam&#39;s statue and allegedly staged a celebration in hopes that Kazaa-lite would create a forum called: book world.







Yes, I edited a three line post, get off my ass. It&#39;s these damn claws.

[clocker]

Just goes to show how devious the US really is, eh Hobbes.


The war was actually set up by the Dept. of Education.

[j2k4]

I&#39;m against the N.E.A., but I think Bookworld might not be a bad idea; does this mean cats are extrasensory, or merely underfoot? :blink: :blink:

[sArA]

Of course, it also occurred to me that if Kazaa was to start a bookworld we could get all our posts counted&#33;&#33;&#33; ha ha.............

[j2k4]

Originally posted by sara5564@26 April 2003 - 16:58
Of course, it also occurred to me that if Kazaa was to start a bookworld we could get all our posts counted&#33;&#33;&#33; ha ha.............
As the noted philosopher, myfiles3000, once said:

"Word" :P