Patrick Elliott wrote:
> bullshit, but that is a different issue), where one of their reporters 
> tries to get a clear answer from people on "if" Obama was born in the 

Yes. Someone asked "Is he a citizen?"  Answer: "No, he shouldn't be 
president because he wasn't born here."  Then they asked "So he's an illegal 
immigrant? We should deport him back to Kenya?"  All of a sudden, there's 
much more waffling.

Sort of like the pro-life protesters, when you ask "so we should put the 
mothers in jail, right?"

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I think Bush was a borderline idiot

Much as we like to insult politicians, I doubt Bush was even close to 
being a borderline idiot; my understanding is that 'idiot' is (or was, 
back in the day) a clearly delineated statement of particular mental 
ability reserved for people with genuinely *really low* IQs.  And, to 
reference wikipedia, "In the early 1900s, Dr. Henry H. Goddard proposed 
a classification system for mental retardation based on the Binet-Simon 
concept of mental age. Individuals with the lowest mental age level 
(less than three years) were identified as idiots; imbiciles had a 
mental age of three to 7 years., and morons had a mental age of seven to 
ten years.  IQ, or intelligence quotient, is determined by dividing a 
person's mental age, as determined by standardized tests, by 
chronological age. The term "idiot" is sometimes used to refer to people 
having an IQ below 30."

So...yeah.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:12:40 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>I believe you, it is just that we here don't see that as often (i.e. 
>almost not at all). Perhaps because things like the above do not make 
>sense if you publish them in a Dutch newspaper, other than 'those silly 
>americans', and what is the news value of that?

I've recently found Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" on British TV.
Very funny and it gives me a lot more respect for Americans. (Well some of them,
anyway :) )

There are some clips that you can see, here.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:12:40 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> I believe you, it is just that we here don't see that as often (i.e. 
>> almost not at all). Perhaps because things like the above do not make 
>> sense if you publish them in a Dutch newspaper, other than 'those silly 
>> americans', and what is the news value of that?
> 
> I've recently found Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" on British TV.
> Very funny and it gives me a lot more respect for Americans. (Well some of them,
> anyway :) )
> 
> There are some clips that you can see, here.
> 
> http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Another good one from the same channel:

http://www.colbertnation.com/home

Its 100% Poe, which is why the truly stupid conservatives sometimes 
actually think he is on their side. No, seriously.. some of them haven't 
got the message from their fellow nuts that he is not, and actually 
agree with the over the top gibberish he puts out. Its bizarre. lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> bullshit, but that is a different issue), where one of their reporters 
>> tries to get a clear answer from people on "if" Obama was born in the 
> 
> Yes. Someone asked "Is he a citizen?"  Answer: "No, he shouldn't be 
> president because he wasn't born here."  Then they asked "So he's an 
> illegal immigrant? We should deport him back to Kenya?"  All of a 
> sudden, there's much more waffling.
> 
> Sort of like the pro-life protesters, when you ask "so we should put the 
> mothers in jail, right?"
> 
Yeah. Never mind that, much as in the case of some of the stuff they 
want to ban on the pro-life side, the answer is both completely wrong, 
but their theories on what constitute "born in", or "citizen", are not 
even correct. I like how someone points out that McCain was born in 
Panama. Mind, it was a US occupied part, at the time, but it still 
wasn't a state in the union, and so.. does it really qualify? Same 
irrelevancy. One or more of his parents where citizens, so it wouldn't 
matter if he was born of fracking Mars, he is still a citizen. But, 
since all the evidence is that Obama either "was" born in Hawaii, or his 
family managed to bribe a dozen news papers, and the Hawaiian 
government, somehow, to lie about it 35+ years ago, its bullshit anyway. 
If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do" 
know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.

Its all quite absurd.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> I think Bush was a borderline idiot
> 
> Much as we like to insult politicians, I doubt Bush was even close to 
> being a borderline idiot; my understanding is that 'idiot' is (or was, 
> back in the day) a clearly delineated statement of particular mental 
> ability reserved for people with genuinely *really low* IQs.  And, to 
> reference wikipedia, "In the early 1900s, Dr. Henry H. Goddard proposed 
> a classification system for mental retardation based on the Binet-Simon 
> concept of mental age. Individuals with the lowest mental age level 
> (less than three years) were identified as idiots; imbiciles had a 
> mental age of three to 7 years., and morons had a mental age of seven to 
> ten years.  IQ, or intelligence quotient, is determined by dividing a 
> person's mental age, as determined by standardized tests, by 
> chronological age. The term "idiot" is sometimes used to refer to people 
> having an IQ below 30."
> 
> So...yeah.
> 
> -- 
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
People that believe in IQs are idiots too. lol

But seriously, I think the rules on that are just a bit flawed. Its 
possible to be well educated, very good within the scope of your own 
little world, knowledgeable about a narrow number of things, and still a 
total half wit when dealing with things "outside" your understanding. 
Bush's understanding seemed to be limited to right wing Bible, war 
heroes from old movie plots, and big business. Everything else, he was 
clueless about.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do" 
> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.

  I hate to be a grammar nazi, but those quotation marks take most of the
seriousness of your writing away. I really think you should avoid misusing
them.

  In these types of sentences putting a single word in quotes usually means
that you are using euphemisms or irony, that you are not literally meaning
what the word is saying.

  When you say, eg. 'he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent'
it sounds like you don't mean "physically" in the literal sense, but
figuratively. Like it was some kind of figurative speech for something
else. I don't think that's what you mean.

  (That's the only possible meaning because you are clearly not quoting
anybody nor using some kind of slang or obscure word (requiring explanation
for those who don't know it) or alias.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/31/09 16:47, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do"
>> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
>
>    I hate to be a grammar nazi, but those quotation marks take most of the
> seriousness of your writing away. I really think you should avoid misusing
> them.
>
>    In these types of sentences putting a single word in quotes usually means
> that you are using euphemisms or irony, that you are not literally meaning
> what the word is saying.

	I really doubt that grammar rules suggest this. I think you mean an 
often used meme/convention.

	In any case, it's a matter of interpretation. His usage of quotation 
marks for 'physically' is strictly to point out that he's using the same 
words as the opposing side (i.e. that it is not merely his 
interpretation). In one sense, that is close to the ideal usage.

>    (That's the only possible meaning because you are clearly not quoting
> anybody nor using some kind of slang or obscure word (requiring explanation
> for those who don't know it) or alias.)

	My understanding was that he _was_ quoting a number of people. He just 
didn't state who.

-- 
Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day. Teach him to use the Net 
and he won't bother you for weeks.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     I really doubt that grammar rules suggest this. 

It's definitely grammar rules, yes.

>     In any case, it's a matter of interpretation. His usage of quotation 
> marks for 'physically' is strictly to point out that he's using the same 
> words as the opposing side (i.e. that it is not merely his 
> interpretation). In one sense, that is close to the ideal usage.

If that's what he meant. But since he put "do" in quote marks too, I somehow 
think he's using the same conventions he uses in every other post, which is 
to incorrectly put quote marks around words he's trying to emphasize.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> IQ, or intelligence quotient, is determined by 
>> dividing a person's mental age, as determined by standardized tests, 
>> by chronological age.

> People that believe in IQs are idiots too. lol

Why?  What about a basically statistical measure of relative mental age 
is problematic?

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message