On 23/12/2013 6:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm not. I don't want to think of Jim wearing his waistcoat with his
>> >kecks around his ankles. Let him keep his dignity and his braces.:-D
> Makes a note of another tool to punish Stephen with.;)

In your own time. My lively lad.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:59:16 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/12/2013 6:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Or if you live in a media vacuum. :-)
>>
>> Well, some people do manage to avoid spoilers for a while, so I thought
>> I'd be courteous. ;)
>>
>>
> You are right, of course.
> But even I heard about the ending.

:)  Yeah, it probably is pretty well known by now.

>>> Sorry, it was a TV play. Every now and again a drama budget is spent
>>> on drama.
>>
>> Well, yeah, but even still - the development process is similar to
>> actual theatre productions.
>>
> There is an obvious difference between drama and the usual.

Yep.

>> No, not taking it personally at all - over here, there is a rather
>> strong belief that people get the punishments they deserve.  Which is
>> odd, because just as with Walt in BB, it's rarely the case.  Justice
>> wouldn't have been death, it would've been a long time in prison,
>> knowing his family hated him.
>>
>> But don't forget that we don't expect the wealthy to pay for their
>> misdeeds either.  We call people who get to a position of wealth and
>> power who get away with stuff "successful".  Makes me sick.
>>
>>
> We will have you singing the Red Flag, yet. ;-)

LOL.  Then I'll be hauled before a McCarthy-era panel to prove that I'm 
not a communist or something.

>>> It is a collective noun.
>>> The different branches are singular.
>>
>> Exactly what I was saying.  One might be talking about a singular "math
>> branch."
>>
> Exactly! Then you should call it Arithmetic (not, "you do the math."),
> Geometry, Trigonometry etc.

--- snip ---

math, n.3
View as: Outline |Full entryQuotations: Show all |Hide all
Pronunciation:  Brit.	 /maθ/ , U.S. /mæθ/
Forms:  18– math, 18– math. (with point).
Etymology:  Shortened < mathematics n. (probably originally as graphic 
abbreviation). Compare later maths n. and French math (1880).
N. Amer. colloq.
 
  Mathematics (esp. as a subject of study at school or college).
Cf. maths n.   (the usual British colloquial abbreviation).

--- snip ---

Seems the OED accepts the Americanised version as well as the British 
version. :P

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> And last, but not least: Neither the native people in Iraq nor in 
>> Afghanistan had a choice whether they want to live in a battle zone
>> for their whole life. But the foreign troops ompletely consists of
>> volunrary(!) figthers. Isn't it understandable that the natives
>> just dislike them already just for that?
> 
> ....so what you're saying is, harassing anybody and everybody who is 
> or appears to be Muslim is the most effective way to end this sad 
> state of affairs, which is why major world governments are currently
>  doing exactly that?

I don't know _why_ a certain government does this or that. But it seems
cynical but completely logical foe me: if you're the leader of a
weapon-exporting country, you must ensure that there are always anough
conflicts and wars in the world to bring enough orders for your local
military industry.

And to do this, you should calm down your own citizens so they don't
disturb your pervert game. And how to do that: Keep them dumb (e.g. by
shorting a broad education in your population), tell them again and
again your lies that you're fighting a common enemy, until even the last
one in your country beleave it without doubt. (And only a few remind
that your current "enemy" was bred by yourself some years ago. History
repeats itself.)


To make a long story short: Neither "the Islam" nor "Al Qaeda" nor any
other so called "terrorism network" is the real problem. The real prblem
is the greed. The greed that prevent effective actions for more
education and enlightenment in the world, not only in the so called "3rd
World".

Dumb, lazy and inert people are much easier to govern than intelligent,
well-educated and discerning people.


				Lars R.

Post a reply to this message

Lars R. <rou### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> And to do this, you should calm down your own citizens so they don't
> disturb your pervert game. And how to do that: Keep them dumb (e.g. by
> shorting a broad education in your population), tell them again and
> again your lies that you're fighting a common enemy, until even the last
> one in your country beleave it without doubt. (And only a few remind
> that your current "enemy" was bred by yourself some years ago. History
> repeats itself.)

You do realize that many muslim terrorist attacks have been executed by
muslims who had lived and studied for years in a western country, some
of them even having a higher education?

It's more than just education. It is very much about the religion and
its indocrination.

I think that a very good demonstration of this is that recently a poll
was performed in the UK, and one of the questions was about homosexuals.
From the about 500 muslims that participated in the poll exactly 100%
opposed homosexuals. Many of these muslims had been born in the UK and
had studied there all their lives.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 9:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Seems the OED accepts the Americanised version as well as the British
> version. :P

Sigh! You have worn me down. Maths it is.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:56:15 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/12/2013 9:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Seems the OED accepts the Americanised version as well as the British
>> version. :P
> 
> Sigh! You have worn me down. Maths it is.

;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 24/12/2013 6:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:56:15 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 23/12/2013 9:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Seems the OED accepts the Americanised version as well as the British
>>> version. :P
>>
>> Sigh! You have worn me down. Maths it is.
>
> ;)
>
> Jim
>
;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 12/24/2013 2:08 AM, Warp wrote:
> Lars R. <rou### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>> And to do this, you should calm down your own citizens so they don't
>> disturb your pervert game. And how to do that: Keep them dumb (e.g. by
>> shorting a broad education in your population), tell them again and
>> again your lies that you're fighting a common enemy, until even the last
>> one in your country beleave it without doubt. (And only a few remind
>> that your current "enemy" was bred by yourself some years ago. History
>> repeats itself.)
>
> You do realize that many muslim terrorist attacks have been executed by
> muslims who had lived and studied for years in a western country, some
> of them even having a higher education?
>
> It's more than just education. It is very much about the religion and
> its indocrination.
>
> I think that a very good demonstration of this is that recently a poll
> was performed in the UK, and one of the questions was about homosexuals.
>  From the about 500 muslims that participated in the poll exactly 100%
> opposed homosexuals. Many of these muslims had been born in the UK and
> had studied there all their lives.
>
Some of that can be fear too. Since its not acceptable to Islam, and 
Islam doesn't have a lot of flexibility in such matters, unlike 
Christians, who have sidelined their stricter sects, in favor of more 
"love thy neighbor", than, "follow the rules", there is bound to be a 
certain level of, "If I pick anything other than what Islam says I 
should put down, then someone might find out, and I am going to not just 
be in trouble with Allah, but other people.", going on with those polls.

Someone else was recently talking about the difference they saw between 
what polls showed that Muslims thought in the Netherlands (I think it 
was..), and the reality of dealing with those people every day (and it 
was a Muslim saying this). They stated that the reality was not what the 
polls reflected. That the polls showed the "official" stance, the one 
the members where worried someone might find out they disagreed with, 
which someone more hardline might call them on, and they would get in 
major trouble over, if they where found out, but that the reality was 
that almost no one they knew actually thought that way in reality.

In other words, its a case of, "I will go along with the hate and anger, 
because someone might be watching." Their real attitudes may not in fact 
reflect, at all, what the polls show, but they "think" that the polls do 
show the real view, and none of them are willing to risk sticking their 
head up, and finding out how many people around them agree with them 
about it. They might turn out to be alone, and everyone else against them.

Pretty much the same thing has happened with every religion, if it comes 
to that. Those that want to change risk everything, from their 
perspective, to change things, or.. they turn on each other, to protect 
themselves, because they are sure the ones that disagree outnumber them. 
The real numbers might be 80% not giving a damn, but every single one of 
those 80% is "standing alone", in a sea of people that they are sure 
will condemn them for holding such an ungodly view.

That said, the other factor, specific to Western education, is culture 
shock. The openness of the West runs very contrary to what most of these 
people ever dealt with, and there are only two reactions you can have, 
either abandon faith, or harden it, when confronted with the dissonance 
between such vast successes, and denial of so much of the supposed 
"righteous ideals" of a religion. Either it has be been gained via some 
sort of cheat, or.. your faith has to be wrong, for someone steeped so 
heavily in belief, and, they have already been fed plenty of, "They 
cheated their way to success!", already, in most cases. But, its also 
the "earn a degree, so you can wave it around, while denying the things 
you got a degree in.", thing too, for some. There may be no intention at 
all, from the start, to broaden their views, or learn. It is all about 
learning the trappings of the West, so they can, while completely 
failing to understand the subject, (much like certain creationists 
getting degrees in biology, or geology, then turning that info in to a 
distorted pretzel, for their own invalid arguments), present what, but 
only to them, and other believers, sound like plausible explanations 
about how the West works, and what its been doing.

The sad thing is, some of the crap certain political elements, 
especially in the US, pull, would be enough to make an argument, without 
needing to make crap up. But, that's not how propaganda works. You have 
to keep shoveling new crap on the fire, to keep it going, otherwise they 
might have time to look around and wonder what you are screwing up, 
which has helped make life miserable, even without the West being 
involved in it.

But, the have, at least to some extent, had a few nasty surprises (like 
the Arab Summer), where it turned out people where not as stupid and 
sheep like as they thought they where. But, yeah.. fear, I think, plays 
far more in those poll results, that the actual real opinions, when 
dealing with real people, instead of ideas.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> They stated that the reality was not what the 
> polls reflected. That the polls showed the "official" stance, the one 
> the members where worried someone might find out they disagreed with, 
> which someone more hardline might call them on, and they would get in 
> major trouble over, if they where found out, but that the reality was 
> that almost no one they knew actually thought that way in reality.

That, in itself, is a big problem with many muslim subcultures in the
west (ie. the peer pressure that doesn't seem to be as strong as ever.)

As politically incorrect as it is to say, the culture itself is to blame,
and muslims will not get over that problem until it's changed.

Of course the problem is only aggravated by the western mentality that
says to them: "Your culture and your religion are very valuable, you
should keep them, embrace them and treasure them. It's your cultural
heritage and it would be a great loss if it were to be muddied and mixed
with the western culture."

This sentiment is very naive because it only thinks about the positive
things of the exotic culture, completely ignoring the negative things,
pretending that those are not *really* part of the culture. However,
no matter how we try to pretend that it's not part of their culture,
the sad fact is that it is, and we are only encouraging them to keep
it that way and not making a change for the better.

(This is, by the way, the main reason why I oppose the burkha as a
matter of principle. The politically correct segment of our society
wants to think of it as "freedom to dress in whatever way you want."
However, that's not what the burkha represents at all in muslim cultures,
and what's worse, the PC segment knows this perfectly well, but still
deliberately ignores the fact. The burkha in most islamic cultures is
a sign of submission. To these cultures, only a woman dressed in a
burkha is chaste and virtuous, while a woman "exposing herself" is
a whore. Not in all islamic cultures, of course, but in many. The
burkha pretty much represents the exact *opposite* of "you are free
to dress in whatever you want." More blatantly, it's only imposed on
women; men are free to do whatever they want. And that is why I oppose
the custom as a matter of principle. It's sexist and in direct opposition
to the most basic concepts of freedom and equality.)

> That said, the other factor, specific to Western education, is culture 
> shock. The openness of the West runs very contrary to what most of these 
> people ever dealt with

Note that many, if not most, of those muslims had been born in the west
and lived and studied their whole lives here. It shouldn't be as much a
cultural shock to them.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/27/2013 3:48 PM, Warp wrote:
> (This is, by the way, the main reason why I oppose the burkha as a
> matter of principle. The politically correct segment of our society
> wants to think of it as "freedom to dress in whatever way you want."
> However, that's not what the burkha represents at all in muslim cultures,
> and what's worse, the PC segment knows this perfectly well, but still
> deliberately ignores the fact. The burkha in most islamic cultures is
> a sign of submission. To these cultures, only a woman dressed in a
> burkha is chaste and virtuous, while a woman "exposing herself" is
> a whore. Not in all islamic cultures, of course, but in many. The
> burkha pretty much represents the exact *opposite* of "you are free
> to dress in whatever you want." More blatantly, it's only imposed on
> women; men are free to do whatever they want. And that is why I oppose
> the custom as a matter of principle. It's sexist and in direct opposition
> to the most basic concepts of freedom and equality.)
>
This I 99% agree with. I have trouble wrapping my head around the people 
that propose the idea of taking the symbol and using it to empower. It 
might empower "them", but it doesn't do a damn thing for the rest of the 
women around the world. But, then, in the long run, there "might" be 
value in turning it into a meaningless costume, instead. Just.. its no 
wear close to that, and its not going to become that, *until* is really 
is choice, not forced on them, either by religion, or their own false 
sense of modesty/shame. Its no better if you oppress yourself, and in 
the process, perpetuate the stupid ideas that allowed it to become a set 
of chains, holding you down. We get a lot of the same stupid things even 
in Western culture, where "choices" are made, not based on what woman 
want, but are taught to think they should "expect", or "be like". They 
are just not so violently enforced, but, never the less, when, say.. a 
rape happens, the first thing trotted out is a long list of excuses 
about what she wore, did, thought, where she was, what she did/didn't 
say, etc. And, worse, juries fall for that crap, including other women.

>> That said, the other factor, specific to Western education, is culture
>> shock. The openness of the West runs very contrary to what most of these
>> people ever dealt with
>
> Note that many, if not most, of those muslims had been born in the west
> and lived and studied their whole lives here. It shouldn't be as much a
> cultural shock to them.
>
True, but in such cases its usually the religious lie that they fall 
for, "The bad things you see wouldn't exist, if everyone followed these 
other, supposedly, perfect rules." Some people find that thinking very 
tempting, especially if you can manage to give them something they don't 
have, then isolate them from people who might, say.. point out the flaws 
in the logic.

Post a reply to this message