Filled Under:

rec.arts.books - 17 new messages in 4 topics - digest

rec.arts.books
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en

rec.arts.books@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Franz Neumann on Carl Schmitt - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/448beaac281290a1?hl=en
* Visit Mad Ft. Hood Shooter's Islamist Web Page - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/920057797d5b267c?hl=en
* Big Trouble for Bibi - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/c210bd54e82eb9da?hl=en
* Is this perfectly clear now? - 6 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/4e2c279aa5016671?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Franz Neumann on Carl Schmitt
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/448beaac281290a1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 12:04 am
From: The Other


Marko Amnell <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> writes:

> On Nov 5, 11:04 am, The Other <ot...@address.invalid> wrote:
>  
> > This necessary "homogeneity", at least in _Nomos_, refers to a
> > common legal tradition, common economic systems (private property,
> > as opposed to the USSR), etc.  As usual, Schmitt looks at it
> > historically: the concrete, existing order wasn't built on some
> > abstract, universal norms.  Rather, the norms were inseparable
> > from all these "background" elements. The old world order defended
> > by Schmitt was just that, a world order, but it was oriented
> > toward a Europe that was homogeneous in the sense of bourgeois,
> > Christian, etc.  The fundamental disconnection of order and
> > orientation, which came about when that European orientation was
> > destroyed, is what Schmitt defines as nihilism.  The reductio ad
> > absurdum is the UN in our time, where the ridiculously-named
> > "international community" comprises the US, Iran, Sudan, North
> > Korea, Sweden, Zimbabwe, etc.
>
> This seems to reinforce the judgement that Schmitt was a
> Conservative (or as I'd prefer to say, a Reactionary) not a National
> Socialist. He emphasized the importance of tradition, whereas the
> Nazis were true revolutionaries who wanted to overthrow the
> traditional order. Schmitt seems to have adjusted very well to the
> new Nazi order, however, and applied and developed his ideas to
> support the grand Nazi strategies.

Schmitt wasn't sincerely a National Socialist, and I don't think any
serious scholar claims he was. In the early 1930s he urged the
President to outlaw the Nazi Party (and also the Communist Party).
His 1932 book _Legality and Legitimacy_ all but calls for that in so
many words. He was affiliated with aristocratic Prussian
conservatives such as Papen and Schleicher, one of whom (I forget
which) was executed soon after the Nazis came to power.

Schmitt supported a strong "qualitative total" state but opposed
totalitarianism. It's important to understand that for him the two
were antithetical. Totalitarianism has (almost?) always been
implemented by political parties (Nazi, Communist, etc.) which took
control of what Schmitt would call a weak "quantitative total" state -
weak by virtue of its being controlled by political parties, i.e., by
elements of society. ("Society" doesn't just include groups like the
Rotary Club, it also includes parties like the Nazis, with their own
militias etc.) In the 1930s there was a conflict within the Nazi
parties between supporters of a strong state (this included the SA)
and supporters of a strong Nazi Party. Schmitt was among the former
faction of course, which lost.

> > The writings I've read have been very consistent.  Schmitt defends
> > the "jus publicum Europaeum", the world order existing from about
> > the 16th or 17th century till the end of the 19th century.
>
> I think that Neumann's criticism here is rather weak. Just because
> Schmitt politicizes legal arguments does not mean that he therefore
> needs to accept *all* legal arguments that appeal to ethics, such as
> the notion of a "just war."

Yeah, Neumann was really stretching it there.

> > Schmitt agreed with critics on the left that interstate economic and
> > cultural domination eroded true sovereignty.  Since the international
> > order based on sovereign states was disappearing, not just de jure but
> > de facto as well, in the 20th century, public law needed to reflect
> > that reality.  Schmitt of course mourned the loss of the order based
> > on sovereign states more than anyone.  Again, his approach is
> > historical: you can't abstract norms from a concrete order, especially
> > a dead one, and apply them universally.  I don't doubt that he used
> > this analysis to justify German actions in WW2.  That doesn't
> > discredit the analysis itself though.
>
> Yes, but the fact that these ideas were apparently developed to
> justify Nazi conquests during World War II does throw a different
> light on them. Or did he start developing these ideas before 1933?

Before 1933.

> And further down the page Neumann writes:
>
> "Since law is identical with the will of the Leader, since the
> Leader can send political opponents to their death without any
> judicial procedures, and since such an act is glorified as the
> highest realization of justice, ..." The endnote (number 76) here
> reads: Carl Schmitt, "Der Führer schützt das Recht," in Deutsche
> Juristenzeitung, 1934 (29), p. 945.
>
> So here we have evidence that as soon as the Nazis seized power,
> Schmitt embraced the Führer as the embodiment of his decisionist
> political philosophy of sovereignty, familiar from his most
> well-known and influential book _The Concept of the Political_. The
> sovereign is defined as the one who decides and his decision is
> absolute.
>
> The quote above continues: "... we can no longer speak of a specific
> character of law. Law is now a technical means for the achivement of
> specific political aims. It is merely the command of the
> sovereign. To this extent, the juristic theory of the fascist state
> is decisionism. Law is merely an arcanum dominationis, a means for
> the stabilization of power.
> "The juristic ideology of the National Socialist
> state is very different from this analysis, of course. It takes the
> form of institutionalism, or, as Carl Schmitt and other calls it, a
> 'concrete order and structure [or community] thought.'

You forgot, sovereign is he who decides ON THE EXCEPTION. It was
Schmitt's idea of sovereignty which also justified his call on the
President to outlaw the Nazi Party in the early 1930s.

Neumann is being tendentious here. I don't think that Schmitt said
that "law is identical with the will of the Leader [or sovereign]".
He certainly didn't say it before or after the Nazi period. He said
the opposite, in fact, in _The Concept of the Political_ and in _The
Nomos of the Earth_ especially. The sovereign (which in the 20th
century is usually identified as the people) is in some sense above
positive law, if sovereignty means anything at all. But Schmitt draws
attention to the swindle involved when phrases like "the rule of law"
refer nowadays not to natural, divine, or customary law, but only to
positive law defined simply as any statutes passed by a legislature or
whatever. Schmitt consistently *opposed* law as arbitrary command,
whether by a legislature or by a sovereign. Who wouldn't? Even
Hobbes and Bodin followed the traditional belief that the sovereign is
bound by natural and divine law. In Schmitt's opposition to legal
positivism - a legal philosophy which would seem to legitimize the
Nazi regime - he was conservative, or reactionary.

It's significant what Neumann doesn't say about Schmitt's
writings. After the war Schmitt claimed that his 1938 _The Leviathan
in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes_ contained an esoteric protest
against the Nazi regime. I think that's evident in the text, by any
reasonably attentive reading.


== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 8:44 am
From: Marko Amnell


On Nov 10, 10:04 am, The Other <ot...@address.invalid> wrote:
> Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> writes:
> > On Nov 5, 11:04 am, The Other <ot...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >  
> > > This necessary "homogeneity", at least in _Nomos_, refers to a
> > > common legal tradition, common economic systems (private property,
> > > as opposed to the USSR), etc.  As usual, Schmitt looks at it
> > > historically: the concrete, existing order wasn't built on some
> > > abstract, universal norms.  Rather, the norms were inseparable
> > > from all these "background" elements. The old world order defended
> > > by Schmitt was just that, a world order, but it was oriented
> > > toward a Europe that was homogeneous in the sense of bourgeois,
> > > Christian, etc.  The fundamental disconnection of order and
> > > orientation, which came about when that European orientation was
> > > destroyed, is what Schmitt defines as nihilism.  The reductio ad
> > > absurdum is the UN in our time, where the ridiculously-named
> > > "international community" comprises the US, Iran, Sudan, North
> > > Korea, Sweden, Zimbabwe, etc.
>
> > This seems to reinforce the judgement that Schmitt was a
> > Conservative (or as I'd prefer to say, a Reactionary) not a National
> > Socialist. He emphasized the importance of tradition, whereas the
> > Nazis were true revolutionaries who wanted to overthrow the
> > traditional order. Schmitt seems to have adjusted very well to the
> > new Nazi order, however, and applied and developed his ideas to
> > support the grand Nazi strategies.
>
> Schmitt wasn't sincerely a National Socialist, and I don't think
> any serious scholar claims he was.

Franz Neumann repeatedly calls him a National Socialist,
a leading National Socialist international lawyer, and so on.
The fact remains that he joined the Nazi Party in 1933.

> In the early 1930s he urged the
> President to outlaw the Nazi Party (and also the Communist Party).
> His 1932 book _Legality and Legitimacy_ all but calls for that in so
> many words.  He was affiliated with aristocratic Prussian
> conservatives such as Papen and Schleicher, one of whom (I forget
> which) was executed soon after the Nazis came to power.

Fair enough. But one thing that recent research has highlighted
is the extent to which German aristocrats actively supported
the Nazi Party. This support is described in a new book,
_High Society in the Third Reich_ by Fabrice d'Almeida.
Here is a quote from a review of the book by Christopher
Clark in the 9 April 2009 issue of the London Review of
Books (the article is available for free at the LRB website):

"From a sample of 312 families of the old nobility, the Freiburg
historian Stephan Malinowski found 3592 individuals who joined
the Nazi Party, including 962 who did so before the seizure of
power in January 1933. These noble Nazis included members
of the oldest and most distinguished East Elbian families:
the Schwerins supplied 52 party members, the Hardenbergs 27,
the Tresckows 30, and the Schulenburgs 41.
"The very highest-born families, descendants of the ruling
dynasties of the German principalities, were especially
susceptible to the party's appeal. Duke Ernst August of
Braunschweig (who was married to one of the princesses
of Prussia) was a regular donor to the party and a close
associate of several Nazi leaders (though he never became a
card-carrying Nazi); Duke Carl Eduard von Sachsen-Coburg
und Gotha (a grandson of Queen Victoria, born Prince of
Great Britain and Ireland, and known to his British friends as
Charlie Coburg) joined the party in 1933 and became an
SA-Gruppenführer in 1936. Some princely families flocked
to the party en masse – 14 from the House of Hesse, ten
from the Schaumburg-Lippes, 20 from the Hohenlohes and
so on. In all, it seems that between a third and half of the
eligible members of German princely families joined the party.
As the American scholar Jonathan Petropoulos observed in
his study of the princes of Hessen, if princes had constituted
a profession, 'they would have rivalled physicians as the
most Nazified in the Third Reich (doctors' membership
peaked in 1937 at 43 per cent)'"

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n07/christopher-clark/vases-tea-sets-cigars-his-own-watercolours

http://tinyurl.com/ye6srsc

This enthusiastic support has been downplayed by historians
for a long time for various reasons. To quote Clark again:

"An interest in the relationship between the traditional
elites of German society and the National Socialist movement
developed only quite recently. There are various reasons for
this: the celebration of German military resistance as the
moral foundation stone of the new Federal Republic created
an implicit linkage between high birth and principled opposition
to Nazi criminality; many of the relevant archival sources are
still in the hands of the families and some are less willing than
others to support research; and for a long time it was widely
believed that Nazism was in essence a movement of the
downwardly mobile petite bourgeoisie – shopkeepers, clerks,
tradesmen and minor officials who saw in the movement's
authoritarian racist politics a promise of rescue from
déclassement and proletarianisation."

So, the fact that Schmitt was "affiliated with aristocratic
Prussian conservatives" in no way suggests that he
would not have supported the Nazi Party. On the
contrary, German aristocrats were among the most
enthusiastic supporters of the Nazis. Postwar
historiography has obscured this important fact
for a long time.

> Schmitt supported a strong "qualitative total" state but opposed
> totalitarianism.  It's important to understand that for him the two
> were antithetical.  Totalitarianism has (almost?) always been
> implemented by political parties (Nazi, Communist, etc.) which took
> control of what Schmitt would call a weak "quantitative total" state -
> weak by virtue of its being controlled by political parties, i.e., by
> elements of society.  ("Society" doesn't just include groups like the
> Rotary Club, it also includes parties like the Nazis, with their own
> militias etc.)  In the 1930s there was a conflict within the Nazi
> parties between supporters of a strong state (this included the SA)
> and supporters of a strong Nazi Party.  Schmitt was among the former
> faction of course, which lost.

Well, this argument is supported by what is generally taken
to be the main analysis of _Behemoth_: That the Third Reich
was not a monolithic, strong State but a chaotic collection of
competing institutions (Nazi party, Nazi government, Nazi
military high command, Nazi industry) in which constant
power struggles took place between rival organizations.
One might even go as far as to say that Nazi Germany lacked
a modern state altogether. For example, Wikipedia says:

"The thesis is that National Socialist rule is a function of
continuing struggles among power groups united only by
their hatred of the labor movement, and that Nazi Germany
consequently lacks a state in the sense of the modern
political formation oriented to order and predictability."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Leopold_Neumann

Neumann's analysis was highly influential and helped,
for example, to shape the prosecution's case at the
Nuremberg Trials. To quote from Peter Hayes's
introduction to the 2009 edition of _Behemoth_ (pp. 7f):

"Immediately after the war, when Neumann was a member
of the prosecution staff preparing the Nuremberg Trials
of major war criminals, _Behemoth_ stamped both the
conception of the American case and the organization
of its supporting documents. 'Conspiracy' to commit crimes
against peace and humanity was the centerpiece of the
American charges against not only the 22 principal
war criminals brought before the International Military
Tribunal in 1945-1945 but also against the 185 lesser
figures from the Nazi Party, the state bureaucracy,
the armed forces, and industry and banking who were
arraigned before American judges in the twelve Nuremberg
Military Tribunals of 1947-1949. Although this approach
had multiple origins, not least in the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act and the prosecution of mobsters in the United
States, the conspiracy charge also reflected the impact
of Neumann's depiction of Hitler's regime. So did the way
the United States categorized captured German records
for use as evidence in both sets of proceedings. Before
being assigned numbers, relevant papers were sorted
among four groups, each with a distinct prefix that referred
to one of Neumann's quadrumvirate of power structures
(NO = Nazi organization, that is, the party; NG = Nazi
government; NOKW = Nazi Military High Command; and
NI = Nazi industry.)"

Neumann's analysis turns up all over the place in postwar
studies of Nazi Germany. For example, it is a key premise
of _The Order of the Death's Head: The Story of Hitler's SS_
by Heinz Zollin Höhne, which "exposes an organization that
was not directed by some devilishly efficient system but was
the product of accident, inevitability, and the random
convergence of criminals, social climbers, and romantics."

http://www.amazon.com/Order-Deaths-Head-Hitlers-Military/dp/0141390123

> > > The writings I've read have been very consistent.  Schmitt defends
> > > the "jus publicum Europaeum", the world order existing from about
> > > the 16th or 17th century till the end of the 19th century.
>
> > I think that Neumann's criticism here is rather weak.  Just because
> > Schmitt politicizes legal arguments does not mean that he therefore
> > needs to accept *all* legal arguments that appeal to ethics, such as
> > the notion of a "just war."
>
> Yeah, Neumann was really stretching it there.
>
> > > Schmitt agreed with critics on the left that interstate economic and
> > > cultural domination eroded true sovereignty.  Since the international
> > > order based on sovereign states was disappearing, not just de jure but
> > > de facto as well, in the 20th century, public law needed to reflect
> > > that reality.  Schmitt of course mourned the loss of the order based
> > > on sovereign states more than anyone.  Again, his approach is
> > > historical: you can't abstract norms from a concrete order, especially
> > > a dead one, and apply them universally.  I don't doubt that he used
> > > this analysis to justify German actions in WW2.  That doesn't
> > > discredit the analysis itself though.
>
> > Yes, but the fact that these ideas were apparently developed to
> > justify Nazi conquests during World War II does throw a different
> > light on them. Or did he start developing these ideas before 1933?
>
> Before 1933.
>
> > And further down the page Neumann writes:
>
> > "Since law is identical with the will of the Leader, since the
> > Leader can send political opponents to their death without any
> > judicial procedures, and since such an act is glorified as the
> > highest realization of justice, ..."  The endnote (number 76) here
> > reads: Carl Schmitt, "Der Führer schützt das Recht," in Deutsche
> > Juristenzeitung, 1934 (29), p. 945.
>
> > So here we have evidence that as soon as the Nazis seized power,
> > Schmitt embraced the Führer as the embodiment of his decisionist
> > political philosophy of sovereignty, familiar from his most
> > well-known and influential book _The Concept of the Political_. The
> > sovereign is defined as the one who decides and his decision is
> > absolute.
>
> > The quote above continues: "... we can no longer speak of a specific
> > character of law. Law is now a technical means for the achivement of
> > specific political aims. It is merely the command of the
> > sovereign. To this extent, the juristic theory of the fascist state
> > is decisionism.  Law is merely an arcanum dominationis, a means for
> > the stabilization of power.
> >    "The juristic ideology of the National Socialist
> > state is very different from this analysis, of course.  It takes the
> > form of institutionalism, or, as Carl Schmitt and other calls it, a
> > 'concrete order and structure [or community] thought.'
>
> You forgot, sovereign is he who decides ON THE EXCEPTION.

Yes, sorry about that. I realized I should have said
"about the exceptional case" or something to that effect
as soon as I had posted my response.

> It was
> Schmitt's idea of sovereignty which also justified his call on the
> President to outlaw the Nazi Party in the early 1930s.
>
> Neumann is being tendentious here.  I don't think that Schmitt said
> that "law is identical with the will of the Leader [or sovereign]".
> He certainly didn't say it before or after the Nazi period.  He said
> the opposite, in fact, in _The Concept of the Political_ and in _The
> Nomos of the Earth_ especially. The sovereign (which in the 20th
> century is usually identified as the people) is in some sense above
> positive law, if sovereignty means anything at all.  But Schmitt draws
> attention to the swindle involved when phrases like "the rule of law"
> refer nowadays not to natural, divine, or customary law, but only to
> positive law defined simply as any statutes passed by a legislature or
> whatever.  Schmitt consistently *opposed* law as arbitrary command,
> whether by a legislature or by a sovereign.  Who wouldn't?  Even
> Hobbes and Bodin followed the traditional belief that the sovereign is
> bound by natural and divine law.  In Schmitt's opposition to legal
> positivism - a legal philosophy which would seem to legitimize the
> Nazi regime - he was conservative, or reactionary.

Yes, Schmitt was always opposed to legal positivism. Opposition
to legal positivism was widespread in Germany during the interwar
period. Both Franz Neumann and Max Weber also opposed legal
positivism. And Schmitt's arguments against legal positivism were
widely supported during both the Weimar Republic and Nazi periods.

> It's significant what Neumann doesn't say about Schmitt's
> writings. After the war Schmitt claimed that his 1938 _The Leviathan
> in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes_ contained an esoteric protest
> against the Nazi regime.  I think that's evident in the text, by any
> reasonably attentive reading.

I agree with your argument. Franz Neumann tries to portray
Schmitt as a committed National Socialist, but this was not true.
He was a Conservative, or as I'd prefer to say, a Reactionary
in the tradition of Joseph de Maistre and Juan Donoso Cortés
and that is the tradition of political thinkers in which Schmitt
is best understood.

English translations of the writings of Donoso Cortés are a bit
hard to find, but see, for example, his "Speech on Dictatorship"
in _Selected Works of Juan Donoso Cortés_ (I have this book)
where he is explicitly compared to Schmitt.

http://www.amazon.com/Selected-Works-Juan-Donoso-Cortes/dp/0313313970

There is also a fair bit of information about him available
online, for example here:

"Juan Donoso Cortés (1809-1853), parliamentary statesman,
diplomat, government minister, royal counselor, theologian, and
political theorist, may not be well known among modern political
philosophers. However, his ideas had an enormous influence
in the spheres of politics and religion in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. Donoso's theories were uniquely influential
in shaping the ideological trajectory that began with the reaction
against the Enlightenment and the French Revolution in the
eighteenth century and culminated in the rise of fascism in the
twentieth century. This Spanish Catholic and conservative
thinker was the philosophical heir of Joseph de Maistre, one
of the most prominent reactionary conservative thinkers of the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Even though his
life was short and his works few in number, Donoso's contribution
to modern political philosophy and theology cannot be ignored
if we wish to have a more complete understanding of the ideas
and actions that have shaped Europe and the Roman Church
in recent centuries. His most notable idea-the theory on
dictatorship-was Donoso's most significant and unique
contribution to modern political thought."

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/donoso.htm

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 1:39 pm
From: "Marko Amnell"

"Marko Amnell" <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
0f8cceb2-4b0b-47c2-967d-19b64a14e921@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

> I agree with your argument. Franz Neumann tries to portray
> Schmitt as a committed National Socialist, but this was not true.
> He was a Conservative, or as I'd prefer to say, a Reactionary
> in the tradition of Joseph de Maistre and Juan Donoso Cortés
> and that is the tradition of political thinkers in which Schmitt
> is best understood.
>
> English translations of the writings of Donoso Cortés are a bit
> hard to find, but see, for example, his "Speech on Dictatorship"
> in _Selected Works of Juan Donoso Cortés_ (I have this book)
> where he is explicitly compared to Schmitt.

Donoso's influence on Schmitt is also described here:

"In the political arena, Donoso's influence was just as ominous.
His theory of dictatorship and his critique of liberal democratic
parliamentarianism significantly influenced the thinking of the
twentieth century German conservative political theorist Carl Schmitt.
Schmitt figured prominently in the development of the legal principles
and structures of the Nazi régime. Schmitt's critique of parliamentary
democracy rests heavily upon arguments first developed by Donoso.
Furthermore, Schmitt's depiction of politics as a constant struggle
of friends against enemies reflects Donoso's quasi-Manichæan view
of politics as a war between Catholic civilization and philosophical
civilization. Donoso's notion of infallible authority resonated in the
Nazi Führerprinzip, the Italian fascist principle of Ducismo, and the
principle of Caudillaje of the Franco régime in Spain (1936-75)."

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/donoso.htm

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 5:22 pm
From: "Marko Amnell"

Images of some of the authors in this thread...

Franz Neumann
http://www.wbenjamin.org/neumann.jpg
Looking very much the egghead scholar,
seated at a table covered with papers.

Carl Schmitt
http://www.ppl.nl/100years/images/schmitt.jpg
There is an odd bump on the left side of his
forehead. It's there in other photographs too:
http://ls.berkeley.edu/art-hum/framing/vol4/Schmitt%20mid%201933.jpg
http://www.politics.fudan.edu.cn/picture/1294.jpg
I wonder what it might be.

Joseph de Maistre
http://www.sabaudia.org/v2/dossiers/maistre/images/joseph_hd.jpg
Suitably enough for a throne and altar conservative,
a crown and cross hang around his neck, and the books
on the table remind us of his refined literary style. His
expression is haughty, with a touch of cruelty in the lips.
His expression reminds me of Talleyrand in this portrait:
http://tinyurl.com/y9bkf2q

Juan Donoso Cortés
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/JuanDonosoCortes.jpg
The expression, hairstyle, sideburns and collar
all make him look like a Dickens character
(and that is the right era, the 1840s), but the
sash and medals give him a more statesmanlike air.

Max Weber
http://moaciralencarjunior.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/max_weber.jpg

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 10:35 pm
From: Patok


Marko Amnell wrote:
>
> Carl Schmitt
> http://www.ppl.nl/100years/images/schmitt.jpg
> There is an odd bump on the left side of his
> forehead. It's there in other photographs too:
> http://ls.berkeley.edu/art-hum/framing/vol4/Schmitt%20mid%201933.jpg
> http://www.politics.fudan.edu.cn/picture/1294.jpg
> I wonder what it might be.

The pictures are not really clear enough to tell, but it might be a
lipoma: http://dermnetnz.org/lesions/lipoma.html
I have it in the family (I have too), and that's what it looks
like. True, ours are more pronounced (smaller area for the same
elevation), while his looks more like the result of a bump on the head,
but judging as he has it in many photos, that's most likely it.

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Visit Mad Ft. Hood Shooter's Islamist Web Page
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/920057797d5b267c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 1:23 am
From: Just Me


On Nov 8, 6:57 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:28 pm, Piet de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 8, 4:40 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>
> > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > On Nov 8, 4:11 pm, Robert McClelland <mcclelland.rob...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 8, 4:05 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>
> > > > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > I thought he was a born in USA American.
>
> > > > Mad American, mad Islamist; what's the difference.
>
> > > Well if they paint him as a Mad Islamist, thene there's nothing wrong
> > > going on in the Army.
>
> > > If the paint him as a Mad American, then that opens up a bunch of
> > > paths that few will want to take to see where they lead.
>
> > Why can't you be both?
>
> > Some people may argue about the definition of "Islamist" or "mad", so
> > perhaps it would be better to say a "Muslim American psychiatrist".
>
> Why not American Psychiatrist of the Muslim faith?

Didn't you even so much as click the link to his Scribd post? Jesus,
Koolchicki. If so, how can you be asking such a question? "Islamist"
on the one hand, is to be contrasted with "Islamic" and "Muslim" on
the other, as categories with totally separate meanings. "Islamist"
refers to the doctrines and tactics of radical revolutionary Islam,
including but not limited to an agenda of Islamic world domination.

The Islamist tactic of suicide bombing is condemned by 'moderate'
Muslims of Islam as *haran*-- "absolutely forbidden".

So here's the kicker: There at Nidal Hassan's Scribd site you find his
radical "Islamist" advocacy of suicide bombing placed mysteriously in
direct contrast to the attached document in which doctrines of the
'moderate' orthodox Muslim faith are set forth to declare suicide and
suicide bombing as "absolutely forbidden".

Here are his words, spelling errors and bad grammar included . . .

'There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One
of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee
jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed
he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble
cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier
committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is
a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars
have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing
their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one
suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught
off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their
intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said
for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into
ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i
you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by
Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR
INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) knows best."'

FROM http://www.scribd.com/NidalHasan

So, by this you see him advocating his Islamist position, publishing
it for the 'moderate' Islamic ear to hear; these his claims of
legitimacy for suicide bombers, backed by some alleged scholarly
support. He argues his point on new grounds of psychological import,
this being his area of expertise as a psychiatrist.

Hasan presents in the attached document the view of 'moderate' Islam
he is arguing against, but the view he is nevertheless committed to
follow as a highly dedicated observant Muslim. So what does he do? He
goes to "jump on the grave" to his martyrdom, fully in accord, as he
sees it, with 'moderate' Muslim doctrine; just so, he engineers his
death entirely according to Islamic hoyle by the method we know as
"suicide by cop". The distinction between Islamist and Islamic turns
entirely on logic of this: by whose fire does he die, his own or that
of the enemy? That is precisely as it is set forth in the attached
document.

So you see what he's done. Through his act of 'martyrdom' in
conjunction with this posting at Scribd.Com he has managed to present
his case to all of Islam, to every Mullah who may have occasion to
read it and be convinced by it. And he has done it all, by keeping
fully in step with the sacred dogma of 'moderate' Islam.

What he does not yet recognize however is the immense damage his
murderous rampage has done to his faith by effectively erasing the
line between "Islamist" and "Islamic": he has proven by this act of
mayhem that there really has never been any such thing as 'moderate
Islam'; no form of Islam that can in any orthodox 'moderate' way
condemn as *haran* what he did that day in Texas.
--
JM http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com


==============================================================================
TOPIC: Big Trouble for Bibi
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/c210bd54e82eb9da?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 3:28 am
From: "Koolchicki@smurfsareus.xxx"


On Nov 9, 9:10 pm, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
> "Grand Mal" <ironw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ms%Jm.51275$Db2.27305@edtnps83...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Just Me" <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:003ab860-2023-41ea-b720-01d5d259a2a1@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 9, 1:48 pm, "Grand Mal" <ironw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Just Me" <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:012fc538-ad67-401b-a492-e1384ba252ed@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > According tohttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126594.html. . .
>
> >> > "Concerns are growing in Israel's government over the possibility of a
> >> > unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence within the 1967
> >> > borders, a move which could potentially be recognized by the United
> >> > Nations Security Council.
>
> >> > Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently asked the administration of
> >> > U.S. President Barack Obama to veto any such proposal, after reports
> >> > reached Jerusalem of support for such a declaration from major
> >> > European Union countries, and apparently also certain U.S. officials.
>
> >> > The reports indicated that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has
> >> > reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration over U.S.
> >> > recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Such recognition
> >> > would likely transform any Israeli presence across the Green Line,
> >> > even in Jerusalem, into an illegal incursion to which the Palestinians
> >> > would be entitled to engage in measures of self-defense."
> >> > --
>
> >> > This demands of Israel that it abandon Jerusalem. An Israel without
> >> > full landed sovereignty over, and all around Jerusalem is no "Israel"
> >> > at all. The post-1967 borders are the logical, ancient, natural
> >> > borders for the Jewish state, exactly as they have at last come to be
> >> > reestablished. It is the geographical logic of that ancient map which
> >> > now, thanks to the boundless valor of the Israeli people comes to its
> >> > logical conclusion in geophysical reality, and this all the world need
> >> > see for a full and final refutation of all naive dreams and irrational
> >> > schemes for a "Palestinian state". There has never been any such
> >> > thing on the world map, in all of world history and for that reason
> >> > there is no place in the world for it now.
> >> > --
> >> > JMhttp://whosenose.blogspot.com
> >> >http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
>
> >> You just get worse as you grow older.
>
> > -You don't stop to think it might be going the other way? Quick! Take a
> > -peek in your pants to see there's any safety pins or Snuggies in
> > -sight.
>
> > Keep your attentions outa my pants.
>
> >> What do you figure will be the best
> >> way to bring peace to the area, ethnic cleansing? Or should 10 million
> >> people just shut up and do what their masters tell them to do?
>
> > -They should stop acting like a bunch of scalp-hunting Comanches,
> > -settle down, go back to their jobs, and sign up to become good Israeli
> > -citizens. Otherwise they ain't nothing but a bunch of pride-crazy cry
> > -babies.  What if our Navajos and Apaches were still carrying on like
> > -those  spoiled brat Arabs?  And had the support of the UN and the
> > -European Union?
>
> > Good analogy. Let's recap what I remember of the American policy re.
> > Native Indians...
> > They are to meekly gather when rounded up and march to and live peacefully
> > on the piece of land designated for them. If that piece of land becomes
> > otherwise useful, they are to meekly gather again and move to somewhere
> > else. If they resist they will be slaughtered, man, woman and child. There
> > is no treaty with them or promise to them that's binding on the
> > government. They will not be allowed to assimilate fully into society
> > until they are so few that they are statistically insignifigant.
> > If you were Palestinian, would you have the option of settling down, going
> > back to your job and becoming a good Israeli citizen? Does the government
> > allow that?
>
> In the same way the Apartheid South Africans allowed blacks and coloureds to
> have full South African citizenship.
> Having said that, the Boers didn't murder children from airborne and
> seaborne weapons platforms or fire white phosphorous into civilian targets,
> nor allow infants to dehydrate to death beside the bodies of their murdered
> mothers.
>
> Israel - setting old standards in inhuman butchery.
>
> How's winter setting in in Canada?

my parts are warm but that could be just a front driven in by Ida down
south. East coast has snow already.


== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 8:47 am
From: "Fish Supper"

"Grand Mal" <ironwrkr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O38Km.52208$PH1.38998@edtnps82...
>
> "Fish Supper" <life@sea.com> wrote in message
> news:OO-dnWFf9KCLUGXXnZ2dnUVZ8kqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "Grand Mal" <ironwrkr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ms%Jm.51275$Db2.27305@edtnps83...
>>>
>>> "Just Me" <jpdm45@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:003ab860-2023-41ea-b720-01d5d259a2a1@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Nov 9, 1:48 pm, "Grand Mal" <ironw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Just Me" <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:012fc538-ad67-401b-a492-e1384ba252ed@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > According tohttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126594.html. . .
>>>>
>>>> > "Concerns are growing in Israel's government over the possibility of
>>>> > a
>>>> > unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence within the 1967
>>>> > borders, a move which could potentially be recognized by the United
>>>> > Nations Security Council.
>>>>
>>>> > Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently asked the administration
>>>> > of
>>>> > U.S. President Barack Obama to veto any such proposal, after reports
>>>> > reached Jerusalem of support for such a declaration from major
>>>> > European Union countries, and apparently also certain U.S. officials.
>>>>
>>>> > The reports indicated that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad
>>>> > has
>>>> > reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration over
>>>> > U.S.
>>>> > recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Such recognition
>>>> > would likely transform any Israeli presence across the Green Line,
>>>> > even in Jerusalem, into an illegal incursion to which the
>>>> > Palestinians
>>>> > would be entitled to engage in measures of self-defense."
>>>> > --
>>>>
>>>> > This demands of Israel that it abandon Jerusalem. An Israel without
>>>> > full landed sovereignty over, and all around Jerusalem is no "Israel"
>>>> > at all. The post-1967 borders are the logical, ancient, natural
>>>> > borders for the Jewish state, exactly as they have at last come to be
>>>> > reestablished. It is the geographical logic of that ancient map which
>>>> > now, thanks to the boundless valor of the Israeli people comes to its
>>>> > logical conclusion in geophysical reality, and this all the world
>>>> > need
>>>> > see for a full and final refutation of all naive dreams and
>>>> > irrational
>>>> > schemes for a "Palestinian state". There has never been any such
>>>> > thing on the world map, in all of world history and for that reason
>>>> > there is no place in the world for it now.
>>>> > --
>>>> > JMhttp://whosenose.blogspot.com
>>>> >http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>> You just get worse as you grow older.
>>>
>>> -You don't stop to think it might be going the other way? Quick! Take a
>>> -peek in your pants to see there's any safety pins or Snuggies in
>>> -sight.
>>>
>>> Keep your attentions outa my pants.
>>>
>>>> What do you figure will be the best
>>>> way to bring peace to the area, ethnic cleansing? Or should 10 million
>>>> people just shut up and do what their masters tell them to do?
>>>
>>> -They should stop acting like a bunch of scalp-hunting Comanches,
>>> -settle down, go back to their jobs, and sign up to become good Israeli
>>> -citizens. Otherwise they ain't nothing but a bunch of pride-crazy cry
>>> -babies. What if our Navajos and Apaches were still carrying on like
>>> -those spoiled brat Arabs? And had the support of the UN and the
>>> -European Union?
>>>
>>> Good analogy. Let's recap what I remember of the American policy re.
>>> Native Indians...
>>> They are to meekly gather when rounded up and march to and live
>>> peacefully on the piece of land designated for them. If that piece of
>>> land becomes otherwise useful, they are to meekly gather again and move
>>> to somewhere else. If they resist they will be slaughtered, man, woman
>>> and child. There is no treaty with them or promise to them that's
>>> binding on the government. They will not be allowed to assimilate fully
>>> into society until they are so few that they are statistically
>>> insignifigant.
>>> If you were Palestinian, would you have the option of settling down,
>>> going back to your job and becoming a good Israeli citizen? Does the
>>> government allow that?
>>>
>>
>> In the same way the Apartheid South Africans allowed blacks and coloureds
>> to have full South African citizenship.
>> Having said that, the Boers didn't murder children from airborne and
>> seaborne weapons platforms or fire white phosphorous into civilian
>> targets, nor allow infants to dehydrate to death beside the bodies of
>> their murdered mothers.
>>
>> Israel - setting old standards in inhuman butchery.
>>
>> How's winter setting in in Canada?
>
> As usual in my part- rain, and more of it. I don't know the long-range
> forecast but most hereabouts are hoping for lots of snow, on the mountains
> anyway, to impress the television Olympic audience.
> I had to look twice when I saw your nym in this thread to see if I was in
> the group I thought I'd clicked on. It's odd where cross-posting leads you
> sometimes- there's another here that I know from a hockey group. I got
> here through misc.writing.

Aye, it's me right enough.

And if you thought the OF ngs were wacky, you want to see this place -
totally mental. Rabid, crazed zionists, knuckle dragging neo-nazis, muslim
fundamentalists (although I suspect most of these are sock puppets). Pure
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest territory - one of the few the Israelis
haven't occupied ;)

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 2:24 pm
From: Gary Renzetti


Fish Supper wrote:
>
> "Grand Mal" <ironwrkr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O38Km.52208$PH1.38998@edtnps82...
>>
>> "Fish Supper" <life@sea.com> wrote in message
>> news:OO-dnWFf9KCLUGXXnZ2dnUVZ8kqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>> "Grand Mal" <ironwrkr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ms%Jm.51275$Db2.27305@edtnps83...
>>>>
>>>> "Just Me" <jpdm45@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:003ab860-2023-41ea-b720-01d5d259a2a1@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 9, 1:48 pm, "Grand Mal" <ironw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Just Me" <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:012fc538-ad67-401b-a492-e1384ba252ed@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > According tohttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126594.html. . .
>>>>>
>>>>> > "Concerns are growing in Israel's government over the possibility
>>>>> of > a
>>>>> > unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence within the 1967
>>>>> > borders, a move which could potentially be recognized by the United
>>>>> > Nations Security Council.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently asked the
>>>>> administration > of
>>>>> > U.S. President Barack Obama to veto any such proposal, after reports
>>>>> > reached Jerusalem of support for such a declaration from major
>>>>> > European Union countries, and apparently also certain U.S.
>>>>> officials.
>>>>>
>>>>> > The reports indicated that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam
>>>>> Fayyad > has
>>>>> > reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration over
>>>>> > U.S.
>>>>> > recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Such recognition
>>>>> > would likely transform any Israeli presence across the Green Line,
>>>>> > even in Jerusalem, into an illegal incursion to which the >
>>>>> Palestinians
>>>>> > would be entitled to engage in measures of self-defense."
>>>>> > --
>>>>>
>>>>> > This demands of Israel that it abandon Jerusalem. An Israel without
>>>>> > full landed sovereignty over, and all around Jerusalem is no
>>>>> "Israel"
>>>>> > at all. The post-1967 borders are the logical, ancient, natural
>>>>> > borders for the Jewish state, exactly as they have at last come
>>>>> to be
>>>>> > reestablished. It is the geographical logic of that ancient map
>>>>> which
>>>>> > now, thanks to the boundless valor of the Israeli people comes to
>>>>> its
>>>>> > logical conclusion in geophysical reality, and this all the world
>>>>> > need
>>>>> > see for a full and final refutation of all naive dreams and >
>>>>> irrational
>>>>> > schemes for a "Palestinian state". There has never been any such
>>>>> > thing on the world map, in all of world history and for that reason
>>>>> > there is no place in the world for it now.
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > JMhttp://whosenose.blogspot.com
>>>>> >http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
>>>>>
>>>>> You just get worse as you grow older.
>>>>
>>>> -You don't stop to think it might be going the other way? Quick! Take a
>>>> -peek in your pants to see there's any safety pins or Snuggies in
>>>> -sight.
>>>>
>>>> Keep your attentions outa my pants.
>>>>
>>>>> What do you figure will be the best
>>>>> way to bring peace to the area, ethnic cleansing? Or should 10 million
>>>>> people just shut up and do what their masters tell them to do?
>>>>
>>>> -They should stop acting like a bunch of scalp-hunting Comanches,
>>>> -settle down, go back to their jobs, and sign up to become good Israeli
>>>> -citizens. Otherwise they ain't nothing but a bunch of pride-crazy cry
>>>> -babies. What if our Navajos and Apaches were still carrying on like
>>>> -those spoiled brat Arabs? And had the support of the UN and the
>>>> -European Union?
>>>>
>>>> Good analogy. Let's recap what I remember of the American policy re.
>>>> Native Indians...
>>>> They are to meekly gather when rounded up and march to and live
>>>> peacefully on the piece of land designated for them. If that piece
>>>> of land becomes otherwise useful, they are to meekly gather again
>>>> and move to somewhere else. If they resist they will be slaughtered,
>>>> man, woman and child. There is no treaty with them or promise to
>>>> them that's binding on the government. They will not be allowed to
>>>> assimilate fully into society until they are so few that they are
>>>> statistically insignifigant.
>>>> If you were Palestinian, would you have the option of settling down,
>>>> going back to your job and becoming a good Israeli citizen? Does the
>>>> government allow that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the same way the Apartheid South Africans allowed blacks and
>>> coloureds to have full South African citizenship.
>>> Having said that, the Boers didn't murder children from airborne and
>>> seaborne weapons platforms or fire white phosphorous into civilian
>>> targets, nor allow infants to dehydrate to death beside the bodies of
>>> their murdered mothers.
>>>
>>> Israel - setting old standards in inhuman butchery.
>>>
>>> How's winter setting in in Canada?
>>
>> As usual in my part- rain, and more of it. I don't know the long-range
>> forecast but most hereabouts are hoping for lots of snow, on the
>> mountains anyway, to impress the television Olympic audience.
>> I had to look twice when I saw your nym in this thread to see if I was
>> in the group I thought I'd clicked on. It's odd where cross-posting
>> leads you sometimes- there's another here that I know from a hockey
>> group. I got here through misc.writing.
>
> Aye, it's me right enough.
>
> And if you thought the OF ngs were wacky, you want to see this place -
> totally mental. Rabid, crazed zionists, knuckle dragging neo-nazis,
> muslim fundamentalists (although I suspect most of these are sock
> puppets). Pure One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest territory - one of the
> few the Israelis haven't occupied ;)
Got a couple of those too, FishMan. You haven't met the entire crew yet.


== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 5:22 pm
From: "Fish Supper"

"Gary Renzetti" <lizgary@connection.com> wrote in message
news:86780$4af9e805$d8fe9d5e$12498@PRIMUS.CA...
> Fish Supper wrote:
>>
>> "Grand Mal" <ironwrkr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:O38Km.52208$PH1.38998@edtnps82...
>>>

>>>>
>>>> How's winter setting in in Canada?
>>>
>>> As usual in my part- rain, and more of it. I don't know the long-range
>>> forecast but most hereabouts are hoping for lots of snow, on the
>>> mountains anyway, to impress the television Olympic audience.
>>> I had to look twice when I saw your nym in this thread to see if I was
>>> in the group I thought I'd clicked on. It's odd where cross-posting
>>> leads you sometimes- there's another here that I know from a hockey
>>> group. I got here through misc.writing.
>>
>> Aye, it's me right enough.
>>
>> And if you thought the OF ngs were wacky, you want to see this place -
>> totally mental. Rabid, crazed zionists, knuckle dragging neo-nazis,
>> muslim fundamentalists (although I suspect most of these are sock
>> puppets). Pure One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest territory - one of the few
>> the Israelis haven't occupied ;)
> Got a couple of those too, FishMan. You haven't met the entire crew yet.

You mean, like meeting the Adams Family only to be told, "hang on, there are
more to come"?

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 10:51 pm
From: Just Me


On Nov 9, 8:10 pm, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:

> In the same way the Apartheid South Africans allowed blacks and coloureds to
> have full South African citizenship.

Total, rank, stinking to high heaven slander. In an era of peace,
before the Arab population of Israel got all stirred up and
radicalized by likes of Abbas coming back into the land with his PhD
in a Marxist "education" from a Soviet university, and the funds to
stir up jihad, Arabs lived and worked and voted side by side with Jews
all over the land.

> Having said that, the Boers didn't murder children from airborne and
> seaborne weapons platforms or fire white phosphorous into civilian targets,
> nor allow infants to dehydrate to death beside the bodies of their murdered
> mothers.

Dead WRONG. It is nothing except the rockets of Hezbollah and Hamas
by which they continually bring such calamity down upon their own
heads--and you know it, so why do you lie? Why? What's in it for ya,
Fish Face? Name one instance where white phosphorus was fired into
"civilian targets" when rockets were not first being fired from those
targets. Name ONE, you lying, fish-smelling, stink pot brat from the
Noam Chomsky brainwash water soup.
>
> Israel - setting old standards in inhuman butchery.

The "inhuman butchery" is all in your fishmouth, Mako-Face.

Most comical thing about these hatebag "Progressive Liberal" scum is
the way they are never honest with themselves enough to acknowledge
that there's nary a hair of daylight to be seen between their position
on Israel and that of any scum skinhead off the street.

They never stop and think, like, "Hmm . . . maybe there is no
difference?" Because I'll put you straight, right down in front,
baby. There ain't one thing any skinhead can say that can ever agree
with anything from me.

Something wrong with you, Jack, and that sho' enuf leaves you good for
nothin but your jive-ass namesake: food for the fishes.
--
--
JM

http://whosenose.blogspot.com/2008/03/blue-steel-jews.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is this perfectly clear now?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/4e2c279aa5016671?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 10:12 am
From: Stratum101


See the Wikipedia entry for the Czech Spartakiad
at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad_(Czechoslovakia)

I don't know if the event still exists, but
a Czech emigre did explain it to me once in
terms that approach the clarity here.

Throughout, the piece makes an admirable
attempt at exploiting consistency in English
grammar. For instance, the past tense of "do"
is "doed".


== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 10:15 am
From: Stratum101


On Nov 10, 12:12 pm, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
> See the Wikipedia entry for the Czech Spartakiad
> at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad_(Czechoslovakia)
>
> I don't know if the event still exists, but
> a Czech emigre did explain it to me once in
> terms that approach the clarity here.
>
> Throughout, the piece makes an admirable
> attempt at exploiting consistency in English
> grammar.  For instance, the past tense of "do"
> is "doed".

When you navigate there, make sure the final
paranthesis is in the URL. Here's another
copy of the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad_(Czechoslovakia)


== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 10:15 am
From: Stratum101


On Nov 10, 12:15 pm, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 12:12 pm, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>
> > See the Wikipedia entry for the Czech Spartakiad
> > at
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad_(Czechoslovakia)
>
> > I don't know if the event still exists, but
> > a Czech emigre did explain it to me once in
> > terms that approach the clarity here.
>
> > Throughout, the piece makes an admirable
> > attempt at exploiting consistency in English
> > grammar.  For instance, the past tense of "do"
> > is "doed".
>
> When you navigate there, make sure the final
> paranthesis is in the URL.  Here's another
> copy of the link:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad_(Czechoslovakia)

Oh, to hell with it.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 12:52 pm
From: Patok


Stratum101 wrote:
> On Nov 10, 12:15 pm, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 12:12 pm, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> See the Wikipedia entry for the Czech Spartakiad
>>> at
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad_(Czechoslovakia)
>>> I don't know if the event still exists, but
>>> a Czech emigre did explain it to me once in
>>> terms that approach the clarity here.
>>> Throughout, the piece makes an admirable
>>> attempt at exploiting consistency in English
>>> grammar. For instance, the past tense of "do"
>>> is "doed".
>> When you navigate there, make sure the final
>> paranthesis is in the URL. Here's another
>> copy of the link:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad_(Czechoslovakia)
>
> Oh, to hell with it.

To paraphrase an old Eastern European saying, the problem is in
your TV. All your links are fine, including the very first one. Whether
the parenthesis is included in the URL when you read, is a function of
your news reader - in your case GG - and that's something no newsgroup
literate should be using,

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.


== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 4:23 pm
From: Stratum101


On Nov 10, 2:52 pm, Patok <crazy.div.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stratum101 wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 12:15 pm, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 10, 12:12 pm, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>
> >>> See the Wikipedia entry for the Czech Spartakiad
> >>> at
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad_(Czechoslovakia)
> >>> I don't know if the event still exists, but
> >>> a Czech emigre did explain it to me once in
> >>> terms that approach the clarity here.
> >>> Throughout, the piece makes an admirable
> >>> attempt at exploiting consistency in English
> >>> grammar.  For instance, the past tense of "do"
> >>> is "doed".
> >> When you navigate there, make sure the final
> >> paranthesis is in the URL.  Here's another
> >> copy of the link:
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad_(Czechoslovakia)
>
> > Oh, to hell with it.
>
>      To paraphrase an old Eastern European saying, the problem is in
> your TV. All your links are fine, including the very first one. Whether
> the parenthesis is included in the URL when you read, is a function of
> your news reader - in your case GG - and that's something no newsgroup
> literate should be using,
>

Sorry. I've lost interest in newsgroups and anything
not supported by Google fails to arouse my curiosity
except binaries of 19th century Texas schoolmarms with
names like Miss Hyacinth grilling their charges on the
Helmholtz equation.

Or Hyacinth topless, of course.

Speaking of 19th century Texans, I don't think
I've ever seen a picture of Mrs. Baird, the
baker. I'd like not to see her bread on
grocery shelves.

Have taken to buying a fat little baguette at
Walmart (it's only a buck) where they change
the label from "Italian bread" to "French
bread" at about noon. If they could just produce
sourdough... but there's no palate for that
around here.


== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 10 2009 11:44 pm
From: Patok


Stratum101 wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2:52 pm, Patok <crazy.div.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Stratum101 wrote:
>>> On Nov 10, 12:15 pm, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 10, 12:12 pm, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>>>>> See the Wikipedia entry for the Czech Spartakiad
>>>>> at
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad_(Czechoslovakia)
>>>>> I don't know if the event still exists, but
>>>>> a Czech emigre did explain it to me once in
>>>>> terms that approach the clarity here.
>>>>> Throughout, the piece makes an admirable
>>>>> attempt at exploiting consistency in English
>>>>> grammar. For instance, the past tense of "do"
>>>>> is "doed".
>>>> When you navigate there, make sure the final
>>>> paranthesis is in the URL. Here's another
>>>> copy of the link:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad_(Czechoslovakia)
>>> Oh, to hell with it.
>> To paraphrase an old Eastern European saying, the problem is in
>> your TV. All your links are fine, including the very first one. Whether
>> the parenthesis is included in the URL when you read, is a function of
>> your news reader - in your case GG - and that's something no newsgroup
>> literate should be using,
>
> Sorry. I've lost interest in newsgroups and anything
> not supported by Google fails to arouse my curiosity

Your loss, then. Can't help. :)


> except binaries of 19th century Texas schoolmarms with
> names like Miss Hyacinth grilling their charges on the
> Helmholtz equation.
>
> Or Hyacinth topless, of course.

Whose curiosity wouldn't be "aroused" by these images, I wonder.


> Speaking of 19th century Texans, I don't think
> I've ever seen a picture of Mrs. Baird, the
> baker. I'd like not to see her bread on
> grocery shelves.
>
> Have taken to buying a fat little baguette at
> Walmart (it's only a buck) where they change
> the label from "Italian bread" to "French
> bread" at about noon. If they could just produce
> sourdough... but there's no palate for that
> around here.

What kinds of bread do Texans eat? Sourdough seems to be pretty
standard on the East Coast, although I personally don't like it. I
prefer breads with benefits - like with kalamata olives, or garlic
peppercorn, or onion rye. Today I saw pretzel bread in the local
supermarket, but it was too expensive for its size, so I abstained. But
it looked and felt very proper, indeed.

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.


==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.arts.books"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.arts.books+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Sonia Choudhary

Author & Editor

Has laoreet percipitur ad. Vide interesset in mei, no his legimus verterem. Et nostrum imperdiet appellantur usu, mnesarchum referrentur id vim.

0 comments:

 

We are featured contributor on entrepreneurship for many trusted business sites:

  • Copyright © Currentgk™ is a registered trademark.
    Designed by Templateism. Hosted on Blogger Platform.