Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Is Islam imploding just as the USSR did?

0 helpful
79 replies

by jardinier

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I lifted this link from the "Holocaust Denial" thread.

Irshad Manji:The Trouble with Islam: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change (Random House) or her website http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/

We know that there is a general move back to fundamentalism in parts of the Muslim world, paralled by a strong move back to fundamentalism in parts of the Christian world -- especially the USA.

An excerpt from a review in canada.com says the author is [b]"striving to explore a culture and civilization whose inward collapse has given rise to a militant creed at war with the modern world."[/b]

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/news/nationalpost-05-10-20.html

So, is it possible that Islam will self-destruct before it does major damage to the rest of the world?

79 replies

by Member 25348569

that it might self-destruct [b]after[/b] it has done major damage to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, they are sitting on most of the oil and unless (until? I don't think so) we in the West can wean ourselves off our reliance on oil, they have us - literally - over a barrel.

Neil :D

"May you live in interesting times". Old Chinese curse. Interesting times we all live in, aren't they?

by dmambo

I had never heard that curse before, but it seems very appropriate. Many times I lament the routine in my life, but I appreciate it when I stop to consider that at this stage in my life, most major events tend to be bad news. Going another day with my kids home safe, when I do not learn of another friend with cancer, when I still have my job, etc is a GOOD day.

As far as Islam imploding, don't think it will happen in our lifetimes. 600 million people can't all be wrong (or can they?). It seems that Orwell's constant wars will be between religions rather than countries.

by maxwell edison

While I understand the sentiment of saying that the middle-east oil barons have us "over a barrel", I wouldn't be so sure of that, at least not to such an extreme degree. Of course, I'm speaking of the USA, not other nations that might be even MORE dependent on middle-east oil.

Them selling us oil is a win-win situation. We get their oil, and they get our money. To cut-off the flow of oil in one direction, would cut-off the flow of money in the other. They want (and need) our money just as much -- OR MORE -- than we want (and need) their oil.

The United States gets only about 20 percent of our oil from the middle-east, if my memory serves me correctly, the other 80 percent coming from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and that which is produced domestically. And while 20 percent is certainly a significant number, it's not one that would cut us at the jugular, so to speak.

If, by some chance, we (the rest of the world) were cut off from that particular supply of oil, one of two things (or both) would happen. In the USA, I'm sure we could increase our own production, open new fields and such, take drastic conservation measures, and put alternative fuel development on the fast-track. AND/OR, considering that most ALL major wars have been waged over territory or resources (or both), I'm sure we could collectively figure out a way to restore the flow of oil to the rest of the world.

Personally, I'd like to see us (the U.S.) cut ourselves off from buying any more middle-east oil, and I believe it could be done in a period of time that would not have to exceed ~20 years. Of course, I'm certainly no expert in that regard, and I'm just pulling those opinions out of my "oil well".

A national challenge, similar to the lofty lunar challenge issued by President Kennedy in 1961, is what we need. If a charismatic politician, from EITHER major party, were to seriously address the issue, and present a somewhat viable plan to advance the goal, instead of the usual silly rhetoric that we've been hearing for decades, it would be very well received. And after all, when President Kennedy issued that challenge in 1961, there were absolutely no plans to go to the moon, and nobody at NASA had any idea how they could pull it off. "We're gonna' do what?", was NASA's initial reaction. And combine the old adage that necessity is the mother of all invention with a burning desire to achieve a particular goal, anything can be made to happen -- even go to the moon! And we could do it without one drop of middle-east oil.

by montgomery gator

There is a good bit of lead time to get new oil reserves developed, and time is wasting. For example, an estimate that is often quoted is that it would take 10 years from beginning the process to when the first oil would be flowing from ANWR (I think it could be cut to 5 years or less if enough effort is put to it). That means we need to get it developed immediately. Same with offshore reserves off the coasts of Florida, California, and other places currently not being developed due to restrictions and political concerns.

Efforts are already underway to develop the Alberta Oil Sands, to the benefit of both Canada and the United States.

At the same time, we do need to start developing alternative sources, such as oil shale, coal (both coal-fired power plants and coal conversion to distillates and natural gas), and nuclear to get away from conventional oil and natural gas. The United States has coal in abundance, more than any other country.

Hopefully we can get all this done before Iran goes nuclear or other troubles that might arise.

by m_a_r_k

The Middle East countries need our dollars as much as we need their oil. If they were to suddenly cut us off totally, they wouldn't be able to find buyers to replace the oil they had been selling to us. That will hurt them financially quite severely. Other countries won't suddenly shift oil purchases from their current sources to the Middle East just because there is an abundant supply of oversold oil there. Unless the Middle East countries drop prices to entice other buyers. That would put downward pressure, not upward, on global oil prices. The result would be that the Middle East countries would be selling the same amount of oil as before but with less revenue. A sudden loss of Middle East oil would create havoc for the U.S. for a while but we'd eventually find other sources.

The best and only long-term solution is for the entire world (not just the U.S.) to get their act together and figure out a solution to this dedendence on fossil fuel.

by Member 25348569

If the whole oil-producing Middle East were to go seriously pear-shaped in the next couple of decades or earlier - to the extent that the Saudis are involved - the effect on the world economy would be catastrophic. Your country - and mine - is in no way immune to this.

Actually, it wouldn't take that much, just a concerted effort by Al Qaeda, targeting foreign Saudi-based oil workers and vulnerable oil installations. Nigerian terrorists are on the brink of that sort of action right now and they supply a about 8% of your imports. We all know how good we are at catching terrorists.

Were Saudi production seriously cut back or lost completely the price of crude would immediately top $100pb and accelerate from there. The world economy would go into a tailspin.

I'm considerably less sure than you are about the ability of Western nations to easily deal with this sort of issue. I remember the 1973 oil crisis and, at that time, the US reliance on imports was far less than it is now. I remember the sudden, vicious inflation and rapid, deep economic recession. Both in 1973 and 1979, I don't remember a particularly successful action by your government or, and maybe you can prove me wrong, much concerted, organised effort from citizens to deal with the crisis. I know that in the UK, it was totally shambolic despite the fact that the Saudis didn't embargo oil exports to the UK.

A BBC report last year stated that British government documents from the 1970s reveal that the United States considered invading Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during the crisis and seizing the oil fields in those countries. Is that what you'd do this time?

Your idea for a National Challenge is great. It would do very good things for the environment and have a knock-on effect in making we environmentalists happy with you (as if you cared), have a wonderful effect on your deficit and just be plain good news.

But sorry, Max. I'm not nearly so optimistic about the ability of the US to weather another oil crisis without serious social disruption and I fear that you'd do something as stupid as the invasion of Iraq. You won't be able to reduce consumption quickly and smoothly enough and I'm worried that you'd strike out from Iraq to "safeguard" supplies at which point China would feel threatened.

Neil

I'm also interested in your suggestion that this would be similar to Kennedy's idea to put a man on the Moon. God forbid that it would be so!

I'm an avid techno-junkie, especially regarding space, and yet I consider the American space programme - outside of wars - the biggest waste of money and resources since the Pyramids. To quote Larry Niven "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we put a man on the moon?". It was a political stunt, nothing more. Although it succeeded, the most stupid means possible were employed to achieve the goal and everything that was used has been scrapped as useless. We couldn't put a man on the Moon now. How stupid is that?

by tony hopkinson

The BNP are amassing a sizable number of votes in the elections, even though they deny the holocaust occurred(100,000 people can't be wrong ?).

Will a further shift of votes in the UK election put these right wing neo-fascist nutballs in power and cause democracy to fail ?

A minute but vocal and active minority all of a sudden destroy the belief system of 100s of millions of people, I don't think so.

by montgomery gator

I don't think the UK is in near the danger that post WWI Germany was, but a few nutters known as the National Socialists were able grow in number to gain power and put Adolf Hitler in charge there in the 1930s.

Are these BNP "nutballs" similar to the German National Socialists in idealogy?

In the 1600s, the Parliamentary forces were radicalized by Oliver Cromwell and he was able to take over England after Roundheads defeated the Royalists. I don't think the Parliamentarians originally had the dictatorship under Cromwell in mind when they chopped off the head of Charles I.

by tony hopkinson

BNP (aka fascist gits) are getting stronger in poorer communities, particularly ones where there's a large asian presence. Basically the BNP catch the ignorant and tell them they are right to hate non-whites because they are stealing their jobs and getting a better deal out of welfare. There's a good bit of anti-immigration in main stream policies even in the main political parties and that sort of thing plays right into their hands. To be quite honest it's only our first past the post electoral system that's keeping them out. A proportional representation system would put some of these gits in power, because it's fairer.

Think you might have misunderstood Oliver a bit, he was a git, but he was a more acceptable git than King Charles who was an inbred nutball.
He was voted Protector, by his supporters as much because he won as because, the only alternative was to continue fighting.
As you'll know from your own history civil wars aren't things you want to go past their sell by date.
Now when there were attempts to pass the power onto his son, that was a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Sort of what have you done for me lately. Instead we got Charles II, with a massively circumscribed authority, and democracy was enacted by a bunch of rich bugger's who didn't like being told what to do by some twit who's dad was in charge once.

by maxwell edison

.
This is a slight diversion from your original topic, Julian, but it's certainly related. I wanted to post the link, but I didn't want to do it a new discussion that might distract from this one.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/593298A0-3C1A-4EB4-B29D-EA1A9678D922.htm

"This message is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end those wars," presumably says Osama bin Laden.

NO, is my reply. NO TRUCE, I say. UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER or TOTAL DESTRUCTION - No more, no less.

If Islam is "imploding", at least the radical wing of Islam, we should not do anything to stop it.

by jardinier

the authenticity of the tape is questionable, and why would anyone in their right mind believe and trust Osama bin Laden?

by jamesrl

And many in the US seem to think, that Al Qaeda is some tightly structured organization, like an army, that works under strict control.

This isn't exactly true. Its more like a loose coalition of people who believe in the same principles.

Which means even if Bin Laden was sincere, he can't control all the fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, even the ones who claim to be Al Qaeda. Therefore he doesn't have the means or even the influence to guarantee a truce.

There are considerable tensions between the factions fighting the US in Iraq - the Baathists (Sadaams government was Baathist) do not like or trust Al Qaeda, and co-operation appears to be weak. There have been instances of one faction turning on the other. Some Baathist factions have partiticapted in negotiations with the US. There are more Baathists than Al Qaeda affiliates involved in the battle.

So why would anyone sane even think about it....

James

by john.a.wills

By what right do we use the same word to describe a particular movement in Christendom and another in Islam? I have seen the term applied to Rabbinical Jewish and Hindu groups also. The Christian movement of that name has a very definite origin and set of dogmas, which are not shared by the Muslim movement. What is the similarity?

by jardinier

The word can be applied to any religion:

fundamentalism (Oxford Dictionary):
1 strict maintenance of traditional Protestant beliefs such as the inerrancy of Scripture and literal acceptance of the creeds as fundamentals of Christianity.
[b]2 strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, esp. Islam.[/b]

I cannot define a fundamentalist Jew because I do not know what teachings they regard as authoritative and beyond question. Presumably a fundamentalist Jew would be an Orthodox Jew, but I do not know how much authority they ascribe to the Talmud as against the Torah.

Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims would be those who insist that the Scripture (Bible or Quran) is infallible, was revealed by God (or Allah) and contains no errors and inconsistencies, and that the laws laid out therein are to be carried out literally.

In the case of Islam, this would include cutting off the right hand of a thief ? a practice that is known to still be carried out in some Muslim countries.

Fundamentalist Christians are a peculiar lot as they insist that the Bible is infallible with no errors or inconsistencies, and yet they do not regard as obligatory in today?s world most of the law laid down in the Old Testament.

A genuine fundamentalist Christian would also assert that God personally oversaw the translation of the King James version of the Bible in 1611.

by john.a.wills

As far as I can see the only similarities between Xn Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism is that both oppose the teaching of evolution, both believe gays should be punished and both believe the modern Israelis are descended from the Biblical Israelites. That is not a great deal on which to base a common nomenclature, and perhaps we should acknowledge that the phenomena are distinct and deserve distinct names. Xn Fundamentalists usually ignore Mt 19:9, happily remarrying after divorce, and Muslim Fundamentalists ignore the parts of the Quran where monasticism is praised, so neither really takes all its scripture literally.

by m_a_r_k

The religion of Islam won't implode just as Christianity won't implode. The religion has been around for 1500 years. While there has always been some fundamentalists within Islam, just like there has been within Christianity, the current fundamentalist fervor is probably no more than a fad and will eventually fade back to a more historical norm. At least I HOPE so.

by maxwell edison

I remember that very well, at least the gasoline lines and such. But the factors that contributed to that crisis included more than just the oil embargo. Among other things, there were price freezes in place (thanks to President Nixon), so the dynamics of supply and demand were not allowed to work to help control the situation. Generally speaking, for example, when supplies are low, prices go up, as they (the gasoline prices) should have in 1973-74. But the prices, by law at that time, had to remain fixed, so the demand that would have surely fallen due to higher prices did not, thus the long lines. I had two vehicles at that time, a 1972 El Camino and a 1973 Honda motorcycle. Suffice it to say, I didn't drive that El Camino too much, and living in Arizona at the time, made me an easy rider on my motorcycle.

It would be interesting to read-up on the oil crisis of 1973-74, as other factors contributed as well, such as that little skirmish between Egypt and Israel. I might also add that the 1973 Arab oil embargo is what finally convinced our Congress to approve our Alaskan oil pipeline, something that was struggling to get approval. Perhaps another interruption similar to the one in 1973 might get them off their stupid butts and approve expansion into ANWR and other fields.

Nonetheless, I would have to think that we're better prepared to deal with that kind of threat today. For one thing, we have a relatively cozy relationship with the Saudis, something for which the Bush family, for some idiotic reason, has taken a lot of heat and criticism. (Well, it's not idiotic, but political. Okay, it is idiotic then.) And another thing, we have a pretty good foot-hold in the area right now (no thanks to our Canadian neighbors), so we can pretty much guarantee the free flow of oil to the entire world for years to come. (Although we should be taking steps to reduce world-wide demand, and yes, that includes in the USA.) But there would have to be a total political meltdown in the middle-east to cause such a situation again -- something like an Iran versus Israel nuclear bout. But Israel would kick their butts, so maybe it wouldn't be all bad.

But Neil, as I'm sure you know, I'm the eternal optimist. And regardless of the crisis, there will be (or should be) a clear and obvious path that presents itself. Problems are seldom real problems, but rather wake-up calls to shine the light onto something that's not been addressed and/or properly addressed, and/or opportunities to make positive change. And it's people like me who will get people like you through the next oil crisis, albeit inconvenienced a bit, totally unscathed. (If, of course, there ever is another one.) So not to worry, Neil. We'll take care of ya'll (yuk yuk yuk).

by maxwell edison

Catastrophic? Catastrophic? Catastrophic? Catastrophic?

I think you are embellishing just a bit, Neil. Painful and difficult, yes. Catastrophic, no way.

If another oil embargo would be "catastrophic", what would you call a simultaneous nuclear attack in a dozen world cities? What's worse than catastrophic?

That's why I suggest you're embellishing a bit.

Besides, I thought global warming cornered the market on catastrophic?

by faradhi

Global warming may be catastrophic. It is not yet. It is just a really annoying right now to both sides of the debate.

The Pros are getting a little hot under the collar because the Con are stating there is no such thing.
And the Cons are a little hot because they worry Global Warming is just some Liberal, Commie, Dem, Pinko way to further Environmental reform.

I have no comment either way because it leaves me laugh at both sides. Life is sweet B-)

by Member 25348569

Hyperbole, perhaps. But only a little bit and I was talking about a catastrophic economic effect rather than wasting a half dozen cities which, I guess, would be described by Holocaust or similar. Not sure where you derived that comparison from.

It's unfortunate that recessions and economic crises - 1973 and 1979 were no exceptions - more adversely impact the unemployed, the marginal groups in society, the unskilled, the elderly, foreign workers, etc. Those of us who keep our jobs through them tend to notice a lot less.

Hey. I haven't mentioned Global Warming!

But if you want a debate... ]:)

by maxwell edison

You said that you, "don't remember a particularly successful action by your government or ..... much concerted, organised effort from citizens to deal with the crisis.

Well, it was that 1973 oil crisis that .....

..... pushed the Alaskan pipeline through Congress. (ANWR should be next.)

..... was the impetus for increased fuel efficiency in our automobiles. (My '72 El Camino only got ~10 mpg. My 95 Cadillac gets ~28.)

..... resulted in a national 55 mph speed limit.

..... made possible the creation of a new Department of Energy, and made it a cabinet-level department.

..... made us decide to create our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

..... was the start of the conservation movement in America.

And that's just off the top of my head. Can anyone add to my list?

by Member 25348569

Not in any particular order. So, what did the citizens do that they weren't coerced into?

Conservation movement? Hmmmm. Where is it now? You could do with it.

Increased fuel efficiency. So, it takes a global oil crisis to demonstrate how little the automobile industry cares about the consumer and, I guess, how close and cuddly they were with the oil companies - and still are!

Alaska oil pipeline. There a crisis! Let's economise! We can effect a major shift in the energy-usage habits of the American public that will last forever. No. sod it! Let's burn just as much but get it from somewhere else.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I'm a bit dubious about that one, also. Hardly an incentive to use less oil, now. Still, if it makes you feel good to spend over $20million pa on it - that's $600million since it started (not including the oil to put in it!) then feel good.

55mph. Check it out properly, Max. It had an impact on prices by markedly increasing truck delivery times and saved a couple of percent of fuel usage which would have been equalled by adding 2psi to the tyre pressure! Would have been better to have raised the price, got more tax and people would have really cut down that way. Oh, and the Government had to blackmail the individual states into imposing it.

Department of Energy. Don't know. They have...??

That's just off the top of my head, too.

Your turn.

by maxwell edison

.
....of those "efforts". You just wanted me to list some of them. And I did.

Personally speaking, I don't really want to debate 1973 issues all over again. (But I would like to have that '72 El Camino!)

by maxwell edison

You said, "A BBC report last year stated that British government documents from the 1970s reveal that the United States considered invading Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during the crisis and seizing the oil fields in those countries."

Without knowing the intent and context of that BBC report, and I don't doubt it one bit, by the way, I might suggest that the United States military planners have contingency plans for dozens, or possibly hundreds of different scenarios regarding the free flow of oil to the free world. I believe that I would be safe to suggest that we have a plan right now to invade Saudi Arabia, under certain circumstances. So what? Hope for the best; negotiate for the best; but plan for the worst. Isn't that what justifies all those federal salaries?

You asked, " Is that what you'd do this time?" Under some circumstances, absolutely yes. And under those circumstances, you guys would be right there with us.

by tony hopkinson

It's meant to be well done, and Good Queen Bess was a truly great monarch, definitley the greatest british one and probably one of the best ever.

by maxwell edison

.
We humans are curious creatures, always poking our noses into corners of our world and places where we've never been. What's on the other side of that ocean, people were asking a mere six hundred years ago?

We occupy such a small area of the universe; it's human nature to wonder what's beyond; and it's human curiosity and a desire to learn and grow that compels us to go forth and find out. It's pretty much the way it's always been, and probably the way it will always be.

Christopher Columbus (or whomever) discovered America (or whatever) in (or before) 1492. It would be a couple of hundred more years before it became more common to travel across that ocean. And although the vessels of 1492 were "scrapped and pretty useless" by the 17th century, it doesn't mean they didn't serve their vital purpose.

If 1492 might be compared to 1969, then today, 2006, could be compared to 1529. So you'll have to fast-forward 163 more years to see the real impact those Apollo missions might have had. If nothing else, they were the start, just like the Ni?a, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria. (Did you know, by the way, that many business plans in Japan are forward looking 300 or more years?)

Moreover, lets consider the items and technology the space program has created and/or made possible for non-space uses.

The microwave oven.
Cell phones.
Satellite television.
Weather monitoring and predicting.
Medical Technology.
Fire resistant garb for fire fighters.
Cordless tools.
Graphite shaft golf clubs. (Had to throw that one in.)
And Howard Stern still has a job!

I could go on and on without even thinking too hard about it. With research, however, the list could grow into the hundreds -- or thousands.

And for Pete's sake, Neil. How would we ever had discovered that hole in the ozone layer, and confirmed global warming without the space program? Geesh, get a grip, man. The space program will save us from the global warming catastrophe! (By the way, who in the hell is Pete?)

by Member 25348569

Had we had scientists driving the push into space rather that the arbitrary whims of a politician out to put one over on the Russians, we would have had all of your list and considerably more besides. And it would have paid for itself.

I'm now going to go into lecture mode - because I want to and because I can.

The correct way to reach the Moon is from a permanent platform in high earth orbit. First build your space station - and put it higher than it is now. You do have to develop reusable spacecraft to do it properly - Scramjets are good but their development in the 1960's - they were the next logical step after the Bell X-1 - was very limited as they would have taken too long to develop following Kennedy's deadline. [b]Now[/b] we are revisiting the scramjet. It would have been self-financing as a scramjet would be inherently safe and we could used scramjet-driven vehicles to remove dangerously radioactive materials from decommissioned reactors and shoot them, say, into the Sun. How much would that be worth?

Then you can build your satellites in orbit and you just have to push them up to a geostationary orbit (devised, by the way, by a British author, Arthur C. Clarke) with very little energy expenditure. If you need to fix them, get them back and fix them and put them back. We would also have completely new technologies - microgee fabrication, vacuum fabrication - where we can make things, chips, etc, that we just can't make on Earth.

All of this would be a thirty year old technology by now.

What did we do? We built a rocket on a bigger rocket on the biggest rocket imaginable. It's HUGE - as is its price. We sent it up from the Earth - the biggest rocket has to lift the capsule, the smaller rocket and the smallest rocket out of the Earth's gravity well - how stupid is that? So we drop the biggest rocket about ten miles up, throw away the next one at about fifty miles and the last one halfway to the Moon. We land, throw away the lander, take off and start back to Earth and throw away the very last rocket. We finally splash down in a baked bean can.

And it costs $135 billion in 2005 Dollars!

I could go on and on because I have thought about it.

by maxwell edison

And I, too, have espoused sending spent nuclear waste on a one-way trip to the sun. But without the right kind of vehicle -- 100 percent reliable -- getting the stuff off the ground might prove too risky.

(Do you think Julian might wonder what this has to do with Islam imploding?)

by m_a_r_k

Referring to the Underage Guy and NZ_Justice and one or two really wierd discussions going on lately.

by m_a_r_k

I'm STILL having trouble posting messages from one of my computers... Let's try this from my laptop.

The title of my previous post should be "Better question: Is TR imploding?"

by stargazerr

and anything else crossable ... I have been cribbing a bit with underage and NZ_Justice ... but I Give up ... Seriously ... How stupid can you be?? ?:|

]:)

by dmambo

Worse than Lobo. That's how stupid!

BTW - If you don't change your alias back to us_geeks-rule, I will pursue legal action.

(Actually, I like the stargazer handle, I just don't like it when people change their names.)

by Member 25348569

I think that the way that Stargazer and Old guy have done it is OK.

Hey, Stargazer, you can drop the (formerly known as..) bit now, though. I reckon we've all go a handle on your handle. I think that you should just be Stargazer from now on.

Neil :D

by stargazerr

I wasnt around when he took the bashing from Oz .... (Wish I was) .... I missed all the fun ... Do you think we can squeeze some fun out of stamping underage and NZ?? Where is Oz when you need him ...?? :x

]:)

by m_a_r_k

I agree. If everyone had enough common sense to ignore them, they would eventually go away. You can't put out a fire by throwing my gasoline on it.

by stargazerr

I have always had a sixth sense ... but I am missing the first, second, third, fourth, and the fifth ... Is one of them common?? ?:|

]:)

by m_a_r_k

Can anyone name the five senses? Quick...it's not that hard is it? Anyone with a little bit of common sense should be able to rattle them off lickety-split.

by jamesrl

Some of you may remember that I posted my real name.

Bizarelly someone accused me of fraud because I had a name similar to their coworker who worked for the City of Mississauga. She apologised sort of. But I kept it after that.

I changed it when my employer, in their infinite wisdom, made us all sign a doc restricting us from blogging (which I don't currently do, but might like to) or even posting on places like this. While I think its a stupid rule, as I take pains not to mention the name of my employer, I do want to keep my job, so I made the somewhat transparent change.

James

by dmambo

Your original "alias" was just too much info to put out in public like that. Same goes for Tom W., Tony H., Aaron B., etc. These I can see changing. Even Old Guy's was so inconsequential that I don't mind. But stargazer's change was done either because she's a criminal on the lam, famous worldwide and her adoring fans were getting too close, or because she's trying to sneak up on me. Or maybe she's a famous criminal on the lam trying to sneak up on me. Whatever her reason, it scares me.

by jamesrl

Did you exchange brains with "not underage"? He too seems obsessed, and not in a healthy way, with Stargazer.

James

by dmambo

Just poking fun at her.

For a while, I thought she was an American ex-pat. I wondered why she didn't capitalize the US in her name. The I realized it was "us". Dumb me.

by old guy

You realize, of course, that it was M_A_R_K who hounded Stargazer and me to change our names. I still think he's the primary instigater here... :)

by m_a_r_k

And, BTW, OG sounds like dog. haha I think I'm being unfairly labeled as a troublemaker. If I remember correctly, I subtly suggested something about your name. You're going to have to show me the link to the post where I "hounded" us_g into changing her name. One day she suddenly showed up to TR with a new name. It was a surprise to me. I hardly even noticed. I plead the 5th.

And why do so many peopoe use all caps when they type my name? It is not M_A_R_K. It is M_a_r_k. Damn that's hard to type. Or as neilb says, it's bloody hard.

by jck

I need a beer...and a lap dance ]:)

I can get lap dances in England, right dad?

by stargazerr

it took me so long to stumble upon this thread (and break my nose)

Reason I changed my handle (I feel like a frying pan everytime I say that) is indeed because people started kidding me about "us" being "US" (Yes Mambo, that WAS dumb :x) ... I am not going to change it back again ... I thought you said you dont like people changing their names .... :D

]:)

by stargazerr

X-( .... I live halfway around the other side of the globe ... Do Americans know of a world outside america ?:|

]:)

P.S Neil, I am dropping the formerly ... Makes me feel like an 80 year old lady :x .. I am hardly 77 (2 days to go :) )

by jamesrl

I am so dissapointed....

My brother had the last true "pretty" El Camino - the 1969. His was a creamy yellow with black vinyl roof and interior. 350 with 4 barrel carb. Later the car got bulky and it ruined the lines. The 72 had those 2 big headlights...ugh.

I loved that car.

James

by m_a_r_k

Yes, we know about Louisiana because Mardi Gras is held there every year (at least it used to be). And we know about the moon because American astronauts went there. :D

by Member 25348569

couldn't get there now, though, as you would know if you read my subthread rant to Maxwell.

Stargazer - sounds good. I think we've worked out who you are and who you were. I might drop the @... in my name as it used to say @UK but TR wipe all "real" addresses so we don't get spammed.

Suggestions for a new name? My avatar is Hilary Briss, Demon Butcher of Royston Vasey.

Neil :D

by m_a_r_k

Couldn't include the sun. I haven't been there yet. I may never get there. Too many rocket design changes.

Old Guy, I did include Mississippi as being part of the U.S. because I was being polite and didn't want to offend you. ;)

Neil, we won't go the moon anymore. There's too much IT involved. We'll have to outsource it.

by old guy

Excuse me! I am from Tennessee, I'll have you know. Of course, my wife was originally from Mississippi but since we've been married for almost 30 years now most of it has left her.

The reason I say MS is a third world country is becasue of the red clay. When my wife and I went to Togo, S. Africa a few years back they had the same red clay. I think that is where Mississippi came from.

by m_a_r_k

I knew you had some connection to Mississippi that you were trying to hide. I don't blame you. I've driven through the place once or twice. I don't ever want to do that again.

I don't think South Africa would be called third world. It's quite an industrial and financial mecca. Amazing what a few diamond mines can do for a country. BTW, the new politically correct term is "deveoloping country".

by stargazerr

on the Third World Country thing ....

Coz India can be called that too .... X-( ... And I dont like the sound of that ... :x

]:)

by m_a_r_k

Damn, I'm even poetic when I'm not trying to be poetic. Maybe poetry is my calling. I'd change careers to being a poetry guy but that's kind of a sissy job. Chicks like poetry, though, don't they? I guess I [i]could[/i] take a sissy job for a while. The means justifies the end. I'd have to move out of the state though so my guy friends wouldn't tease the hell out of me. Well, the old saying goes something like "he who gets laughed at, laughs last". Or something like that.

by m_a_r_k

I know, stargazer. I mentioned the politically correct term because I'm a thoughtful guy and, just like I was being thoughtful of Old Guy about Mississippi, I was being thoughtful of you about the third world thing. :D It really is a demeaning term.

by old guy

Ok, sorry, Stargazer. I meant West Africa. Togo is in West Africa. My daughter went to Zambia, South Africa this past summer. Got a little confused. (man, that sometimers keeps popping up.) Anyway, I can definitely attest that Togo, West Africa is a "developing country" and so is Mississippi.

by dmambo

Don't let Oz at them. These two need to be cut off at the knees. Think of them as Quaker fornicators. They must be shunned.

by jardinier

My pleasure. I start a thread to incite discussion. Please feel free to discuss the tooth fairy if you feel so inclined.

Thanks Neil for the thoughtful compensation.

This discussion is closed to new replies.