Dialogue by Intellectuals

Holy Cow, everytime I come across a fem-a-nazi I want the Gentlemen Club's to return to remind women how far they come. But then again most women have a problem letting go of issues and drag men through the mud again and again. Perhaps you belong on a stage stripping for a while before you can appreciate what you have achieved.

Can't you enjoy the prose for its artistic content? It was written in a stylistic manner to convey imagery. I know you did not like this or that and you had to spout off. You are so predictable.

Just kill this odd dream of yours unless you desire to be the female version of Freddy Krueger.

on [b]THAT![/B]

I enjoyed your retort to the opening paragraph, but I couldn't read beyond P1 and I hope you won't bother doing so either.

PS If you think the bit about the chest hair implausible, nice for you, but unfortunately I assure you I've seen it. Don't know if it was on an 'intellectual' though, there were no cigars, newspapers, thick black-rimmed glasses, etc. to make a definitive determination!

So I appear, to you, to be able to shift views and present different angles. Whereas, you whom appear to me to behave as though a mental lug who post childish insults.

Truth, be it known to you, I am able to see things from multiple perspectives and develop thoughts far beyond that which are you capable of comprehending.

By chance, do you see yourself as Holden Caufield?

Leonardo Da Vinci has a principle called 'Corporalita' and 'Connessione'. These principles view everything as a complete body with interconnectedness among it components.

I have a clear view of the Judeo\Christian's God's relationship to creation. It is all one picture to me. The science, logic, and natural are all interconnected with a living and breathing creator, God. His message, a Bible, is an anthrology of 66 books written over 1500 years by 44 authors. The message is clearly the result of a extra-universal being as it is clearly an integrated message system far beyond prophecy. The Book of Revelation is in code and can be deciphered using the entire preceding scripture for example.

It is a shame that you are not able to conduct yourself in a mature manner and discuss these things at far more intellectual levels. Your tone and language are indicative of someone full of wickedness and hardened in the heart.

Thanks. Actually, there are several names associated with this principle; Acumen's razor is one derivant. It is also the K.I.S.S. principle, "parsimony of postulates", the "principle of simplicity".

The correct spelling is "Ockham".

I've neither read the story nor seen the film so I don't get the reference. Strangely, though, I don't really care very much.

You, however, are showing your true colours as a misogynist cretin.

Not to worry though, a little shock therapy will take care of that "illness."

I'm a little under the weather this morning and this is a nice little distraction. Wish he'd come up with something better than feminazi, though. Rush really over did that a long time ago.

I'd rather talk to you anyway. :)

This, well after he "disappeared" and you "appeared."

By the time your present alias made it debut, posts bearing the alias of "Mr. Miami" were no longer identifible as such, owing to his/her having changed it.

Which begs the question, "How did you know of Mr. Miami?"

1) Islam is, in fact, an offshoot of Judaism, just like Christianity, only one that branches off at a much earlier point in the Biblical timeline. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are sometimes referred to as the "Abrahamic religions", because of the role Abraham plays in their holy books and beliefs. Islam holds that Ishmael, rather than Issac, was the intended sacrifice to be made by Abraham.

2) The dream of a Caliphate is a relatively modern one, and is [b]not[/b] an element of Islam itself. Rather, it is a political extension of the cultures of the region into the religion, not of religion into politics.

"[/i]Better to remain silent, and be thought the fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.[/i]"

[i]The Ayatollah Khomeini during a speech sought to inspire militant Muslims and advance an agenda of Islamic dominance through terror when he remarked,

?All those who study Jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the world? Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. They are witless!?

Noted Islamic Sunni Scholar Mawlana Abul ala Mawdudi (1903-1997) established the Radicalized Islamic Manifesto;

?Islam is not normal religion like other religions in the world, and Muslim nations are not like normal nations. Muslim nations are very special because they have a command from Allah to rule the entire world and to be over every nation in the world.

Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. Islam doesn?t look for a nation to be in better condition than another nation. Islam doesn?t care about the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power in this world that tries to get in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy.

In order for Islam to fulfill that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is Jihad.?[/i]

How many nations does Khomeini rule? If you answered "one" you're still not even half right! He is not the first and last word on Iran, and far, far further from the spokesman for all Muslims.

You have cited exactly [b]two[/b] sources to support your contention that [i]"As for Islam, it is 100% in opposition to the Judeo/Christian faiths on every single point. It is a warrior code of hate. There is no command for Muslims to love in the faith. Listen to what their leaders and Islamic philosophers say."[/i]

Khomeini's nation, Iran, is noteworthy among Muslim nations for (1) the affection of its people for the West (2) its 2-part government, with both secular and religious componennts. What makes you so certain that Khomeini "sought to inspire [b]militant Muslims[/b] and advance an agenda of Islamic dominance through terror"? If his goal was to incite idiot Christians, he has succeeded brilliantly. You witless little dupe!

How else to explain his apparent ignorance of such; but then, on the other hand, his ignorance of Christianity seems to be no less.

Elsewhere, he set forth the claim that the [i]Decalogue[/i] was the 1st written "Bill of Rights," which he set forth in his own words. Of course, he refrained from calling such by its more commonly known name, the [i]Ten Commandments,[/i] to which his version bore absolutely no resemblence.

Perhaps his is not mere ignorance, but a wanton disregard of the truth.

My original piece did not make any sexist remarks, it simply conveyed an historical image (something of the past) of an intellectual conversation. This was then dissected into pieces by a woman with a chip on her shoulder. I simply pointed out she should appreciate how far women have come with a graphic illustration where she could be.

My my Christian views are pretty much inline with Matt 5. I am far more versed in Islam than you may think. Try reading Sura 112 then compare that to John 1:14. That is direct denial of the Judeo\Christian Bible.

Your Christian position is incorrect. Read Matthew 7. One does not condemn. You are to correct others but must make sure yourself is right. You blew that one.

However, Matthew 7:6 may be more appropriate for this forum.

Agreed. What's more,

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/09/did_saddam_die_for_our_sins.php

[i]
Did Saddam Die For Our Sins?
Barry Lando
January 09, 2007

Barry Lando is a former CBS "60 Minutes" producer and journalist with Time-Life. He is the author of Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush (2006).

The disappearance of Saddam Hussein means that a lot of current and former top officials in the United States and other Western governments can breathe easier. The story of the West?s complicity in many of the tyrant?s most horrific crimes will remain untold, at least by the one man who could have spelled it out most clearly.

The purpose of the Special Iraqi Tribunal was supposedly, like the Nuremburg Tribunal, to educate Iraqis and the world about Saddam and his barbarous regime. That at least was the fiction. But the crime for which Saddam paid with his life?the torture and execution of 148 men and boys from the town of Dujail?was a trifle compared to the dictator?s far more vicious acts. On the other hand, no foreigners were implicated in those killings, which is just what the Americans, who set up and rode herd on the tribunal had in mind. In fact, one of the regulations of the tribunal, constantly overlooked, is that only Iraqi citizens and residents can be charged with crimes before that court.

Foreign leaders and businessmen certainly had a hand?by omission and commission?in the second case which is now continuing without Saddam (the charges against him have been dropped ). It?s based on the charge that he and his lieutenants carried out the genocidal slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980?s, which includes the gassing of men, women and children. With the key actor missing, the trial will now lose all interest for the outside world, and even for most Iraqis. But the damning fact is, as Saddam?s forces were carrying out their liquidation of the Kurds, American officials from the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations blocked attempts of the U.S. Congress and the U.N. to condemn the Iraqi tyrant. They had similarly squelched earlier efforts to condemn Saddam for his chemical attacks against Iranian troops.

U.S. officials not only claimed to have no specific knowledge of Saddam?s ruthless attacks, but refused to even meet with Kurdish leaders with first-hand evidence of Saddam?s barbarities. Saddam had been America?s de facto ally in what would become a bloody eight-year war against Khomeini?s Iran. The United States fed the conflagration, providing billion dollar loans, weapons and satellite intelligence that enabled the Iraqis to precisely target Iranian troops with chemical weapons. Ironically, even after the war had ended, the Bush White House?with its eyes fixed on Iraq?s huge petroleum deposits and potential markets?continued to defend and push trade with Saddam?s regime.

In fact, according to a memo written by Alexander Haig, Ronald Reagan?s Secretary of State, it was the Carter White House in 1980 which encouraged Iraq?via the Saudis?to invade Iran in the first place. Since Jimmy Carter has always denied that charge, it would have been interesting to hear Saddam expound on the issue. Iran had originally requested that Saddam?s invasion of Iran?which led to the deaths of more than a million people on both sides?also be considered one of the crimes by the tribunal. The request was turned down.

On the other hand, tribunal officials had indicated that one of the major atrocities that would be dealt with was Saddam?s slaughter of tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of Shiites in Southern Iraq following their uprising in 1991. They were answering the repeated public calls for rebellion by President George H.W. Bush. They didn?t realize Bush and his pragmatic Secretary of State James Baker didn?t really mean it.

When it looked as it the insurgents might actually succeed, the American president turned his back. The White House and its allies wanted Saddam replaced not by a popular revolt which they couldn?t control, but by a military leader, more amenable to U.S. interests. So, as the United States permitted Saddam?s attack helicopters to decimate the rebels, American troops just a few kilometers away from the slaughter were ordered to destroy huge stocks of captured weapons rather than let them fall into rebel hands. How enlightening it would have been to hear Saddam recount his feeling of relief when he realized that President Bush p?re was actually going to help him stay in power.

Forget the trial. What if, instead of the Special Tribunal?or along with it?Iraq had established a Truth Commission such as South Africa did following the fall of apartheid? Saddam might have explained to what degree feckless U.S. diplomacy was responsible for his concluding there would be no reaction from Washington if he were to invade Kuwait in 1990.

It would have been equally intriguing to hear Saddam expound on his relations with the French, who sold the dictator a nuclear reactor in the 1970?s, though it was clear he was after WMD. Or what about Saddam?s views of the German governments?east and west?who closed their eyes as scores of German industries also helped Saddam build his chemical arsenal. Saddam might have had a few words to say about the British under Margaret Thatcher, who were equally eager to cash in on the Iraqi arms bonanza?Thatcher?s son included.

Or, we could have gone back to the beginning?to the charge that the CIA was involved in organizing the first act that brought Saddam into the limelight: his participation in the botched 1958 assassination attempt against Iraqi President Qassem, who had proved too nationalistic and close to the Soviets for American and British Cold War tastes.

No, not to worry?there?ll be nothing embarrassing out of Saddam?not since his neck snapped as he plunged through the trap door in Baghdad?unless, somehow, he managed to write or transcribe his memoirs. Now that thought might still make for a few sleepless nights.

Copyright ? 2007 Barry Lando
[/i]

I might be willing to give it a try. But, they'd better have a damn good Scotch on hand, preferably Pinch.

Do you need any other than from the chest?

is perfect for a cold Sunday evening; picking apart and ridiculing the pompous postings of a misogynist git.

The picture of the "wilds of hair curled out of their shirt as well as around their thick black rim glasses" is something to treasure. Now, only those both hairy and myopic may truly be labeled "intellectual" and in future all posters to any subject with any intellectual nature must supply a photograph to see if they comply with the definition.

This begins with Maxwell.

And you.

I am getting a little beating here. These people go off on minor issues.

Hey these nuts think we are buddies. I have gotton all kinds of accusations.

GQ follows your lead? Impressive. How much have you had published? Obviously, someone with your skill would be in high demand?

The lacquer on the mahogany burned blue in an instant, and by the time I saw through my thick black-rimmed glasses what was happening, the wilds of my hair protruding from my shirt had sizzled and my sport coat was ablaze. It was all I could do to leap from my high back leather chair and shout "FIRE!" over the polite chatter and run like a coward before the incandescent bulbs exploded from the heat.

"[i]You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.[/i]"

[i]The stylized writing of GQ is closely similiar to my opening remarks.[/i]

I'd doubt that. Three important differences:

* GQ's writing can indeed be stylised. We've seen no evidence whatsoever that yours meets the same standards.

* GQ's writers are generally capable of forming both an argument and a conclusion, all by themselves. Again, you've given us no evidence of your skills of that. Indeed you've consistently pointed to your inability to draw your own conclusion rather than that which you feel is "ordained" or predetermined.

* Quite a lot of people go out of their way to read GQ.

I did ask, didn't I?

"Oh, and I'm really REALLY shallow. That probably won't help."

I [b]hate[/b] people who aren't shallow, they're always worried about things that don't exist & ignoring what's right in front of us.

and stay there!

Yes, you have most certainly demonstrated that, and in a manner most public.

It'll take long enough to get the stench out of the air as it is now.