|
Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
SteveB wrote:
I drove forklifts for years at Vegas conventions. We had a lot of female operators. When a person is an operator, they either make it, or they wash out quickly. They don't let bad operators run for very long. Many a person, both male and female got put on a horse out there either by knowing someone or blowing someone, and with their first ****up, they were ground pounding again. Most were screened by mandatory drug testing before they ever got on the horse, and then mandatory in case of any accident or injury. It was one of the few jobs in the place that was performance based. Horse? You call a forklift a horse? When I operated them we used to call them bulls. Like this one... http://www.portstrategy.com/__data/a...orklift_11.JPG I loaded barges destined for Alaska out of Seattle, for about five years. 80,000 pound capacity. -- Jordon |
Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
SteveB wrote:
I drove forklifts for years at Vegas conventions. We had a lot of female operators. When a person is an operator, they either make it, or they wash out quickly. They don't let bad operators run for very long. Many a person, both male and female got put on a horse out there either by knowing someone or blowing someone, and with their first ****up, they were ground pounding again. Most were screened by mandatory drug testing before they ever got on the horse, and then mandatory in case of any accident or injury. It was one of the few jobs in the place that was performance based. Horse? You call a forklift a horse? When I operated them we used to call them bulls. Like this one... http://www.portstrategy.com/__data/a...orklift_11.JPG I loaded barges destined for Alaska out of Seattle, for about five years. -- Jordon |
Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:50:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally. Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would love to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar: In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric. I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also: http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html Have a wonderful day! Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to believe, I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially by the Socratics as you may care to believe. "Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning." However, I was going with the modern, popular definition. Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence. It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry comes so easily. I never mentioned Aristotle, and I would never assert that he was deferential to that philosophy. I'm not sure where you got that from my comment or the links. You said the two (sophism and chaos) were allies. That seems like a relativistic statement. Neither did I mention Aristotle. And why could "quintessence" not have been the ally that I was speaking of? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
"Steve" wrote in message
... On 24-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Affirmative action put a girl behind the wheel of an iron-ballasted vehicle????? Affirmative action? No. My dad was an executive at the company and wanted me to get some real work experience. Sorry, actually - I was just pulling your tail. Glad you did it. Me too! It was an interesting job... very dirty place to work. Took me hours to get the grit out of my hair. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
wrote in message
... On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:50:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally. Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would love to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar: In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric. I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also: http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html Have a wonderful day! Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to believe, I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially by the Socratics as you may care to believe. "Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning." However, I was going with the modern, popular definition. Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence. It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry comes so easily. I never mentioned Aristotle, and I would never assert that he was deferential to that philosophy. I'm not sure where you got that from my comment or the links. You said the two (sophism and chaos) were allies. That seems like a relativistic statement. Neither did I mention Aristotle. And why could "quintessence" not have been the ally that I was speaking of? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Sorry I meant Socatics. This is a method of arriving at the "truth" through questions and answers. This has something to do with sophistry, but nothing to do with chaos. I'm not a big fan of Aristotle. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:07:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:44:17 -0400, JohnH wrote: On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:34:44 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:52:14 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:23:44 -0600, "SteveB" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Steve" wrote in message ... On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote: If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office, you have serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies. ?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to previous presidents, he seems pretty good to me. Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I fear the led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would have. Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's the same as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up on the beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental imagery) Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put in office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that makes you feel better. With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing fine by yourself. I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is NO one voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo or Obama) You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a political party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the deficiencies. Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You have LOADS of company. You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH?????? Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser. Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names? And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name? Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be obvious what I'm talking about. What would you call him? -- Nom=de=Plume Correct. Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate. -- Nom=de=Plume There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being intentionally bitchy? reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO. Too similar to 'debating' Harry. Probably is... De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally. De Plume is simply a 'little' better mannered De Krause. I suspect that, in person, De Plume is affable and considerate. But, her propensity for disconnected thinking and her penchant for sophistry in these threads is disquieting. I was tempted with the thought of encouraging the title "Queen Quintessa of Sophistry." That would be mean-spirited, though. In the long run, I have no doubt that she means well, unlike Harry. I'm affable and considerate here also. I didn't say that you weren't, Miss De Plume. However, you have demonstrated in these threads that you can be patronizing and condescending, at least in tone if not in intent. And those particular qualities are not in accord with one who can also demonstrate substantially poor powers of reasoning. That does not take away from your affability, in any event. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:11:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:50:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message om... De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally. Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would love to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar: In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric. I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also: http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html Have a wonderful day! Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to believe, I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially by the Socratics as you may care to believe. "Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning." However, I was going with the modern, popular definition. Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence. It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry comes so easily. I never mentioned Aristotle, and I would never assert that he was deferential to that philosophy. I'm not sure where you got that from my comment or the links. You said the two (sophism and chaos) were allies. That seems like a relativistic statement. Neither did I mention Aristotle. And why could "quintessence" not have been the ally that I was speaking of? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Sorry I meant Socatics. This is a method of arriving at the "truth" through questions and answers. This has something to do with sophistry, but nothing to do with chaos. I'm not a big fan of Aristotle. That's fine. I suspected that you had misstated what you had intended to say. By "Socratics," I was referring to the students of Socrates, or those subsequently influenced by his philosophies or his methods of inquiry. Those who were of the Socratic school frowned on the Sophists and may have done so with good reason. But, whether there was merit in the disdain shown by the Socratic school for the Sophists is a point of contention among those who explore these things assiduously, as I understand it. Two other prominent schools that come from that epoch are the Epicurean and Stoic. Both are worth exploring, for those interested in early philosophy, to appreciate how currently popular conceptions of the Stoic and the Epicurean differ from their original precepts. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
wrote in message
... On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:07:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:44:17 -0400, JohnH wrote: On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:34:44 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:52:14 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:23:44 -0600, "SteveB" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Steve" wrote in message ... On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote: If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office, you have serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies. ?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to previous presidents, he seems pretty good to me. Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I fear the led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would have. Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's the same as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up on the beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental imagery) Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put in office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that makes you feel better. With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing fine by yourself. I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is NO one voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo or Obama) You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a political party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the deficiencies. Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You have LOADS of company. You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH?????? Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser. Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names? And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name? Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be obvious what I'm talking about. What would you call him? -- Nom=de=Plume Correct. Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate. -- Nom=de=Plume There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being intentionally bitchy? reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO. Too similar to 'debating' Harry. Probably is... De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally. De Plume is simply a 'little' better mannered De Krause. I suspect that, in person, De Plume is affable and considerate. But, her propensity for disconnected thinking and her penchant for sophistry in these threads is disquieting. I was tempted with the thought of encouraging the title "Queen Quintessa of Sophistry." That would be mean-spirited, though. In the long run, I have no doubt that she means well, unlike Harry. I'm affable and considerate here also. I didn't say that you weren't, Miss De Plume. However, you have demonstrated in these threads that you can be patronizing and condescending, at least in tone if not in intent. And those particular qualities are not in accord with one who can also demonstrate substantially poor powers of reasoning. That does not take away from your affability, in any event. Patronizing and condescending are not traits one associates with affableness (not sure this is a word). Please feel free to post instances of either. The "qualities" (condescention and patronization) are certainly associated with poor powers of reasoning. How could they not be? Perhaps you meant they _are_ in accord with those two things.... Honestly, I don't know anyone who is condescending and patronizing _and_ affable. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
wrote in message
... On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:11:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:50:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:vj0nb5tgbhfre620gncu7s81tisd98jcp6@4ax. com... De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally. Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would love to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar: In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric. I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also: http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html Have a wonderful day! Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to believe, I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially by the Socratics as you may care to believe. "Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning." However, I was going with the modern, popular definition. Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence. It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry comes so easily. I never mentioned Aristotle, and I would never assert that he was deferential to that philosophy. I'm not sure where you got that from my comment or the links. You said the two (sophism and chaos) were allies. That seems like a relativistic statement. Neither did I mention Aristotle. And why could "quintessence" not have been the ally that I was speaking of? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Sorry I meant Socatics. This is a method of arriving at the "truth" through questions and answers. This has something to do with sophistry, but nothing to do with chaos. I'm not a big fan of Aristotle. That's fine. I suspected that you had misstated what you had intended to say. By "Socratics," I was referring to the students of Socrates, or those subsequently influenced by his philosophies or his methods of inquiry. Those who were of the Socratic school frowned on the Sophists and may have done so with good reason. But, whether there was merit in the disdain shown by the Socratic school for the Sophists is a point of contention among those who explore these things assiduously, as I understand it. Two other prominent schools that come from that epoch are the Epicurean and Stoic. Both are worth exploring, for those interested in early philosophy, to appreciate how currently popular conceptions of the Stoic and the Epicurean differ from their original precepts. I've always had an affinity toward stoicism, and I appreciate the attacks Epicureans have on superstition and deity worship. I'm not a hedonist, particularly. I guess I'm not a stoic either. lol -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com