|
"-rick-" wrote in message ... Sorry, but it's now exceeded my struggle/fun ratio threshold. I like that statement. I think I'll save it for future use. ;-) |
"-rick-" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "-rick-" wrote in message There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning addressing that very question. Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General" who doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he interviewed while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast building? If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who interviewed him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this General was and what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody like you who refers to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up. Calling it faux news is a cheap shot but generally deserved. The story aired between about 9:30 and 10 AM PDT 7/25/05. It appeared that the general was on active duty. He was shown in uniform commenting from Iraq. I was exercising on the elliptical without glasses and couldn't read his name on the 13" tube across the room. I'm sure they introduced him but I was paying attention to the newspaper until the discussion moved to the make up of the insurgency. A more diligent or competent researcher could probably find a transcript (LexisNexis?). I briefly searched the Foxnews site but didn't find a reference to that particular story. Sorry, but it's now exceeded my struggle/fun ratio threshold. -rick- Well, based on NOYB's rules, the story did not exist. Nor did your TV, your exercise machine, glasses, newspaper, and perhaps even your house. The existence of all these things depends on the name of the person who was interviewed. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "-rick-" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "-rick-" wrote in message There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning addressing that very question. Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General" who doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he interviewed while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast building? If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who interviewed him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this General was and what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody like you who refers to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up. Calling it faux news is a cheap shot but generally deserved. The story aired between about 9:30 and 10 AM PDT 7/25/05. It appeared that the general was on active duty. He was shown in uniform commenting from Iraq. I was exercising on the elliptical without glasses and couldn't read his name on the 13" tube across the room. I'm sure they introduced him but I was paying attention to the newspaper until the discussion moved to the make up of the insurgency. A more diligent or competent researcher could probably find a transcript (LexisNexis?). I briefly searched the Foxnews site but didn't find a reference to that particular story. Sorry, but it's now exceeded my struggle/fun ratio threshold. -rick- Well, based on NOYB's rules, the story did not exist. Nor did your TV, your exercise machine, glasses, newspaper, and perhaps even your house. The existence of all these things depends on the name of the person who was interviewed. The interpretation of actual facts depends on the person being interviewed, and the person listening to the interview. rick tipped his hand about his bias when he called Fox News "Faux News". That alone gave me doubt as to the veracity of his report. Fox interviews folks from both ends of the political spectrum. I'd just like to know some particular biographical facts on this "general" to determine for myself if he's someone who actually has a clue as to what's going on...or if he's just repeating party lines to further a particular agenda. That's fair, isn't it? |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "-rick-" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "-rick-" wrote in message There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning addressing that very question. Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General" who doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he interviewed while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast building? If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who interviewed him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this General was and what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody like you who refers to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up. Calling it faux news is a cheap shot but generally deserved. The story aired between about 9:30 and 10 AM PDT 7/25/05. It appeared that the general was on active duty. He was shown in uniform commenting from Iraq. I was exercising on the elliptical without glasses and couldn't read his name on the 13" tube across the room. I'm sure they introduced him but I was paying attention to the newspaper until the discussion moved to the make up of the insurgency. A more diligent or competent researcher could probably find a transcript (LexisNexis?). I briefly searched the Foxnews site but didn't find a reference to that particular story. Sorry, but it's now exceeded my struggle/fun ratio threshold. -rick- Well, based on NOYB's rules, the story did not exist. Nor did your TV, your exercise machine, glasses, newspaper, and perhaps even your house. The existence of all these things depends on the name of the person who was interviewed. The interpretation of actual facts depends on the person being interviewed, and the person listening to the interview. rick tipped his hand about his bias when he called Fox News "Faux News". That alone gave me doubt as to the veracity of his report. Fox interviews folks from both ends of the political spectrum. I'd just like to know some particular biographical facts on this "general" to determine for myself if he's someone who actually has a clue as to what's going on...or if he's just repeating party lines to further a particular agenda. That's fair, isn't it? It's fair as long as you also realize that you heard comments from what's-his-name - the Iraqi guy you're comfortable with, but you were not actually sitting there wtih him doing the interview. You do realize you weren't with him, right? He was interviewed by another person, who also may have asked a set of questions which prompted certain replies. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "-rick-" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "-rick-" wrote in message There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning addressing that very question. Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General" who doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he interviewed while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast building? If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who interviewed him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this General was and what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody like you who refers to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up. Calling it faux news is a cheap shot but generally deserved. The story aired between about 9:30 and 10 AM PDT 7/25/05. It appeared that the general was on active duty. He was shown in uniform commenting from Iraq. I was exercising on the elliptical without glasses and couldn't read his name on the 13" tube across the room. I'm sure they introduced him but I was paying attention to the newspaper until the discussion moved to the make up of the insurgency. A more diligent or competent researcher could probably find a transcript (LexisNexis?). I briefly searched the Foxnews site but didn't find a reference to that particular story. Sorry, but it's now exceeded my struggle/fun ratio threshold. -rick- Well, based on NOYB's rules, the story did not exist. Nor did your TV, your exercise machine, glasses, newspaper, and perhaps even your house. The existence of all these things depends on the name of the person who was interviewed. The interpretation of actual facts depends on the person being interviewed, and the person listening to the interview. rick tipped his hand about his bias when he called Fox News "Faux News". That alone gave me doubt as to the veracity of his report. Fox interviews folks from both ends of the political spectrum. I'd just like to know some particular biographical facts on this "general" to determine for myself if he's someone who actually has a clue as to what's going on...or if he's just repeating party lines to further a particular agenda. That's fair, isn't it? It's fair as long as you also realize that you heard comments from what's-his-name - the Iraqi guy you're comfortable with, but you were not actually sitting there wtih him doing the interview. You do realize you weren't with him, right? He was interviewed by another person, who also may have asked a set of questions which prompted certain replies. Read the interview: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/ Gregory was trying to get him to say exactly what you're trying to say...and al-Jaafari stood by his guns, and turned Gregory upside down and inside out. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "-rick-" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "-rick-" wrote in message There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning addressing that very question. Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General" who doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he interviewed while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast building? If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who interviewed him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this General was and what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody like you who refers to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up. Calling it faux news is a cheap shot but generally deserved. The story aired between about 9:30 and 10 AM PDT 7/25/05. It appeared that the general was on active duty. He was shown in uniform commenting from Iraq. I was exercising on the elliptical without glasses and couldn't read his name on the 13" tube across the room. I'm sure they introduced him but I was paying attention to the newspaper until the discussion moved to the make up of the insurgency. A more diligent or competent researcher could probably find a transcript (LexisNexis?). I briefly searched the Foxnews site but didn't find a reference to that particular story. Sorry, but it's now exceeded my struggle/fun ratio threshold. -rick- Well, based on NOYB's rules, the story did not exist. Nor did your TV, your exercise machine, glasses, newspaper, and perhaps even your house. The existence of all these things depends on the name of the person who was interviewed. The interpretation of actual facts depends on the person being interviewed, and the person listening to the interview. rick tipped his hand about his bias when he called Fox News "Faux News". That alone gave me doubt as to the veracity of his report. Fox interviews folks from both ends of the political spectrum. I'd just like to know some particular biographical facts on this "general" to determine for myself if he's someone who actually has a clue as to what's going on...or if he's just repeating party lines to further a particular agenda. That's fair, isn't it? It's fair as long as you also realize that you heard comments from what's-his-name - the Iraqi guy you're comfortable with, but you were not actually sitting there wtih him doing the interview. You do realize you weren't with him, right? He was interviewed by another person, who also may have asked a set of questions which prompted certain replies. Read the interview: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/ Gregory was trying to get him to say exactly what you're trying to say...and al-Jaafari stood by his guns, and turned Gregory upside down and inside out. Then, why do you suppose that actual American military officials in Iraq contradict al-Jaafari??? He's not wandering the streets with a gun in his hand, and an American army general probably isn't, either. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "-rick-" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "-rick-" wrote in message There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning addressing that very question. Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General" who doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he interviewed while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast building? If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who interviewed him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this General was and what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody like you who refers to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up. Calling it faux news is a cheap shot but generally deserved. The story aired between about 9:30 and 10 AM PDT 7/25/05. It appeared that the general was on active duty. He was shown in uniform commenting from Iraq. I was exercising on the elliptical without glasses and couldn't read his name on the 13" tube across the room. I'm sure they introduced him but I was paying attention to the newspaper until the discussion moved to the make up of the insurgency. A more diligent or competent researcher could probably find a transcript (LexisNexis?). I briefly searched the Foxnews site but didn't find a reference to that particular story. Sorry, but it's now exceeded my struggle/fun ratio threshold. -rick- Well, based on NOYB's rules, the story did not exist. Nor did your TV, your exercise machine, glasses, newspaper, and perhaps even your house. The existence of all these things depends on the name of the person who was interviewed. The interpretation of actual facts depends on the person being interviewed, and the person listening to the interview. rick tipped his hand about his bias when he called Fox News "Faux News". That alone gave me doubt as to the veracity of his report. Fox interviews folks from both ends of the political spectrum. I'd just like to know some particular biographical facts on this "general" to determine for myself if he's someone who actually has a clue as to what's going on...or if he's just repeating party lines to further a particular agenda. That's fair, isn't it? It's fair as long as you also realize that you heard comments from what's-his-name - the Iraqi guy you're comfortable with, but you were not actually sitting there wtih him doing the interview. You do realize you weren't with him, right? He was interviewed by another person, who also may have asked a set of questions which prompted certain replies. Read the interview: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/ Gregory was trying to get him to say exactly what you're trying to say...and al-Jaafari stood by his guns, and turned Gregory upside down and inside out. Then, why do you suppose that actual American military officials in Iraq contradict al-Jaafari??? Which officials? Send me a quote from one of your sources. |
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net... Then, why do you suppose that actual American military officials in Iraq contradict al-Jaafari??? Which officials? Send me a quote from one of your sources. Save that bull**** for someone else. We've been through this. 1) They're real. Rick explained that to you in his message from earlier today. Like me, he didn't take notes just for you. 2) If names were provided, it wouldn't matter, since you're not likely to be acquainted with any of them. 3) If you had sources describing these peoples' attitudes, they'd be suspect. Why would anyone take the time to comment on a certain general's views, unless the writer had some bizarre agenda? So: Why do you doubt the views of high ranking officials posted in Iraq? Or, to put it another way: Why do you not support our troops? |
NOYB wrote:
The interpretation of actual facts depends on the person being interviewed, and the person listening to the interview. rick tipped his hand about his bias when he called Fox News "Faux News". That alone gave me doubt as to the veracity of his report. I have an opinion or bias regarding the accuracy of Fox news in general. I have absolutely no bias regarding the make up of the insurgency. -rick- |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". http://tinyurl.com/c4x3f It should be defeated on its face. Mandatory "military" training indeed, and only for males? B.S. We need a draft. Harry, Why do we need a draft? |
"Genius? Not!" wrote in message m... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". http://tinyurl.com/c4x3f It should be defeated on its face. Mandatory "military" training indeed, and only for males? B.S. We need a draft. Harry, Why do we need a draft? To increase the likelihood that the children of our elected representatives are represented among the dead. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Genius? Not! wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". http://tinyurl.com/c4x3f It should be defeated on its face. Mandatory "military" training indeed, and only for males? B.S. We need a draft. Harry, Why do we need a draft? TO end the war against Iraq and to chill any further attempts by Bush for military aggression. The kind of draft I have in mind would require the registration without except of EVERY citizen between the ages of 18 and 30, and a lottery would be held among the registrants to fulfill military requirements. NO exemptions except for serious physical or emotional-mental disabilities. No special status for college students. No deferments for any reason. That will, the sons and daughters of wealthy Republicans will be drafted, along with the sons and daughters of the poor. The rich will not want their children fighting in a war of aggression, and will not allow Bush to start any more wars not provably crucial to our national survival. An all-encompassing draft is the great equalizer, in that it allows the sons and daughters of the rich to come home in body bags, too. That tends to put a chill on military expansionism for political purposes. That's what I thought that statement was about. I'm a latecomer to these discussions and have to do some guessing about what's been said before my attention was piqued. By the way, I know it's off topic, but this thread was interesting to follow from the start. There's more to you guys than just boats; pretty cool. I'll admit right up front that I don't want my son drafted or trained or educated for anyone for any reason other than our country has been invaded by a foreign army; in which case I'll take up arms with all my fellow countrymen including my children. I'm kind of partial to keeping my son alive. |
"Genius? Not!" wrote in message ... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Genius? Not! wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". http://tinyurl.com/c4x3f It should be defeated on its face. Mandatory "military" training indeed, and only for males? B.S. We need a draft. Harry, Why do we need a draft? TO end the war against Iraq and to chill any further attempts by Bush for military aggression. The kind of draft I have in mind would require the registration without except of EVERY citizen between the ages of 18 and 30, and a lottery would be held among the registrants to fulfill military requirements. NO exemptions except for serious physical or emotional-mental disabilities. No special status for college students. No deferments for any reason. That will, the sons and daughters of wealthy Republicans will be drafted, along with the sons and daughters of the poor. The rich will not want their children fighting in a war of aggression, and will not allow Bush to start any more wars not provably crucial to our national survival. An all-encompassing draft is the great equalizer, in that it allows the sons and daughters of the rich to come home in body bags, too. That tends to put a chill on military expansionism for political purposes. That's what I thought that statement was about. I'm a latecomer to these discussions and have to do some guessing about what's been said before my attention was piqued. By the way, I know it's off topic, but this thread was interesting to follow from the start. There's more to you guys than just boats; pretty cool. I'll admit right up front that I don't want my son drafted or trained or educated for anyone for any reason other than our country has been invaded by a foreign army; in which case I'll take up arms with all my fellow countrymen including my children. I'm kind of partial to keeping my son alive. Yeah....sons have more value as yard slaves when they're alive. And, I don't know about your son, but without mine, I'd be deprived of some of the stupidest, long & drawn out arguments imaginable. Even worse than what goes on here sometimes. :-) |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Genius? Not! wrote: I'll admit right up front that I don't want my son drafted or trained or educated for anyone for any reason other than our country has been invaded by a foreign army; in which case I'll take up arms with all my fellow countrymen including my children. I'm kind of partial to keeping my son alive. Well, a true universal draft would put the screws to a military expansionist like Bush. I'd go a bit beyond you and add draftees if it were clear a real war was coming soon. I wouldn't want until we were invaded. But to invade a country as uninvolved in 9-11 as Iraq was, and on trumped up reasons? No. If there were a universal draft, the parents would NOT let someone like Bush send their kids overseas to die. I'd like to see Bush read the names of the dead each day on TV, without being permitted to say ANYTHING else. No condolences, no apologies, no bull****. Just "Today's dead...", and then read the names. |
HarryKrause wrote:
Genius? Not! wrote: I'll admit right up front that I don't want my son drafted or trained or educated for anyone for any reason other than our country has been invaded by a foreign army; in which case I'll take up arms with all my fellow countrymen including my children. I'm kind of partial to keeping my son alive. Well, a true universal draft would put the screws to a military expansionist like Bush. I'd go a bit beyond you and add draftees if it were clear a real war was coming soon. I wouldn't want until we were invaded. But to invade a country as uninvolved in 9-11 as Iraq was, and on trumped up reasons? No. If there were a universal draft, the parents would NOT let someone like Bush send their kids overseas to die. It seems that once young impressionable people sign on that dotted line...their lives are worthless. They are just cannon fodder to be used up & spit out by the establishment. |
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Genius? Not!" wrote in message ... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Genius? Not! wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". http://tinyurl.com/c4x3f It should be defeated on its face. Mandatory "military" training indeed, and only for males? B.S. We need a draft. Harry, Why do we need a draft? TO end the war against Iraq and to chill any further attempts by Bush for military aggression. The kind of draft I have in mind would require the registration without except of EVERY citizen between the ages of 18 and 30, and a lottery would be held among the registrants to fulfill military requirements. NO exemptions except for serious physical or emotional-mental disabilities. No special status for college students. No deferments for any reason. That will, the sons and daughters of wealthy Republicans will be drafted, along with the sons and daughters of the poor. The rich will not want their children fighting in a war of aggression, and will not allow Bush to start any more wars not provably crucial to our national survival. An all-encompassing draft is the great equalizer, in that it allows the sons and daughters of the rich to come home in body bags, too. That tends to put a chill on military expansionism for political purposes. That's what I thought that statement was about. I'm a latecomer to these discussions and have to do some guessing about what's been said before my attention was piqued. By the way, I know it's off topic, but this thread was interesting to follow from the start. There's more to you guys than just boats; pretty cool. I'll admit right up front that I don't want my son drafted or trained or educated for anyone for any reason other than our country has been invaded by a foreign army; in which case I'll take up arms with all my fellow countrymen including my children. I'm kind of partial to keeping my son alive. Yeah....sons have more value as yard slaves when they're alive. And, I don't know about your son, but without mine, I'd be deprived of some of the stupidest, long & drawn out arguments imaginable. Even worse than what goes on here sometimes. :-) Please..in your worst nightmares, don't compare your son to the likes of JimH, Bert, Smithers, Fritz etc. He may act up now and again...but there's hope for him once he's in his twenties and been on his own for a while. It's called maturing..your son will do it but the process had passed by the other characters mentioned above. |
"Don White" wrote in message
... Yeah....sons have more value as yard slaves when they're alive. And, I don't know about your son, but without mine, I'd be deprived of some of the stupidest, long & drawn out arguments imaginable. Even worse than what goes on here sometimes. :-) Please..in your worst nightmares, don't compare your son to the likes of JimH, Bert, Smithers, Fritz etc. He may act up now and again...but there's hope for him once he's in his twenties and been on his own for a while. It's called maturing..your son will do it but the process had passed by the other characters mentioned above. A friend keeps reminding me that my son knows everything at his age. :-) I'd forgotten. Example: He's learning guitar. I play bass. Last week, he asked if I knew "Foxy Lady". I said I'd been humming it regularly since 1970, had never played it, but I knew it revolved around a certain set of chords, plus Hendrix' endless flourishes. My son says "Well....to your untrained ear, it probably seems that way...." My friend had to run into the other room because she was trying to keep from laughing a mouthful of coffee all over the living room carpet. My son and I debated the song a bit and he went back to the sheet music. Two days later, he had his guitar lesson. He said the same thing to the teacher, who straightened him out. My son's comment to me: "You might have been right about those chords". Might have. :-) Tonight will be interesting. The city of Rochester offers some great free concerts at an outdoor venue. Tonights band is Little Feat. My son says we're not going. I say we are. He says we're not. I say we are. No way to settle it conversationally. So, I'm picking him up from his guitar lesson and once he's in the car, I'm telling him I don't feel like cooking and we're going out to eat. Not really true, not really false. There are lots of food vendors at these concerts. So, in reality, it's out to dinner, with background music. Lots of restaurants have music. In this case, it's live music. I'm assuming he won't jump to his death from a moving vehicle to avoid seeing a band which, a month from now, he may admit that he liked. :-) |
Doug Kanter wrote:
A friend keeps reminding me that my son knows everything at his age. :-) I'd forgotten. Example: He's learning guitar. I play bass. Last week, he asked if I knew "Foxy Lady". I said I'd been humming it regularly since 1970, had never played it, but I knew it revolved around a certain set of chords, plus Hendrix' endless flourishes. My son says "Well....to your untrained ear, it probably seems that way...." My friend had to run into the other room because she was trying to keep from laughing a mouthful of coffee all over the living room carpet. My son and I debated the song a bit and he went back to the sheet music. Two days later, he had his guitar lesson. He said the same thing to the teacher, who straightened him out. My son's comment to me: "You might have been right about those chords". Might have. :-) Tonight will be interesting. The city of Rochester offers some great free concerts at an outdoor venue. Tonights band is Little Feat. My son says we're not going. I say we are. He says we're not. I say we are. No way to settle it conversationally. So, I'm picking him up from his guitar lesson and once he's in the car, I'm telling him I don't feel like cooking and we're going out to eat. Not really true, not really false. There are lots of food vendors at these concerts. So, in reality, it's out to dinner, with background music. Lots of restaurants have music. In this case, it's live music. I'm assuming he won't jump to his death from a moving vehicle to avoid seeing a band which, a month from now, he may admit that he liked. :-) Funny how they get that way, always have to buck the old man. My youngest just graduated from university and at 24 he will still go opposite almost anything I say. In the good 'ole days you could give them a whuppin to straighten them out...now you just do your best and hope for the best. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: I'm assuming he won't jump to his death from a moving vehicle to avoid seeing a band which, a month from now, he may admit that he liked. :-) Funny how they get that way, always have to buck the old man. My youngest just graduated from university and at 24 he will still go opposite almost anything I say. In the good 'ole days you could give them a whuppin to straighten them out...now you just do your best and hope for the best. I like the anecdote I heard: In the beginning the young son saw his father as a hero. In adolscence and twenties the son saw his father as an embarrassing fool. As a parent the son said to his father, "You know, Dad, the older I get the smarter you were!" |
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:36:03 GMT, Don White wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote: A friend keeps reminding me that my son knows everything at his age. :-) I'd forgotten. Example: He's learning guitar. I play bass. Last week, he asked if I knew "Foxy Lady". I said I'd been humming it regularly since 1970, had never played it, but I knew it revolved around a certain set of chords, plus Hendrix' endless flourishes. My son says "Well....to your untrained ear, it probably seems that way...." My friend had to run into the other room because she was trying to keep from laughing a mouthful of coffee all over the living room carpet. My son and I debated the song a bit and he went back to the sheet music. Two days later, he had his guitar lesson. He said the same thing to the teacher, who straightened him out. My son's comment to me: "You might have been right about those chords". Might have. :-) Tonight will be interesting. The city of Rochester offers some great free concerts at an outdoor venue. Tonights band is Little Feat. My son says we're not going. I say we are. He says we're not. I say we are. No way to settle it conversationally. So, I'm picking him up from his guitar lesson and once he's in the car, I'm telling him I don't feel like cooking and we're going out to eat. Not really true, not really false. There are lots of food vendors at these concerts. So, in reality, it's out to dinner, with background music. Lots of restaurants have music. In this case, it's live music. I'm assuming he won't jump to his death from a moving vehicle to avoid seeing a band which, a month from now, he may admit that he liked. :-) Funny how they get that way, always have to buck the old man. My youngest just graduated from university and at 24 he will still go opposite almost anything I say. In the good 'ole days you could give them a whuppin to straighten them out...now you just do your best and hope for the best. When I was teaching 8th graders, I would tell the parents, on parent orientation night, that adolescence was a genetic defect. For kids it was a rough time. For parents it was worse. I further explained that I'd raised to daughters and that I had some good news. It only lasted until the kids were about 26 years old! You've only got two years to go. He'll grow out of it! -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:36:03 GMT, Don White wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: A friend keeps reminding me that my son knows everything at his age. :-) I'd forgotten. Example: He's learning guitar. I play bass. Last week, he asked if I knew "Foxy Lady". I said I'd been humming it regularly since 1970, had never played it, but I knew it revolved around a certain set of chords, plus Hendrix' endless flourishes. My son says "Well....to your untrained ear, it probably seems that way...." My friend had to run into the other room because she was trying to keep from laughing a mouthful of coffee all over the living room carpet. My son and I debated the song a bit and he went back to the sheet music. Two days later, he had his guitar lesson. He said the same thing to the teacher, who straightened him out. My son's comment to me: "You might have been right about those chords". Might have. :-) Tonight will be interesting. The city of Rochester offers some great free concerts at an outdoor venue. Tonights band is Little Feat. My son says we're not going. I say we are. He says we're not. I say we are. No way to settle it conversationally. So, I'm picking him up from his guitar lesson and once he's in the car, I'm telling him I don't feel like cooking and we're going out to eat. Not really true, not really false. There are lots of food vendors at these concerts. So, in reality, it's out to dinner, with background music. Lots of restaurants have music. In this case, it's live music. I'm assuming he won't jump to his death from a moving vehicle to avoid seeing a band which, a month from now, he may admit that he liked. :-) Funny how they get that way, always have to buck the old man. My youngest just graduated from university and at 24 he will still go opposite almost anything I say. In the good 'ole days you could give them a whuppin to straighten them out...now you just do your best and hope for the best. When I was teaching 8th graders, I would tell the parents, on parent orientation night, that adolescence was a genetic defect. For kids it was a rough time. For parents it was worse. I further explained that I'd raised to daughters and that I had some good news. It only lasted until the kids were about 26 years old! You've only got two years to go. He'll grow out of it! If you haven't ever heard Bill Cosby's "Brain Damage" routine, find it and buy it. It explains kids. :-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com