Harry Krause wrote:

startribune.com
Editorial: Bush creates illusion of progress in Iraq

December 1, 2005

President Bush gave an impassioned and rosy speech on the way forward in
Iraq at the U.S. Naval Academy Wednesday. It's just too bad that the
picture he painted of today's Iraq was an illusion, and most of his
assertions about the future were wrongheaded...

The Minneapolis Star Tribune is one of the most radically left
newspapers in the US. It's nothing but a propaganda rag.

http://tinyurl.com/8xwb2

It's little wonder you're so skewed left if that's the source of your
information. Those of us in the middle prefer to get our news from
unbiased and responsible reporters like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann
Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Micheal Savage. Most of us were smart enough
not to have been brainwashed by the liberal press of the Cronkite,
Rather, Koppel era. Unfortunately, it appears some weaker individuals
were highly influenced by these leftist propagandists of the past.

--
Skipper

Harry Krause wrote:

Skipper wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

startribune.com
Editorial: Bush creates illusion of progress in Iraq

December 1, 2005

President Bush gave an impassioned and rosy speech on the way forward in
Iraq at the U.S. Naval Academy Wednesday. It's just too bad that the
picture he painted of today's Iraq was an illusion, and most of his
assertions about the future were wrongheaded...

The Minneapolis Star Tribune is one of the most radically left
newspapers in the US. It's nothing but a propaganda rag.

Whatever it is, it is several steps up from a turd like you, Skipper.

Turd is such an inelegant word, Krause. However, it does remind one of
the following passage:

Recently I received an irate letter from a correspondent who had been
accessing my posts via Usenet. This individual, who claimed to be
descended from Spanish Jewish converts to Christianity, was taking issue
with a post in which I had made reference to the religious practices of
the "Marranos" of Spain and Portugal. The term "Marrano," he argued
correctly, was an abusive and demeaning old Spanish word meaning
"swine"--expressing the distaste felt by many veteran Christian
Iberians, even for Jews who had adopted the official faith.

I felt the occasion called for apology rather than self-justification. I
explained that I had hesitated before choosing the offensive epithet
over the more respectable "conversos" or "New Christians," but had
ultimately decided that such terms would be unfamiliar to my average
reader.

As an aside, I remarked that Jews have a long history of accepting names
that were originally intended as derogatory. Perhaps this practice can
be traced back to the patriarch Abraham whose designation Ivri, "Hebrew"
is understood by some commentators to mean "one who comes from the other
side ['ever]," possibly reflecting the perspective of the Canaanites who
patronizingly viewed him as an "alien."

In later generations Jews consistently referred to themselves as
"Israel." The term "Yehudi" (Jew) is found very rarely in Talmudic
literature, and in those rare instances where it does appear it is
usually in quotations attributed to non-Jews. This is consistent with
the evidence of Greek texts, where Ioudaioi is the name that is normally
used to designate our people.

This demonstrates a crucial difference in perspective: Gentiles
acknowledged only the truncated province of Judea, as it existed under
Persian, Greek and Roman rule, whereas the Jews were always conscious of
their links to the glorious days when David and Solomon reigned over the
united Israelite monarchy.

When Talmudic documents mention the word Pharisee (P'rushi) as the name
of a religious movement, the word is usually being used by their
opponents, the supporters of the priestly Sadducee party. When referring
to their own origins, the rabbis employed the term "Haverim" (comrades).
Eventually however, the name Pharisee came to be accepted by Jews as a
neutral or even an honorable title--in spite of the fact that Christian
innuendo has turned it into a synonym for "hypocrite" in many European
languages.

I doubt that the above tendencies are unique to the Jewish experience. I
have often suspected, for example, that the oddly phrased word "cowboy"
(as distinct from, say, "cattleman") originated in some such derogatory
usage, though I have yet to find confirmation for this theory.

If the above hypothesis appears overly cynical, then we must recall that
"cynic" ("dog-like") was also originally an insult intended to ridicule
the allegedly uncouth mannerisms of that ancient philosophical school.

--
Skipper

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:05:30 -0600, Skipper wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Skipper wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

startribune.com
Editorial: Bush creates illusion of progress in Iraq

December 1, 2005

President Bush gave an impassioned and rosy speech on the way forward in
Iraq at the U.S. Naval Academy Wednesday. It's just too bad that the
picture he painted of today's Iraq was an illusion, and most of his
assertions about the future were wrongheaded...

The Minneapolis Star Tribune is one of the most radically left
newspapers in the US. It's nothing but a propaganda rag.

Whatever it is, it is several steps up from a turd like you, Skipper.

Turd is such an inelegant word, Krause. However, it does remind one of
the following passage:

Recently I received an irate letter from a correspondent who had been
accessing my posts via Usenet. This individual, who claimed to be
descended from Spanish Jewish converts to Christianity, was taking issue
with a post in which I had made reference to the religious practices of
the "Marranos" of Spain and Portugal. The term "Marrano," he argued
correctly, was an abusive and demeaning old Spanish word meaning
"swine"--expressing the distaste felt by many veteran Christian
Iberians, even for Jews who had adopted the official faith.

I felt the occasion called for apology rather than self-justification. I
explained that I had hesitated before choosing the offensive epithet
over the more respectable "conversos" or "New Christians," but had
ultimately decided that such terms would be unfamiliar to my average
reader.

As an aside, I remarked that Jews have a long history of accepting names
that were originally intended as derogatory. Perhaps this practice can
be traced back to the patriarch Abraham whose designation Ivri, "Hebrew"
is understood by some commentators to mean "one who comes from the other
side ['ever]," possibly reflecting the perspective of the Canaanites who
patronizingly viewed him as an "alien."

In later generations Jews consistently referred to themselves as
"Israel." The term "Yehudi" (Jew) is found very rarely in Talmudic
literature, and in those rare instances where it does appear it is
usually in quotations attributed to non-Jews. This is consistent with
the evidence of Greek texts, where Ioudaioi is the name that is normally
used to designate our people.

This demonstrates a crucial difference in perspective: Gentiles
acknowledged only the truncated province of Judea, as it existed under
Persian, Greek and Roman rule, whereas the Jews were always conscious of
their links to the glorious days when David and Solomon reigned over the
united Israelite monarchy.

When Talmudic documents mention the word Pharisee (P'rushi) as the name
of a religious movement, the word is usually being used by their
opponents, the supporters of the priestly Sadducee party. When referring
to their own origins, the rabbis employed the term "Haverim" (comrades).
Eventually however, the name Pharisee came to be accepted by Jews as a
neutral or even an honorable title--in spite of the fact that Christian
innuendo has turned it into a synonym for "hypocrite" in many European
languages.

I doubt that the above tendencies are unique to the Jewish experience. I
have often suspected, for example, that the oddly phrased word "cowboy"
(as distinct from, say, "cattleman") originated in some such derogatory
usage, though I have yet to find confirmation for this theory.

If the above hypothesis appears overly cynical, then we must recall that
"cynic" ("dog-like") was also originally an insult intended to ridicule
the allegedly uncouth mannerisms of that ancient philosophical school.

You should have told them where this quote came from.
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/...7_AnyName.html
--

______m___~¿õ___m_________________

Harry Krause wrote:

Turd, thy name is Skipper.

....Said Harry as he sat on the loo contemplating just who has him by the
balls.

--
Skipper

m___~¿õ___m wrote:

Skipper wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Whatever it is, it is several steps up from a turd like you, Skipper.

Turd is such an inelegant word, Krause. However, it does remind one of
the following passage:

Recently I received an irate letter from a correspondent who had been
accessing my posts via Usenet. This individual, who claimed to be
descended from Spanish Jewish converts to Christianity, was taking issue...

You should have told them where this quote came from.
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/...7_AnyName.html

Not necessary, and beside the points being made. Anyone could easily
find the original source if they were so inspired. This is Usenet, not a
research paper.

--
Skipper