OT: The Yiddish Solution

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote

>neil has appointed me DeFacto spokesman...well...am *I* ever honoured.
>Unfortunately for neil, I am not the standard bearer of this group,
>the emeber that are, have for the most part, not found this the same
>source of entertainment that I have and have opted out. Me? I was just
>bored.... and relaxing after a pretty good report on last year's
>performance from my accountant.
>But, my free time is running out as I have a pretty busy week ahead of
>me.


Good!!
Now get your ass back to work!!

Max

On Feb 28, 6:47=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> But, my free time is running out as I have a pretty busy week ahead of
> me.
>
> Promises, promises.
>
> Lew

What did I just promise?

On Feb 27, 9:39=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:37:52 -0500, the infamous Upscale
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:24:07 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Out of idle curiosity ... are you CAPABLE of a reasoned, thoughtful
> >>exchange?
>
> >Of course I am, just not with someone like you. As you've repeatedly
> >and so aptly demonstrated, your arrogance and self deception preclude
> >any chance of reason or thoughtfullness. That's not an attack, just
> >fact. Your single minded ego won't accept any other type of exchange
> >so why would I or anyone else bother to try?
>
> >The fact that you're here trying to 'correct' this newsgroup's
> >participants on what constitutes 'acceptable' humour easily confirms
> >this.
>
> His actions are proof of his trolling. Ignore him, please.

It's really ONE action.

I'm asking ... what's the upside to ... even potentially ... repelling
any woodworker who might take offense to the sort of humor that seems
to be embraced, here?

If that's a troll, then ... you're rather slow-witted.

Take a chance. Answer the question.

It *probably* won't kill ya' ;-)

"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote

> No. It's just an attack. I'm sorry you don't know the difference.

so why would I or anyone else bother to try?
>
> Irrelevant personal attack.

>
> As long as you continue to set the definitions.
>
> I keep asking fair questions. You keep ducking them.
>
> Shocked? Not hardly.

Hmmm. Yep. A troll.
Get another hobby, Neil.

AMF

Max

"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote

>I understand that many of you are fighting to the metaphorical DEATH
>to avoid evaluating the wisdom -- even on you OWN accounts -- of the
>decision to embrace gallows humor, but ...

Damn!! You are either incredibly dense or a disgustingly persistent troll.
I've already given you a couple of explanations that you've chosen to ignore
and which I'm not about to repeat.
So..............I embrace gallows humor because it's funny. It's also a
carryover from the methodology I, and others in my situation at the time,
employed to relieve stress. You should hear........uh..........no, maybe
not............the comments we used to make after a particularly hazardous
confrontation during combat in Korea. And then, with the Fire department
,after discovering a badly burned body. Or at the scene of a serious
accident. I doubt that you would understand any of it. So give it up.
Your quest is in vain.

Max
"Stick a fork in him, I think he's done".
"Well, one thing about it, she won't need make-up anymore".
"Hmm, you would never have guessed that he had any brains".

"Robatoy" wrote:

But, my free time is running out as I have a pretty busy week ahead of
me.

Promises, promises.

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote:

>What did I just promise?

You IMPLIED that you will be involved in the nitty gritty of running
you business this week and thus not have time to play "Stubborn
Dutchman" with your buddy Neil/Neal/Who_Cares.

Did I miss something?

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote:

>Why so serious?

Got VERY tired of watching a couple of 5 year olds having a very
B_O_R_I_N_G spat.

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote:

> Then why didya watch, Lew?

I didn't, but ya kept me busy writing filters.

Waste of fucking time, but there were few other choices.

Lew

In article <[email protected]>,
Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

> Perhaps, but racist sounding humor may not, and probably isn't, racist
> at all, unless you chose to make it so.

Quite so and every race colour and creed has them. The jokes are the same
only the name changes.

Any Jew with a sense of humour that actually read the joke, would probably
smile and go and tell it to his friends, just changing the character to be
something else - maybe a Christian, an Arab or.....

In the UK we have many "Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman" jokes. The fall
guy depends on who tells it but we laugh at each other and we laugh at
ourselves.

On Feb 28, 4:30=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:b4940365-6b88-4413-aa30-2a08d2d0e2e5@l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > So ... now you've (collectively, but using Rob as your de facto
> > spokesperson) added RANK hypocrisy to the laundry list of defining
> > characteristics of the little (not so) thick-skinned cabal.
>
> Hey idiot - the only reason you're carrying your diatribes on with Rob
> almost exclusively is for the exact reason that people have expressed to
> you. =A0You're a nut case and no one else cares to deal with you any furt=
her.
>
> Hey Robatoy and Upscale - let the fool babble by himself for a day and he=
'll
> conclude that he has severely trounced the whole group in the space of a
> week, and he'll move on to his next target.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]

neil has appointed me DeFacto spokesman...well...am *I* ever honoured.
Unfortunately for neil, I am not the standard bearer of this group,
the emeber that are, have for the most part, not found this the same
source of entertainment that I have and have opted out. Me? I was just
bored.... and relaxing after a pretty good report on last year's
performance from my accountant.
But, my free time is running out as I have a pretty busy week ahead of
me.

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:37:52 -0500, Upscale <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:24:07 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Out of idle curiosity ... are you CAPABLE of a reasoned, thoughtful
>>exchange?
>
>Of course I am, just not with someone like you.

I presume you're using Doug Miller's "troll" definition: somebody
whose point of view differs from yours.

Seems like....

> As you've repeatedly
>and so aptly demonstrated, your arrogance and self deception preclude
>any chance of reason or thoughtfullness. That's not an attack, just
>fact.

No. It's just an attack. I'm sorry you don't know the difference.

> Your single minded ego won't accept any other type of exchange
>so why would I or anyone else bother to try?

Irrelevant personal attack.

>The fact that you're here trying to 'correct' this newsgroup's
>participants on what constitutes 'acceptable' humour easily confirms
>this.

As long as you continue to set the definitions.

I keep asking fair questions. You keep ducking them.

Shocked? Not hardly.

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:37:52 -0500, the infamous Upscale
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:24:07 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Out of idle curiosity ... are you CAPABLE of a reasoned, thoughtful
>>exchange?
>
>Of course I am, just not with someone like you. As you've repeatedly
>and so aptly demonstrated, your arrogance and self deception preclude
>any chance of reason or thoughtfullness. That's not an attack, just
>fact. Your single minded ego won't accept any other type of exchange
>so why would I or anyone else bother to try?
>
>The fact that you're here trying to 'correct' this newsgroup's
>participants on what constitutes 'acceptable' humour easily confirms
>this.

His actions are proof of his trolling. Ignore him, please.

--
Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
--Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

On Feb 28, 6:59=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> >What did I just promise?
>
> You IMPLIED that you will be involved in the nitty gritty of running
> you business this week and thus not have time to play "Stubborn
> Dutchman" with your buddy Neil/Neal/Who_Cares.
>
> Did I miss something?
>
> Lew

Why so serious?

"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:32:21 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Dave In Texas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> "Why do you carry a .45?" "Because they don't make a .46,"
>>>
>>> But, they do make a .50 - in fact, a couple of them.
>>>
>>> Dave in Houston
>>>
>>> P.S. That's the last joke I EVER put up on this group!
>>
>>Joke police got to ya, huh?
>
> Call names ... rather than think, engage, discuss.

FWIW, The Yiddish Solution originated from a practicing Jew (friend of
mine and a local custom homebuilder here in Houston).

And that's all I have to say about that (RUN, Forrest, RUN!).

Dave in Houston

On Feb 28, 9:37=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 11:09=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 8:38=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 10:35=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 10:02=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 27, 11:39=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> > > > > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:37:52 -0500, the infamous Upscale
> > > > > > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > > > > > >On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:24:07 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
> > > > > > ><[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > >>Out of idle curiosity ... are you CAPABLE of a reasoned, thou=
ghtful
> > > > > > >>exchange?
>
> > > > > > >Of course I am, just not with someone like you. As you've repe=
atedly
> > > > > > >and so aptly demonstrated, your arrogance and self deception p=
reclude
> > > > > > >any chance of reason or thoughtfullness. That's not an attack,=
just
> > > > > > >fact. Your single minded ego won't accept any other type of ex=
change
> > > > > > >so why would I or anyone else bother to try?
>
> > > > > > >The fact that you're here trying to 'correct' this newsgroup's
> > > > > > >participants on what constitutes 'acceptable' humour easily co=
nfirms
> > > > > > >this.
>
> > > > > > His actions are proof of his trolling. Ignore him, please.
>
> > > > > Playing with neil is like my puppy tugging an old sock. He doesn'=
t
> > > > > really wants the sock, he just wants to fool around. Then when I =
let
> > > > > go of the sock, he'll try to restart the game a couple of times, =
then
> > > > > droops off and leaves me alone. Harmless, really.
>
> > > > It seems MIGHTY important that you convince yourselves that YOU kno=
w
> > > > my motivation better than I do.
>
> > > > Highly unlikely. =A0In THIS case, zero likelihood.
>
> > > > Why don't YOU try answering the question?
>
> > > Does there NEED to be an 'upside'?
>
> > For a significant number of human beings, decisions are made using a
> > risk:reward or cost:benefit analysis.
>
> > I'm simply using more accessible terminology.
>
> > I understand that many of you are fighting to the metaphorical DEATH
> > to avoid evaluating the wisdom -- even on you OWN accounts -- of the
> > decision to embrace gallows humor,
>
> Nobody here has 'embraced' gallows humour. That is a figment of your,
> albeit disturbed, imagination.

Choose whichever singular word you must, in order to defend your own
position.

"Gallows humor is a type of humor that arises from stressful,
traumatic, or life-threatening situations; often in circumstances such
that death is perceived as impending and unavoidable. It is similar to
black comedy but differs in that it is made by the person affected."

Somebody here who CLAIMS to have lost a child ... makes dead baby
jokes.

Somebody here who CLAIMS to be Jewish makes Holocaust jokes.

Help me reconcile those two things, Rob.

You may phone a friend, if necessary.

> This is UseNet. On UseNet, you run into all kinds of people, kooks,
> and complete basket cases like yourself.

Ouch.

> Anybody with half a brain knows this.

No greater evidence for THAT assertion could have EVER been
offered ;-)

> Maybe THAT is your problem.

Do tell?

> You never even thanked us for using OT in (most of) our subject lines.
> I will try to remember to add AWBN (anybody welcome but neil) to the
> next 'offensive' post. Meanwhile, to use another common UseNet
> expression; FADIAFYUC fuck off and die in a fire you useless
> cocksucker.

Ouch.

On Feb 28, 9:37=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 11:09=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 8:38=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 10:35=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 10:02=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 27, 11:39=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> > > > > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:37:52 -0500, the infamous Upscale
> > > > > > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > > > > > >On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:24:07 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
> > > > > > ><[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > >>Out of idle curiosity ... are you CAPABLE of a reasoned, thou=
ghtful
> > > > > > >>exchange?
>
> > > > > > >Of course I am, just not with someone like you. As you've repe=
atedly
> > > > > > >and so aptly demonstrated, your arrogance and self deception p=
reclude
> > > > > > >any chance of reason or thoughtfullness. That's not an attack,=
just
> > > > > > >fact. Your single minded ego won't accept any other type of ex=
change
> > > > > > >so why would I or anyone else bother to try?
>
> > > > > > >The fact that you're here trying to 'correct' this newsgroup's
> > > > > > >participants on what constitutes 'acceptable' humour easily co=
nfirms
> > > > > > >this.
>
> > > > > > His actions are proof of his trolling. Ignore him, please.
>
> > > > > Playing with neil is like my puppy tugging an old sock. He doesn'=
t
> > > > > really wants the sock, he just wants to fool around. Then when I =
let
> > > > > go of the sock, he'll try to restart the game a couple of times, =
then
> > > > > droops off and leaves me alone. Harmless, really.
>
> > > > It seems MIGHTY important that you convince yourselves that YOU kno=
w
> > > > my motivation better than I do.
>
> > > > Highly unlikely. =A0In THIS case, zero likelihood.
>
> > > > Why don't YOU try answering the question?
>
> > > Does there NEED to be an 'upside'?
>
> > For a significant number of human beings, decisions are made using a
> > risk:reward or cost:benefit analysis.
>
> > I'm simply using more accessible terminology.
>
> > I understand that many of you are fighting to the metaphorical DEATH
> > to avoid evaluating the wisdom -- even on you OWN accounts -- of the
> > decision to embrace gallows humor,
>
> Nobody here has 'embraced' gallows humour. That is a figment of your,
> albeit disturbed, imagination.
> This is UseNet. On UseNet, you run into all kinds of people, kooks,
> and complete basket cases like yourself.
> Anybody with half a brain knows this. Maybe THAT is your problem.
>
> You never even thanked us for using OT in (most of) our subject lines.
> I will try to remember to add AWBN (anybody welcome but neil) to the
> next 'offensive' post. Meanwhile, to use another common UseNet
> expression; FADIAFYUC fuck off and die in a fire you useless
> cocksucker.

And maybe ... just maybe ... you could give some objective feedback to
your cohort, here.

Here is an archetypal example of a person who -- by all appearances --
is ready to stroke out and/or shoot me -- allegedly, because of what
I've said.

You can't have it both ways, folks.

You can't deride parents who lost a kid that don't enjoy "a good dead
baby joke" as thin-skinned (or Jews who lost relatives in Nazi
Germany, but don't enjoy "a good Holocaust joke"), and try to convince
yourself and others that YOU had NOTHING to do with it ... while ...
simultaneously ... bursting an aneurysm in response to my *reasonable*
position and *reasonably made* arguments.

I don't care how many standard dev's one is from the norm, in
intellect. You just cannot do it.

So ... now you've (collectively, but using Rob as your de facto
spokesperson) added RANK hypocrisy to the laundry list of defining
characteristics of the little (not so) thick-skinned cabal.

Maybe it IS time to exhale, and try to take a step back from all of
this.

No, Steve. NOT me.

Them. The collective "you."

You guys can't even defend your own position without violating it at
every turn.

Maybe the fact that nearly all of your "arguments" fall flat ... in an
instant ... SHOULD convince you that .... maybe "the lady doth protest
too much."

And ... by the way ... Shakespeare DID work with his hands.

Unless YOU aren't working with YOURS when you hand cut dovetails.

On Feb 28, 10:43=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> >Why so serious?
>
> Got VERY tired of watching a couple of 5 year olds having a very
> B_O_R_I_N_G spat.
>
> Lew

Then why didya watch, Lew?

On Feb 28, 11:09=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 8:38=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 10:35=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 10:02=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 11:39=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:37:52 -0500, the infamous Upscale
> > > > > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > > > > >On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:24:07 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
> > > > > ><[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >>Out of idle curiosity ... are you CAPABLE of a reasoned, though=
tful
> > > > > >>exchange?
>
> > > > > >Of course I am, just not with someone like you. As you've repeat=
edly
> > > > > >and so aptly demonstrated, your arrogance and self deception pre=
clude
> > > > > >any chance of reason or thoughtfullness. That's not an attack, j=
ust
> > > > > >fact. Your single minded ego won't accept any other type of exch=
ange
> > > > > >so why would I or anyone else bother to try?
>
> > > > > >The fact that you're here trying to 'correct' this newsgroup's
> > > > > >participants on what constitutes 'acceptable' humour easily conf=
irms
> > > > > >this.
>
> > > > > His actions are proof of his trolling. Ignore him, please.
>
> > > > Playing with neil is like my puppy tugging an old sock. He doesn't
> > > > really wants the sock, he just wants to fool around. Then when I le=
t
> > > > go of the sock, he'll try to restart the game a couple of times, th=
en
> > > > droops off and leaves me alone. Harmless, really.
>
> > > It seems MIGHTY important that you convince yourselves that YOU know
> > > my motivation better than I do.
>
> > > Highly unlikely. =A0In THIS case, zero likelihood.
>
> > > Why don't YOU try answering the question?
>
> > Does there NEED to be an 'upside'?
>
> For a significant number of human beings, decisions are made using a
> risk:reward or cost:benefit analysis.
>
> I'm simply using more accessible terminology.
>
> I understand that many of you are fighting to the metaphorical DEATH
> to avoid evaluating the wisdom -- even on you OWN accounts -- of the
> decision to embrace gallows humor,

Nobody here has 'embraced' gallows humour. That is a figment of your,
albeit disturbed, imagination.
This is UseNet. On UseNet, you run into all kinds of people, kooks,
and complete basket cases like yourself.
Anybody with half a brain knows this. Maybe THAT is your problem.

You never even thanked us for using OT in (most of) our subject lines.
I will try to remember to add AWBN (anybody welcome but neil) to the
next 'offensive' post. Meanwhile, to use another common UseNet
expression; FADIAFYUC fuck off and die in a fire you useless
cocksucker.

On Feb 28, 10:35=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:02=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 11:39=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:37:52 -0500, the infamous Upscale
> > > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > > >On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:24:07 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
> > > ><[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>Out of idle curiosity ... are you CAPABLE of a reasoned, thoughtful
> > > >>exchange?
>
> > > >Of course I am, just not with someone like you. As you've repeatedly
> > > >and so aptly demonstrated, your arrogance and self deception preclud=
e
> > > >any chance of reason or thoughtfullness. That's not an attack, just
> > > >fact. Your single minded ego won't accept any other type of exchange
> > > >so why would I or anyone else bother to try?
>
> > > >The fact that you're here trying to 'correct' this newsgroup's
> > > >participants on what constitutes 'acceptable' humour easily confirms
> > > >this.
>
> > > His actions are proof of his trolling. Ignore him, please.
>
> > Playing with neil is like my puppy tugging an old sock. He doesn't
> > really wants the sock, he just wants to fool around. Then when I let
> > go of the sock, he'll try to restart the game a couple of times, then
> > droops off and leaves me alone. Harmless, really.
>
> It seems MIGHTY important that you convince yourselves that YOU know
> my motivation better than I do.
>
> Highly unlikely. =A0In THIS case, zero likelihood.
>
> Why don't YOU try answering the question?

Does there NEED to be an 'upside'?

"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b4940365-6b88-4413-aa30-2a08d2d0e2e5@l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...



> So ... now you've (collectively, but using Rob as your de facto
> spokesperson) added RANK hypocrisy to the laundry list of defining
> characteristics of the little (not so) thick-skinned cabal.

Hey idiot - the only reason you're carrying your diatribes on with Rob
almost exclusively is for the exact reason that people have expressed to
you. You're a nut case and no one else cares to deal with you any further.

Hey Robatoy and Upscale - let the fool babble by himself for a day and he'll
conclude that he has severely trounced the whole group in the space of a
week, and he'll move on to his next target.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Feb 27, 11:39=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:37:52 -0500, the infamous Upscale
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:24:07 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Out of idle curiosity ... are you CAPABLE of a reasoned, thoughtful
> >>exchange?
>
> >Of course I am, just not with someone like you. As you've repeatedly
> >and so aptly demonstrated, your arrogance and self deception preclude
> >any chance of reason or thoughtfullness. That's not an attack, just
> >fact. Your single minded ego won't accept any other type of exchange
> >so why would I or anyone else bother to try?
>
> >The fact that you're here trying to 'correct' this newsgroup's
> >participants on what constitutes 'acceptable' humour easily confirms
> >this.
>
> His actions are proof of his trolling. Ignore him, please.
>

Playing with neil is like my puppy tugging an old sock. He doesn't
really wants the sock, he just wants to fool around. Then when I let
go of the sock, he'll try to restart the game a couple of times, then
droops off and leaves me alone. Harmless, really.

On Feb 28, 8:38=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 10:35=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 10:02=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 11:39=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:37:52 -0500, the infamous Upscale
> > > > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > > > >On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:24:07 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
> > > > ><[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >>Out of idle curiosity ... are you CAPABLE of a reasoned, thoughtf=
ul
> > > > >>exchange?
>
> > > > >Of course I am, just not with someone like you. As you've repeated=
ly
> > > > >and so aptly demonstrated, your arrogance and self deception precl=
ude
> > > > >any chance of reason or thoughtfullness. That's not an attack, jus=
t
> > > > >fact. Your single minded ego won't accept any other type of exchan=
ge
> > > > >so why would I or anyone else bother to try?
>
> > > > >The fact that you're here trying to 'correct' this newsgroup's
> > > > >participants on what constitutes 'acceptable' humour easily confir=
ms
> > > > >this.
>
> > > > His actions are proof of his trolling. Ignore him, please.
>
> > > Playing with neil is like my puppy tugging an old sock. He doesn't
> > > really wants the sock, he just wants to fool around. Then when I let
> > > go of the sock, he'll try to restart the game a couple of times, then
> > > droops off and leaves me alone. Harmless, really.
>
> > It seems MIGHTY important that you convince yourselves that YOU know
> > my motivation better than I do.
>
> > Highly unlikely. =A0In THIS case, zero likelihood.
>
> > Why don't YOU try answering the question?
>
> Does there NEED to be an 'upside'?

For a significant number of human beings, decisions are made using a
risk:reward or cost:benefit analysis.

I'm simply using more accessible terminology.

I understand that many of you are fighting to the metaphorical DEATH
to avoid evaluating the wisdom -- even on you OWN accounts -- of the
decision to embrace gallows humor, but ... am asking why a
cost:benefit analysis isn't the right approach to THIS question.

So ... back to the question, then?

Your supplicant, toady, weak coward :-)

On Feb 27, 10:02=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 11:39=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:37:52 -0500, the infamous Upscale
> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > >On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:24:07 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
> > ><[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>Out of idle curiosity ... are you CAPABLE of a reasoned, thoughtful
> > >>exchange?
>
> > >Of course I am, just not with someone like you. As you've repeatedly
> > >and so aptly demonstrated, your arrogance and self deception preclude
> > >any chance of reason or thoughtfullness. That's not an attack, just
> > >fact. Your single minded ego won't accept any other type of exchange
> > >so why would I or anyone else bother to try?
>
> > >The fact that you're here trying to 'correct' this newsgroup's
> > >participants on what constitutes 'acceptable' humour easily confirms
> > >this.
>
> > His actions are proof of his trolling. Ignore him, please.
>
> Playing with neil is like my puppy tugging an old sock. He doesn't
> really wants the sock, he just wants to fool around. Then when I let
> go of the sock, he'll try to restart the game a couple of times, then
> droops off and leaves me alone. Harmless, really.

It seems MIGHTY important that you convince yourselves that YOU know
my motivation better than I do.

Highly unlikely. In THIS case, zero likelihood.

Why don't YOU try answering the question?

Neil Brooks wrote:

> I'm asking ... what's the upside to ... even potentially ... repelling
> any woodworker who might take offense to the sort of humor that seems
> to be embraced, here?
>
> If that's a troll, then ... you're rather slow-witted.
>
> Take a chance. Answer the question.

The upside is the group will not waste thousands of messages fighting
with the one woodworker that gives a damn about Politically Incorrect Jokes.

The downside, however, is that the group will not be able to interact
with one of the rare sources of intolerance on earth. It's like
everyone on earth hates PC, where does it come from? And here your are,
right on our front porch!

> It *probably* won't kill ya' ;-)

No, but as Robocop says, it's gives us something to do while the glue dries.

--
Jack
Got Change: Now CHANGE IT BACK!
http://jbstein.com

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:16:22 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

> The upside is the group will not waste thousands of messages fighting
> with the one woodworker that gives a damn about Politically Incorrect
> Jokes.

Only one? And there is a difference between PI and racist. Although I
found the original joke much more innocuous than Jewish jokes a Jewish
buddy sends me.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Robatoy wrote:

Meanwhile, to use another common UseNet
> expression; FADIAFYUC fuck off and die in a fire you useless
> cocksucker.

Proof that even the most useless of pricks have something of value to
say once in a while.

Laughing at someone elses expense is one thing, laughing out loud is
another...

Thanks.

--
Jack
Conservatives believe every day is the Fourth of July, Liberals believe
every day is April 15.
http://jbstein.com

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:16:22 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> The upside is the group will not waste thousands of messages fighting
>> with the one woodworker that gives a damn about Politically Incorrect
>> Jokes.
>
> Only one?

So, only one has showed up, but I may have missed a post or two...
Actually, I'm not sure anyone showed up, as Neil has repeatedly stated
he himself was not offended.

And there is a difference between PI and racist.

Perhaps, but racist sounding humor may not, and probably isn't, racist
at all, unless you chose to make it so.

Although I
> found the original joke much more innocuous than Jewish jokes a Jewish
> buddy sends me.

Buddies are a great source of PI jokes that are at your expense.

How does a French woman hold her liquor? By his ears.

I guess one hell bent on political correctness might think this racist,
but chances are high the teller not only isn't anti-French women, but
favors them...

--
Jack
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
http://jbstein.com

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:32:21 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Dave In Texas wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> "Why do you carry a .45?" "Because they don't make a .46,"
>>
>> But, they do make a .50 - in fact, a couple of them.
>>
>> Dave in Houston
>>
>> P.S. That's the last joke I EVER put up on this group!
>
>Joke police got to ya, huh?

Call names ... rather than think, engage, discuss.

I guess that IS easier, huh?

Shame.

On Feb 26, 7:03=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:14:58 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Neil Brooks wrote:
> >> On Feb 25, 8:45 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Are they ALL jokes about specific ethnic groups?
>
> >>>>>>> Yes. Except for Aggies of course.
>
> >>>>>> Any way, then, to convince you to *imagine* that not everybody on
> >>>>>> this forum is a white, Christian male, and *pretend* that other
> >>>>>> people might not think as you do?
>
> >>>>> HeyBub already knows that at least one person on the forum is not
> >>>>> "a white
> >>>>> Christian male" -- he's said on numerous occasions that he's Jewish
> >>>>> himself.
>
> >>>> That covers only ONE of the two points that I made.
>
> >>>> Next is to *pretend* that other people may not think as you do.
>
> >>>> Pretty simple respect, really.
>
> >>>> Lost on many, but ... never wasted, when invoked.
>
> >>> You raise an interesting point, one that permeates our society - the
> >>> notion of "respect/disrespect" is as ubiquitous as Global Warming.
>
> >>> It's interesting that in disciplines where truth is empirically
> >>> determined, such as math and the physical sciences, the disciples
> >>> are indifferent to their mode of dress. In those endeavors where
> >>> truth is determined by majority vote - history, social sciences,
> >>> music - the the campus followers of such were uniforms (tweed
> >>> jackets or basic black with pearls). Some want to "fit in" so their
> >>> sense of self-worth will be validated; others don't give a shit. I'm
> >>> in the latter camp.
>
> >>> I commend for your consideration a book entitled "Why Do You Care
> >>> What Other People Think?" by ... wait for it now ... Ricard P.
> >>> Feynman.
>
> >>> He convinced me; I don't care what other people think, and someday
> >>> I, too, may win a Nobel Prize.
>
> >>> As for the issue of respect that you raise, I respect people for
> >>> what they do, not what they are. Specifically, if others are
> >>> offended by what I say or do, they own the problem, not me. In my
> >>> view, respect is earned, not inherited.
>
> >> If you don't draw the line WELL before we get to publishing dead baby
> >> jokes in a public forum .... I'd suggest you need some soul searching/
> >> values clarification/help.
>
> >> How much SHORT OF that you might draw the line is open to more debate.
>
> >> So ... you might respect the raconteurs who blithely deal in racial,
> >> ethnic, and dead baby humor ... on ... what basis, exactly??
>
> >> Lastly, I have an old saying: if I've said the *right thing*, and I've
> >> said it in *the best possible way,* only THEN can I say that I can't
> >> be responsible for the response.
>
> >> Your omission of my two qualifiers puts us *worlds* apart. =A0You
> >> attempt a preemptive expiation of any responsibility -- responsibility
> >> that I *know* falls to me.
>
> >I agree we're worlds apart. If the discipline to which you subscribe wor=
ks
> >for you, I'm glad. You no doubt enjoy a great deal of self-satisfaction =
in
> >knowing that, while you haven't affirmatively made the world a BETTER pl=
ace,
> >at least no one can accuse you of making it worse!
>
> >That is good and I applaud you for following the maxim: "First, do no ha=
rm!"
>
> >When, however, you criticise others for not harkening to the same intern=
als
> >as you, you risk becoming officious, arrogant, and presumptuous. Your
> >denigration of other's lifestyles, attitudes, thought-processes, and eve=
n
> >morals may mark you as a pompous pettifog and certainly is at variance w=
ith
> >the view you quite possibly hold that all cultures are morally equivalen=
t.
>
> >Don't get me wrong; I don't care if you find fault with my way or thinki=
ng
> >or whether you suck the heads off chickens as a religious sacrament. I'm
> >indifferent in the extreme as to whether I earn your approbation or your
> >scorn. I am merely pointing out there seems to be some ambivalence in yo=
ur
> >standards. If it's offensive to you that others give offense, then perha=
ps
> >you should visit whether it's appropriate for YOU to give offense by
> >pointing that out. (Not to worry, you don't offend ME.)
>
> >This thread is reminds me of the Monty Python skit that begins: "I want =
to
> >complain about the guy who complained!" "Yeah, and I want to complain ab=
out
> >the guy who complained about the guy who complained..."
>
> If nobody can answer my question -- in short, why what I'm saying
> wouldn't be *a better way,* then ... I haven't caused them offense.
>
> They may *take* offense to a -- benign isn't even the word;
> constructive isn't adequate, either -- charitable suggestion that one
> can be funny AND inclusive without resorting to humor at the expense
> of others, but ... this is an archetypal and nearly exceptional case
> where *they* should look inward and try to discern why *they* are
> reacting so strongly to it.
>
> Again: if one says the right thing (eg, one can be funny without
> resorting to humor at the expense of others -- particularly in a
> public forum), and one says it in the best way possible (eg, what I
> just said), then ... it's tough for me to take responsibility for the
> consequences.
>
> I'm asking that people consider ... consideration, and a touch more
> thoughtfulness -- granted, as I'm defining it, but ... again ... argue
> that my definition is poor ... if possible.
>
> In other words, it'd be quite hard for a fairly large group of
> not-quite-so-monolithic-as-the-current-peanut-gallery people to call
> what I'm suggesting ... unreasonable, mean-spirited, wrong-headed,
> immoral, illegal, or fattening.
>
> I think they'd call it "constructive criticism." =A0
>
> They might call it "Christian." =A0
>
> They might call it "sensible." =A0
>
> But I doubt they'd cast aspersions on the notion at hand.
>
> Similarly, I don't think a random group of fair-minded people would
> say that my approach was horribly flawed. =A0
>
> They *might,* however, say that the audience was anything BUT
> receptive.
>
> Again: that's their (the Peanut Gallery's) issue.
>
> Lots of people have to be dragged -- KICKING AND SCREAMING -- into the
> new millenium. =A0That doesn't mean we should stop tossing out the line,
> though.
>
> If "Old School" people feel it necessary to continue to BE "Old
> School" people, then -- for the umpteenth time -- why not start your
> own private group, invoke the One Drop Rule, have a secret handshake,
> wear funny hats and crimson blazers, have clandestine meetings, and
> ... do ... whatever else it is you want to do.
>
> But this isn't that place. =A0It's (still) Usenet.
>
> I'm WIDE open to constructive, honest, and direct responses to why my
> position is crap, and/or why I said it in a poor manner.
>
> Or to direct, honest, logical, cogent, and coherent responses to the
> very questions that I asked -- questions that are epithetical to my
> constructive suggestion: can't we lose the humor that is at the
> expense of others, and -- if not -- why not?
>
> None has given an honest and direct resopnse, yet.
>
> Including you -- eloquent as you were. =A0All you endeavored to do was
> to explain the puerile reactions that I've received -- as if they
> needed any explanation ;-)
>
> But ... thank you FOR your eloquent and thoughtful words. =A0WTF are you
> DOING here, anyway <grin>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Feb 26, 7:03=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:14:58 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Neil Brooks wrote:
> >> On Feb 25, 8:45 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Are they ALL jokes about specific ethnic groups?
>
> >>>>>>> Yes. Except for Aggies of course.
>
> >>>>>> Any way, then, to convince you to *imagine* that not everybody on
> >>>>>> this forum is a white, Christian male, and *pretend* that other
> >>>>>> people might not think as you do?
>
> >>>>> HeyBub already knows that at least one person on the forum is not
> >>>>> "a white
> >>>>> Christian male" -- he's said on numerous occasions that he's Jewish
> >>>>> himself.
>
> >>>> That covers only ONE of the two points that I made.
>
> >>>> Next is to *pretend* that other people may not think as you do.
>
> >>>> Pretty simple respect, really.
>
> >>>> Lost on many, but ... never wasted, when invoked.
>
> >>> You raise an interesting point, one that permeates our society - the
> >>> notion of "respect/disrespect" is as ubiquitous as Global Warming.
>
> >>> It's interesting that in disciplines where truth is empirically
> >>> determined, such as math and the physical sciences, the disciples
> >>> are indifferent to their mode of dress. In those endeavors where
> >>> truth is determined by majority vote - history, social sciences,
> >>> music - the the campus followers of such were uniforms (tweed
> >>> jackets or basic black with pearls). Some want to "fit in" so their
> >>> sense of self-worth will be validated; others don't give a shit. I'm
> >>> in the latter camp.
>
> >>> I commend for your consideration a book entitled "Why Do You Care
> >>> What Other People Think?" by ... wait for it now ... Ricard P.
> >>> Feynman.
>
> >>> He convinced me; I don't care what other people think, and someday
> >>> I, too, may win a Nobel Prize.
>
> >>> As for the issue of respect that you raise, I respect people for
> >>> what they do, not what they are. Specifically, if others are
> >>> offended by what I say or do, they own the problem, not me. In my
> >>> view, respect is earned, not inherited.
>
> >> If you don't draw the line WELL before we get to publishing dead baby
> >> jokes in a public forum .... I'd suggest you need some soul searching/
> >> values clarification/help.
>
> >> How much SHORT OF that you might draw the line is open to more debate.
>
> >> So ... you might respect the raconteurs who blithely deal in racial,
> >> ethnic, and dead baby humor ... on ... what basis, exactly??
>
> >> Lastly, I have an old saying: if I've said the *right thing*, and I've
> >> said it in *the best possible way,* only THEN can I say that I can't
> >> be responsible for the response.
>
> >> Your omission of my two qualifiers puts us *worlds* apart. =A0You
> >> attempt a preemptive expiation of any responsibility -- responsibility
> >> that I *know* falls to me.
>
> >I agree we're worlds apart. If the discipline to which you subscribe wor=
ks
> >for you, I'm glad. You no doubt enjoy a great deal of self-satisfaction =
in
> >knowing that, while you haven't affirmatively made the world a BETTER pl=
ace,
> >at least no one can accuse you of making it worse!
>
> >That is good and I applaud you for following the maxim: "First, do no ha=
rm!"
>
> >When, however, you criticise others for not harkening to the same intern=
als
> >as you, you risk becoming officious, arrogant, and presumptuous. Your
> >denigration of other's lifestyles, attitudes, thought-processes, and eve=
n
> >morals may mark you as a pompous pettifog and certainly is at variance w=
ith
> >the view you quite possibly hold that all cultures are morally equivalen=
t.
>
> >Don't get me wrong; I don't care if you find fault with my way or thinki=
ng
> >or whether you suck the heads off chickens as a religious sacrament. I'm
> >indifferent in the extreme as to whether I earn your approbation or your
> >scorn. I am merely pointing out there seems to be some ambivalence in yo=
ur
> >standards. If it's offensive to you that others give offense, then perha=
ps
> >you should visit whether it's appropriate for YOU to give offense by
> >pointing that out. (Not to worry, you don't offend ME.)
>
> >This thread is reminds me of the Monty Python skit that begins: "I want =
to
> >complain about the guy who complained!" "Yeah, and I want to complain ab=
out
> >the guy who complained about the guy who complained..."
>
> If nobody can answer my question -- in short, why what I'm saying
> wouldn't be *a better way,* then ... I haven't caused them offense.
>
> They may *take* offense to a -- benign isn't even the word;
> constructive isn't adequate, either -- charitable suggestion that one
> can be funny AND inclusive without resorting to humor at the expense
> of others, but ... this is an archetypal and nearly exceptional case
> where *they* should look inward and try to discern why *they* are
> reacting so strongly to it.
>
> Again: if one says the right thing (eg, one can be funny without
> resorting to humor at the expense of others -- particularly in a
> public forum), and one says it in the best way possible (eg, what I
> just said), then ... it's tough for me to take responsibility for the
> consequences.
>
> I'm asking that people consider ... consideration, and a touch more
> thoughtfulness -- granted, as I'm defining it, but ... again ... argue
> that my definition is poor ... if possible.
>
> In other words, it'd be quite hard for a fairly large group of
> not-quite-so-monolithic-as-the-current-peanut-gallery people to call
> what I'm suggesting ... unreasonable, mean-spirited, wrong-headed,
> immoral, illegal, or fattening.
>
> I think they'd call it "constructive criticism." =A0
>
> They might call it "Christian." =A0
>
> They might call it "sensible." =A0
>
> But I doubt they'd cast aspersions on the notion at hand.
>
> Similarly, I don't think a random group of fair-minded people would
> say that my approach was horribly flawed. =A0
>
> They *might,* however, say that the audience was anything BUT
> receptive.
>
> Again: that's their (the Peanut Gallery's) issue.
>
> Lots of people have to be dragged -- KICKING AND SCREAMING -- into the
> new millenium. =A0That doesn't mean we should stop tossing out the line,
> though.
>
> If "Old School" people feel it necessary to continue to BE "Old
> School" people, then -- for the umpteenth time -- why not start your
> own private group, invoke the One Drop Rule, have a secret handshake,
> wear funny hats and crimson blazers, have clandestine meetings, and
> ... do ... whatever else it is you want to do.
>
> But this isn't that place. =A0It's (still) Usenet.
>
> I'm WIDE open to constructive, honest, and direct responses to why my
> position is crap, and/or why I said it in a poor manner.
>
> Or to direct, honest, logical, cogent, and coherent responses to the
> very questions that I asked -- questions that are epithetical to my
> constructive suggestion: can't we lose the humor that is at the
> expense of others, and -- if not -- why not?
>
> None has given an honest and direct resopnse, yet.
>
> Including you -- eloquent as you were. =A0All you endeavored to do was
> to explain the puerile reactions that I've received -- as if they
> needed any explanation ;-)
>
> But ... thank you FOR your eloquent and thoughtful words. =A0WTF are you
> DOING here, anyway <grin>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ellie-levenson-where-joke=
s-are-concerned-context-is-all-1776800.html

On Feb 27, 5:37=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:29=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 5:28=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 4:35=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I have an idea.
>
> > > Your ideas suck, Neil. I don't give a fuck if you have another twenty
> > > ideas.
> > > Maybe you can enlighten us if your Jewishness has a foundation based
> > > on race/ethnicity or based on a eastern-european chosen religion.
>
> Can you enlighten us? You keep waving that flag, now back it up.
>
> Answer my fucking question, coward!


Let's see. What have you called me ... lately.


Weak? Coward?


I'm good with patterns. Fear not!


Perhaps you should tighten your loin cloth, exit the cave, and go find
Grog.

Bring your club.

I think HE's the SOB that took part of your pterodactyl!

On Feb 27, 8:10=A0pm, "Max" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >Well, you whine like a little girl, what am I supposed to think?
> >*Looking up the meaning of faegele.*
>
> Rob,
> If you'll quit feeding the monkey it'll go away.
>
> Max

Well, it *is* Texas Dave's fault..<G> He staaaaarted it iiiit!!!

On Feb 27, 2:28=A0pm, "Denis G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 7:03=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:14:58 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Neil Brooks wrote:
> > >> On Feb 25, 8:45 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>> Are they ALL jokes about specific ethnic groups?
>
> > >>>>>>> Yes. Except for Aggies of course.
>
> > >>>>>> Any way, then, to convince you to *imagine* that not everybody o=
n
> > >>>>>> this forum is a white, Christian male, and *pretend* that other
> > >>>>>> people might not think as you do?
>
> > >>>>> HeyBub already knows that at least one person on the forum is not
> > >>>>> "a white
> > >>>>> Christian male" -- he's said on numerous occasions that he's Jewi=
sh
> > >>>>> himself.
>
> > >>>> That covers only ONE of the two points that I made.
>
> > >>>> Next is to *pretend* that other people may not think as you do.
>
> > >>>> Pretty simple respect, really.
>
> > >>>> Lost on many, but ... never wasted, when invoked.
>
> > >>> You raise an interesting point, one that permeates our society - th=
e
> > >>> notion of "respect/disrespect" is as ubiquitous as Global Warming.
>
> > >>> It's interesting that in disciplines where truth is empirically
> > >>> determined, such as math and the physical sciences, the disciples
> > >>> are indifferent to their mode of dress. In those endeavors where
> > >>> truth is determined by majority vote - history, social sciences,
> > >>> music - the the campus followers of such were uniforms (tweed
> > >>> jackets or basic black with pearls). Some want to "fit in" so their
> > >>> sense of self-worth will be validated; others don't give a shit. I'=
m
> > >>> in the latter camp.
>
> > >>> I commend for your consideration a book entitled "Why Do You Care
> > >>> What Other People Think?" by ... wait for it now ... Ricard P.
> > >>> Feynman.
>
> > >>> He convinced me; I don't care what other people think, and someday
> > >>> I, too, may win a Nobel Prize.
>
> > >>> As for the issue of respect that you raise, I respect people for
> > >>> what they do, not what they are. Specifically, if others are
> > >>> offended by what I say or do, they own the problem, not me. In my
> > >>> view, respect is earned, not inherited.
>
> > >> If you don't draw the line WELL before we get to publishing dead bab=
y
> > >> jokes in a public forum .... I'd suggest you need some soul searchin=
g/
> > >> values clarification/help.
>
> > >> How much SHORT OF that you might draw the line is open to more debat=
e.
>
> > >> So ... you might respect the raconteurs who blithely deal in racial,
> > >> ethnic, and dead baby humor ... on ... what basis, exactly??
>
> > >> Lastly, I have an old saying: if I've said the *right thing*, and I'=
ve
> > >> said it in *the best possible way,* only THEN can I say that I can't
> > >> be responsible for the response.
>
> > >> Your omission of my two qualifiers puts us *worlds* apart. =A0You
> > >> attempt a preemptive expiation of any responsibility -- responsibili=
ty
> > >> that I *know* falls to me.
>
> > >I agree we're worlds apart. If the discipline to which you subscribe w=
orks
> > >for you, I'm glad. You no doubt enjoy a great deal of self-satisfactio=
n in
> > >knowing that, while you haven't affirmatively made the world a BETTER =
place,
> > >at least no one can accuse you of making it worse!
>
> > >That is good and I applaud you for following the maxim: "First, do no =
harm!"
>
> > >When, however, you criticise others for not harkening to the same inte=
rnals
> > >as you, you risk becoming officious, arrogant, and presumptuous. Your
> > >denigration of other's lifestyles, attitudes, thought-processes, and e=
ven
> > >morals may mark you as a pompous pettifog and certainly is at variance=
with
> > >the view you quite possibly hold that all cultures are morally equival=
ent.
>
> > >Don't get me wrong; I don't care if you find fault with my way or thin=
king
> > >or whether you suck the heads off chickens as a religious sacrament. I=
'm
> > >indifferent in the extreme as to whether I earn your approbation or yo=
ur
> > >scorn. I am merely pointing out there seems to be some ambivalence in =
your
> > >standards. If it's offensive to you that others give offense, then per=
haps
> > >you should visit whether it's appropriate for YOU to give offense by
> > >pointing that out. (Not to worry, you don't offend ME.)
>
> > >This thread is reminds me of the Monty Python skit that begins: "I wan=
t to
> > >complain about the guy who complained!" "Yeah, and I want to complain =
about
> > >the guy who complained about the guy who complained..."
>
> > If nobody can answer my question -- in short, why what I'm saying
> > wouldn't be *a better way,* then ... I haven't caused them offense.
>
> > They may *take* offense to a -- benign isn't even the word;
> > constructive isn't adequate, either -- charitable suggestion that one
> > can be funny AND inclusive without resorting to humor at the expense
> > of others, but ... this is an archetypal and nearly exceptional case
> > where *they* should look inward and try to discern why *they* are
> > reacting so strongly to it.
>
> > Again: if one says the right thing (eg, one can be funny without
> > resorting to humor at the expense of others -- particularly in a
> > public forum), and one says it in the best way possible (eg, what I
> > just said), then ... it's tough for me to take responsibility for the
> > consequences.
>
> > I'm asking that people consider ... consideration, and a touch more
> > thoughtfulness -- granted, as I'm defining it, but ... again ... argue
> > that my definition is poor ... if possible.
>
> > In other words, it'd be quite hard for a fairly large group of
> > not-quite-so-monolithic-as-the-current-peanut-gallery people to call
> > what I'm suggesting ... unreasonable, mean-spirited, wrong-headed,
> > immoral, illegal, or fattening.
>
> > I think they'd call it "constructive criticism." =A0
>
> > They might call it "Christian." =A0
>
> > They might call it "sensible." =A0
>
> > But I doubt they'd cast aspersions on the notion at hand.
>
> > Similarly, I don't think a random group of fair-minded people would
> > say that my approach was horribly flawed. =A0
>
> > They *might,* however, say that the audience was anything BUT
> > receptive.
>
> > Again: that's their (the Peanut Gallery's) issue.
>
> > Lots of people have to be dragged -- KICKING AND SCREAMING -- into the
> > new millenium. =A0That doesn't mean we should stop tossing out the line=
,
> > though.
>
> > If "Old School" people feel it necessary to continue to BE "Old
> > School" people, then -- for the umpteenth time -- why not start your
> > own private group, invoke the One Drop Rule, have a secret handshake,
> > wear funny hats and crimson blazers, have clandestine meetings, and
> > ... do ... whatever else it is you want to do.
>
> > But this isn't that place. =A0It's (still) Usenet.
>
> > I'm WIDE open to constructive, honest, and direct responses to why my
> > position is crap, and/or why I said it in a poor manner.
>
> > Or to direct, honest, logical, cogent, and coherent responses to the
> > very questions that I asked -- questions that are epithetical to my
> > constructive suggestion: can't we lose the humor that is at the
> > expense of others, and -- if not -- why not?
>
> > None has given an honest and direct resopnse, yet.
>
> > Including you -- eloquent as you were. =A0All you endeavored to do was
> > to explain the puerile reactions that I've received -- as if they
> > needed any explanation ;-)
>
> > But ... thank you FOR your eloquent and thoughtful words. =A0WTF are yo=
u
> > DOING here, anyway <grin>- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ellie-levenson-wher...

"Are there any subjects where jokes are off-limits? We could say that
racist jokes are unacceptable, and indeed in most circumstances they
are, but what about a joke about an affectionate stereotype told by a
member of that race to another member of that race? As with all jokes,
context is all"

She and I would quite likely find *precious little* on which to
disagree.

This is a public forum -- open to, and -- ideally -- WELCOMING to --
all with an interest in woodworkers.

Had the gent in the story, instead, told his joke at Vera House.....

I have an idea.

Maybe those clinging to their "humor at the expense of others" like a
tree in a hurricane ... should go private, start a moderated forum, be
CLEAR about what goes and what doesn't, and ... get the fuck off of
Usenet.

Win-win!!

On Feb 27, 6:10=A0pm, "Max" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >Well, you whine like a little girl, what am I supposed to think?
> >*Looking up the meaning of faegele.*
>
> Rob,
> If you'll quit feeding the monkey it'll go away.
>
> Max

Wanna' bet? :-D

On Feb 27, 7:29=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 5:28=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 4:35=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I have an idea.
>
> > Your ideas suck, Neil. I don't give a fuck if you have another twenty
> > ideas.
>
> But my ideas are FAR better than YOUR guesses ;-)
>
> > I have noticed one thing though. It's that perpetual reference to your
> > Jewishness.
> > You have been cruising for somebody to take your Jewishness to task
> > with the hope of being able to holler ANTI-SEMITE!!
> > This is what this is all about, eh? (btw, in this sentence
> > 'jewishness' does not need to be capitalized.)
> > THIS Dutchman thinks you may have the JDL on speed dial.
> > Maybe you can enlighten us if your Jewishness has a foundation based
> > on race/ethnicity or based on a eastern-european chosen religion.
>
> Keep going. =A0One day ... if you're really lucky, and the stars align
> *just right,* ... you'll get SOMETHING right.
>
> Or ... not :-)

Anyway, my moment of fun with your sorry as has come to yet another
end as my glue is dry enough for me to continue my woodworking. Later,
Neil.

On Feb 28, 11:31=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:


Neil.... you're rambling. You are losing it. Take a break.

"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote

> And to Max: while I appreciate that you apologized, WTF led you to
> affix YET ANOTHER label (hyperbole) on me, with regard to the price of
> a Lamello glue applicator bottle.

Once again let me apologize for having assumed that you were exaggerating.
Your sensitivity meter must be very delicate. Hyperbole is not, to me, a
particularly offensive term; perhaps because it is seen so often these days.
But, if you paid what you claim for that glue paraphernalia, you have
demonstrated one of several possible traits that I would deem questionable.
I digress.
In the best of all worlds humans would exhibit a lot of the attributes you
seem to prefer.
The reality is that we don't live in the best of all worlds so most of us
"join the group". "When in Rome............"
I don't want turn this into a dissertation on modern sociology because you
would, appropriately enough, assume that I was being condescending.
So let me just say that even in USENET, there are "neighborhoods". This
newsgroup is one. You're welcome here but be aware that if you try to tutor
us on manners, religion and/or politics you may be in for some rebuke. We
often quarrel among ourselves when we get off the topic of woodworking. If
you hang around long enough you will find that those who go overboard tend
to experience some chastisement from the others; it's a neighborhood thing.
I didn't make the rules; they evolved.

Max (I may be wrong but I think you just dropped in for lack of something
else to do)

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote


>Well, you whine like a little girl, what am I supposed to think?

>*Looking up the meaning of faegele.*

Rob,
If you'll quit feeding the monkey it'll go away.

Max

"Robatoy" wrote:
<snip>

"fukkum" doesn't work.

The bullshit continues.

And yes, I'm too fuck'in lazy to filter the subject.

Oh well, and this to shall pass.

Lew

"Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2/27/2010 10:13 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 9:08 pm, Robatoy<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> You have no point, neil. THAT is the problem.
>>
>> [typing it very slowly this time]
>>
>> What's the advantage of *excluding* those talented and interesting
>> woodworkers from this forum, if they -- reasonably -- might be
>> offended by gallows humor -- humor at the expense of others -- humor
>> that tries to BE humor by making fun of ethnicities, religion, race,
>> sexual orientation, race, Holocaust, dead babies or other tragedies,
>> etc.?
>>
>> What's the upside?
>>
>> I typed at LESS THAN 30wpm (I timed it).
>>
>> Maybe you'll endeavor a direct answer.
>>
>> Ready?
>>
>> Go!
>
> And what exactly is the advantage of beating this dead horse? The world
> IS changing Neil, slowly but surely, and one day it probably WILL be as
> you envision, but clearly that day is not today, and as much as you'd like
> to think otherwise there's nothing you can do about it. It takes
> generations for this kind of change to occur, and trying to force-feed it
> to people who have no interest in what you're serving is only going to
> piss them off. You enjoy pissing people off Neil? I find THAT to be more
> than just a bit offensive, more-so than reading or being the butt of a
> joke that makes fun of somebody for who they are. There's even been
> several examples of people in this group who say they're NOT offended by
> being the butt of such jokes, yet for some strange reason you chose not to
> HEAR that and you carry on with your crusade that nobody cares about
> except YOU. I don't necessarily disagree with your message, but I'm so
> sick of hearing you go on about it that it's raising my blood pressure.
> And you know what? I have hypertension, and getting pissed off is not
> GOOD for me, or anyone else for that matter. Do you enjoy affecting the
> health of others with your endless diatribes, Neil? Shouldn't you feel
> some level of responsibility for that?
>
> You've made your point a THOUSAND times over, now LET IT GO. Perhaps THEN
> it will actually have some effect; silently and slowly. I'm sorry that
> you won't actually get the credit you so badly want for instigating that
> change, but by harping on it endlessly you're only making it worse. Dig?
>
> --
> See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
> To reply, eat the taco.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/


QUIT FEEDING THE DAMN MONKEY............................ Oh, sorry for the
outburst.

I need to set my filter to:
"wherever the word 'Yiddish' appears, delete"

Max (but,but, I enjoy the badinage)

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote

Having an interaction with neil is a bit like driving by a horrific
accident, eh? You just GOT to look. He just continuously surprises me
with the most incredible stupidity I have ever encountered here in the
Wreck.


ROFL

In article <[email protected]>,
Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

> It will go in a circle, until every last one is bored to tears. Then,
> it will end the same as it started.

Bored I certainly am - and the bandwidth this nonsensense has wasted -
Jeesh.

In article <[email protected]>,
HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
> In future, please abbreviate "bandwidth" as "bndwth" thereby saving
> precious bndwth.

O.


Thats short for Ok BTW.

On Feb 27, 3:35=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2:28=A0pm, "Denis G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 7:03=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:14:58 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >Neil Brooks wrote:
> > > >> On Feb 25, 8:45 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>>> Are they ALL jokes about specific ethnic groups?
>
> > > >>>>>>> Yes. Except for Aggies of course.
>
> > > >>>>>> Any way, then, to convince you to *imagine* that not everybody=
on
> > > >>>>>> this forum is a white, Christian male, and *pretend* that othe=
r
> > > >>>>>> people might not think as you do?
>
> > > >>>>> HeyBub already knows that at least one person on the forum is n=
ot
> > > >>>>> "a white
> > > >>>>> Christian male" -- he's said on numerous occasions that he's Je=
wish
> > > >>>>> himself.
>
> > > >>>> That covers only ONE of the two points that I made.
>
> > > >>>> Next is to *pretend* that other people may not think as you do.
>
> > > >>>> Pretty simple respect, really.
>
> > > >>>> Lost on many, but ... never wasted, when invoked.
>
> > > >>> You raise an interesting point, one that permeates our society - =
the
> > > >>> notion of "respect/disrespect" is as ubiquitous as Global Warming=
.
>
> > > >>> It's interesting that in disciplines where truth is empirically
> > > >>> determined, such as math and the physical sciences, the disciples
> > > >>> are indifferent to their mode of dress. In those endeavors where
> > > >>> truth is determined by majority vote - history, social sciences,
> > > >>> music - the the campus followers of such were uniforms (tweed
> > > >>> jackets or basic black with pearls). Some want to "fit in" so the=
ir
> > > >>> sense of self-worth will be validated; others don't give a shit. =
I'm
> > > >>> in the latter camp.
>
> > > >>> I commend for your consideration a book entitled "Why Do You Care
> > > >>> What Other People Think?" by ... wait for it now ... Ricard P.
> > > >>> Feynman.
>
> > > >>> He convinced me; I don't care what other people think, and someda=
y
> > > >>> I, too, may win a Nobel Prize.
>
> > > >>> As for the issue of respect that you raise, I respect people for
> > > >>> what they do, not what they are. Specifically, if others are
> > > >>> offended by what I say or do, they own the problem, not me. In my
> > > >>> view, respect is earned, not inherited.
>
> > > >> If you don't draw the line WELL before we get to publishing dead b=
aby
> > > >> jokes in a public forum .... I'd suggest you need some soul search=
ing/
> > > >> values clarification/help.
>
> > > >> How much SHORT OF that you might draw the line is open to more deb=
ate.
>
> > > >> So ... you might respect the raconteurs who blithely deal in racia=
l,
> > > >> ethnic, and dead baby humor ... on ... what basis, exactly??
>
> > > >> Lastly, I have an old saying: if I've said the *right thing*, and =
I've
> > > >> said it in *the best possible way,* only THEN can I say that I can=
't
> > > >> be responsible for the response.
>
> > > >> Your omission of my two qualifiers puts us *worlds* apart. =A0You
> > > >> attempt a preemptive expiation of any responsibility -- responsibi=
lity
> > > >> that I *know* falls to me.
>
> > > >I agree we're worlds apart. If the discipline to which you subscribe=
works
> > > >for you, I'm glad. You no doubt enjoy a great deal of self-satisfact=
ion in
> > > >knowing that, while you haven't affirmatively made the world a BETTE=
R place,
> > > >at least no one can accuse you of making it worse!
>
> > > >That is good and I applaud you for following the maxim: "First, do n=
o harm!"
>
> > > >When, however, you criticise others for not harkening to the same in=
ternals
> > > >as you, you risk becoming officious, arrogant, and presumptuous. You=
r
> > > >denigration of other's lifestyles, attitudes, thought-processes, and=
even
> > > >morals may mark you as a pompous pettifog and certainly is at varian=
ce with
> > > >the view you quite possibly hold that all cultures are morally equiv=
alent.
>
> > > >Don't get me wrong; I don't care if you find fault with my way or th=
inking
> > > >or whether you suck the heads off chickens as a religious sacrament.=
I'm
> > > >indifferent in the extreme as to whether I earn your approbation or =
your
> > > >scorn. I am merely pointing out there seems to be some ambivalence i=
n your
> > > >standards. If it's offensive to you that others give offense, then p=
erhaps
> > > >you should visit whether it's appropriate for YOU to give offense by
> > > >pointing that out. (Not to worry, you don't offend ME.)
>
> > > >This thread is reminds me of the Monty Python skit that begins: "I w=
ant to
> > > >complain about the guy who complained!" "Yeah, and I want to complai=
n about
> > > >the guy who complained about the guy who complained..."
>
> > > If nobody can answer my question -- in short, why what I'm saying
> > > wouldn't be *a better way,* then ... I haven't caused them offense.
>
> > > They may *take* offense to a -- benign isn't even the word;
> > > constructive isn't adequate, either -- charitable suggestion that one
> > > can be funny AND inclusive without resorting to humor at the expense
> > > of others, but ... this is an archetypal and nearly exceptional case
> > > where *they* should look inward and try to discern why *they* are
> > > reacting so strongly to it.
>
> > > Again: if one says the right thing (eg, one can be funny without
> > > resorting to humor at the expense of others -- particularly in a
> > > public forum), and one says it in the best way possible (eg, what I
> > > just said), then ... it's tough for me to take responsibility for the
> > > consequences.
>
> > > I'm asking that people consider ... consideration, and a touch more
> > > thoughtfulness -- granted, as I'm defining it, but ... again ... argu=
e
> > > that my definition is poor ... if possible.
>
> > > In other words, it'd be quite hard for a fairly large group of
> > > not-quite-so-monolithic-as-the-current-peanut-gallery people to call
> > > what I'm suggesting ... unreasonable, mean-spirited, wrong-headed,
> > > immoral, illegal, or fattening.
>
> > > I think they'd call it "constructive criticism." =A0
>
> > > They might call it "Christian." =A0
>
> > > They might call it "sensible." =A0
>
> > > But I doubt they'd cast aspersions on the notion at hand.
>
> > > Similarly, I don't think a random group of fair-minded people would
> > > say that my approach was horribly flawed. =A0
>
> > > They *might,* however, say that the audience was anything BUT
> > > receptive.
>
> > > Again: that's their (the Peanut Gallery's) issue.
>
> > > Lots of people have to be dragged -- KICKING AND SCREAMING -- into th=
e
> > > new millenium. =A0That doesn't mean we should stop tossing out the li=
ne,
> > > though.
>
> > > If "Old School" people feel it necessary to continue to BE "Old
> > > School" people, then -- for the umpteenth time -- why not start your
> > > own private group, invoke the One Drop Rule, have a secret handshake,
> > > wear funny hats and crimson blazers, have clandestine meetings, and
> > > ... do ... whatever else it is you want to do.
>
> > > But this isn't that place. =A0It's (still) Usenet.
>
> > > I'm WIDE open to constructive, honest, and direct responses to why my
> > > position is crap, and/or why I said it in a poor manner.
>
> > > Or to direct, honest, logical, cogent, and coherent responses to the
> > > very questions that I asked -- questions that are epithetical to my
> > > constructive suggestion: can't we lose the humor that is at the
> > > expense of others, and -- if not -- why not?
>
> > > None has given an honest and direct resopnse, yet.
>
> > > Including you -- eloquent as you were. =A0All you endeavored to do wa=
s
> > > to explain the puerile reactions that I've received -- as if they
> > > needed any explanation ;-)
>
> > > But ... thank you FOR your eloquent and thoughtful words. =A0WTF are =
you
> > > DOING here, anyway <grin>- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ellie-levenson-wher...
>
> "Are there any subjects where jokes are off-limits? We could say that
> racist jokes are unacceptable, and indeed in most circumstances they
> are, but what about a joke about an affectionate stereotype told by a
> member of that race to another member of that race? As with all jokes,
> context is all"
>
> She and I would quite likely find *precious little* on which to
> disagree.
>
> This is a public forum -- open to, and -- ideally -- WELCOMING to --
> all with an interest in woodworkers.
>
> Had the gent in the story, instead, told his joke at Vera House.....
>
> I have an idea.
>
> Maybe those clinging to their "humor at the expense of others" like a
> tree in a hurricane ... should go private, start a moderated forum, be
> CLEAR about what goes and what doesn't, and ... get the fuck off of
> Usenet.
>
> Win-win!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I=92m not sure that you understand her point. I think that the rules
that you have would make it very difficult to get along with others.
People would be on the constant lookout for any possible offense. I
don=92t think that you understand what it means to take things in
context and see the big picture. You should give people the benefit
of doubt and not assume the worse of them for any small misstep. When
you assume that people are basically bad, usually you=92ll find the
evidence you want.

On Feb 27, 7:45=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 5:44=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 7:29=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 5:28=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 4:35=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > I have an idea.
>
> > > > Your ideas suck, Neil. I don't give a fuck if you have another twen=
ty
> > > > ideas.
>
> > > But my ideas are FAR better than YOUR guesses ;-)
>
> > > > I have noticed one thing though. It's that perpetual reference to y=
our
> > > > Jewishness.
> > > > You have been cruising for somebody to take your Jewishness to task
> > > > with the hope of being able to holler ANTI-SEMITE!!
> > > > This is what this is all about, eh? (btw, in this sentence
> > > > 'jewishness' does not need to be capitalized.)
> > > > THIS Dutchman thinks you may have the JDL on speed dial.
> > > > Maybe you can enlighten us if your Jewishness has a foundation base=
d
> > > > on race/ethnicity or based on a eastern-european chosen religion.
>
> > > Keep going. =A0One day ... if you're really lucky, and the stars alig=
n
> > > *just right,* ... you'll get SOMETHING right.
>
> > > Or ... not :-)
>
> > Anyway, my moment of fun with your sorry as has come to yet another
> > end as my glue is dry enough for me to continue my woodworking. Later,
> > Neil.
>
> I'll be here :-)

As repulsive as all of us are here? You still want to hang with us?
(Oh..I forgot, I already demonstrated why you like getting spanked.)

On Feb 27, 10:45=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:

> Any time, Buddy :-)

Buddy? You wish!

Call me anything you like, but I'm not your buddy. You're too fucked
up for my tastes.

On Feb 27, 4:35=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I have an idea.
>
Your ideas suck, Neil. I don't give a fuck if you have another twenty
ideas.

I have noticed one thing though. It's that perpetual reference to your
Jewishness.
You have been cruising for somebody to take your Jewishness to task
with the hope of being able to holler ANTI-SEMITE!!
This is what this is all about, eh? (btw, in this sentence
'jewishness' does not need to be capitalized.)
THIS Dutchman thinks you may have the JDL on speed dial.
Maybe you can enlighten us if your Jewishness has a foundation based
on race/ethnicity or based on a eastern-european chosen religion.

On Feb 28, 11:57=A0am, "Max" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/27/2010 10:13 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> >> On Feb 27, 9:08 pm, Robatoy<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >>> You have no point, neil. THAT is the problem.
>
> >> [typing it very slowly this time]
>
> >> What's the advantage of *excluding* those talented and interesting
> >> woodworkers from this forum, if they -- reasonably -- might be
> >> offended by gallows humor -- humor at the expense of others -- humor
> >> that tries to BE humor by making fun of ethnicities, religion, race,
> >> sexual orientation, race, Holocaust, dead babies or other tragedies,
> >> etc.?
>
> >> What's the upside?
>
> >> I typed at LESS THAN 30wpm (I timed it).
>
> >> Maybe you'll endeavor a direct answer.
>
> >> Ready?
>
> >> Go!
>
> > And what exactly is the advantage of beating this dead horse? =A0The wo=
rld
> > IS changing Neil, slowly but surely, and one day it probably WILL be as
> > you envision, but clearly that day is not today, and as much as you'd l=
ike
> > to think otherwise there's nothing you can do about it. =A0It takes
> > generations for this kind of change to occur, and trying to force-feed =
it
> > to people who have no interest in what you're serving is only going to
> > piss them off. =A0You enjoy pissing people off Neil? =A0I find THAT to =
be more
> > than just a bit offensive, more-so than reading or being the butt of a
> > joke that makes fun of somebody for who they are. =A0There's even been
> > several examples of people in this group who say they're NOT offended b=
y
> > being the butt of such jokes, yet for some strange reason you chose not=
to
> > HEAR that and you carry on with your crusade that nobody cares about
> > except YOU. =A0I don't necessarily disagree with your message, but I'm =
so
> > sick of hearing you go on about it that it's raising my blood pressure.
> > And you know what? =A0I have hypertension, and getting pissed off is no=
t
> > GOOD for me, or anyone else for that matter. =A0Do you enjoy affecting =
the
> > health of others with your endless diatribes, Neil? =A0Shouldn't you fe=
el
> > some level of responsibility for that?
>
> > You've made your point a THOUSAND times over, now LET IT GO. =A0Perhaps=
THEN
> > it will actually have some effect; silently and slowly. =A0I'm sorry th=
at
> > you won't actually get the credit you so badly want for instigating tha=
t
> > change, but by harping on it endlessly you're only making it worse. =A0=
Dig?
>
> > --
> > See Nad. =A0See Nad go. =A0Go Nad!
> > To reply, eat the taco.
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
>
> QUIT FEEDING THE DAMN MONKEY............................ Oh, sorry for th=
e
> outburst.

It only takes a few seconds of my time to ruin Neil's entire day...so
it is well worth it to throw him a bone once in a while. Throw enough
bones and he shits himself publicly, over and over, and *I* think that
is funny....speaking of gallows humour....
>
> I need to set my filter to:
> "wherever the word 'Yiddish' appears, delete"
>
> Max (but,but, I enjoy the badinage)

Having an interaction with neil is a bit like driving by a horrific
accident, eh? You just GOT to look. He just continuously surprises me
with the most incredible stupidity I have ever encountered here in the
Wreck.

On Feb 27, 10:58=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 8:55=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 10:45=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Any time, Buddy :-)
>
> > Buddy? You wish!
>
> > Call me anything you like, but I'm not your buddy. You're too fucked
> > up for my tastes.
>
> Awwww.
>
> I doubt it.
>
> I'm just not *your kind* of fucked up.
>
> In your own way, you're likely an order of magnitude far more fucked
> up than I've ever been, or ever will be.
>
> But you're still hurling insults, and avoiding -- presumably due to
> utter incapacity -- directly addressing my point.
>
> Why, I wonder (kind of....)?

You have no point, neil. THAT is the problem.

On Feb 26, 9:55=A0am, "Max" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > And to Max: while I appreciate that you apologized, WTF led you to
> > affix YET ANOTHER label (hyperbole) on me, with regard to the price of
> > a Lamello glue applicator bottle.
>
> Once again let me apologize for having assumed that you were exaggerating=
.
> Your sensitivity meter must be very delicate. =A0

AGAIN, no. It's just a ridiculous reply on YOUR part. My point
is ... it's not OUT OF character, around here. It's IN character.

> Hyperbole is not, to me, a
> particularly offensive term; perhaps because it is seen so often these da=
ys.
> But, if you paid what you claim for that glue paraphernalia, you have
> demonstrated one of several possible traits that I would deem questionabl=
e.
> I digress.

I didn't even buy one, yet. Thus, my inquiry. But thank you for
letting me know you were stockpiling even MORE personal insults if I
had bought one.

Amazing.

> In the best of all worlds humans would exhibit a lot of the attributes yo=
u
> seem to prefer.
> The reality is that we don't live in the best of all worlds so most of us
> "join the group". =A0"When in Rome............"

Implying that NONE of you has even a MODICUM of control over your OWN
actions....

> I don't want turn this into a dissertation on modern sociology because yo=
u
> would, appropriately enough, assume that I was being condescending.

Take a chance.

> So let me just say that even in USENET, there are "neighborhoods". =A0Thi=
s
> newsgroup is one. =A0You're welcome here but be aware that if you try to =
tutor
> us on manners, religion and/or politics you may be in for some rebuke. =
=A0We
> often quarrel among ourselves when we get off the topic of woodworking. =
=A0If
> you hang around long enough you will find that those who go overboard ten=
d
> to experience some chastisement from the others; it's a neighborhood thin=
g.
> I didn't make the rules; they evolved.

Overboard. Yet another definition of convenience.

> Max (I may be wrong but I think you just dropped in for lack of something
> else to do)

Keep assuming what's in the minds of others. One day ... you might
get good at it!!

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:29:45 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>PDFTFT

Now, *that's* funny. Thanks Doug. You finally made me laugh.
Appreciate it. :)

On Feb 28, 9:16=A0am, Steve Turner <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 2/27/2010 10:13 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 9:08 pm, Robatoy<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> You have no point, neil. THAT is the problem.
>
> > [typing it very slowly this time]
>
> > What's the advantage of *excluding* those talented and interesting
> > woodworkers from this forum, if they -- reasonably -- might be
> > offended by gallows humor -- humor at the expense of others -- humor
> > that tries to BE humor by making fun of ethnicities, religion, race,
> > sexual orientation, race, Holocaust, dead babies or other tragedies,
> > etc.?
>
> > What's the upside?
>
> > I typed at LESS THAN 30wpm (I timed it).
>
> > Maybe you'll endeavor a direct answer.
>
> > Ready?
>
> > Go!
>
> And what exactly is the advantage of beating this dead horse? =A0


I don't enjoy resorting to cliches, but ....

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

-- Margaret Mead


> The world IS
> changing Neil, slowly but surely, and one day it probably WILL be as you
> envision,


I'll give you the benefit of that doubt that you haven't ascribed to
ME a view that is ANY more expansive than just what I've stated,
here....


> but clearly that day is not today, and as much as you'd like to think
> otherwise there's nothing you can do about it. =A0It takes generations fo=
r this
> kind of change to occur, and trying to force-feed it to people who have n=
o
> interest in what you're serving is only going to piss them off. =A0

See above.

> You enjoy
> pissing people off Neil? =A0I find THAT to be more than just a bit offens=
ive,


As long as you answer your own questions, there really isn't a
discussion, now is there?


> more-so than reading or being the butt of a joke that makes fun of somebo=
dy for
> who they are. =A0There's even been several examples of people in this gro=
up who
> say they're NOT offended by being the butt of such jokes, yet for some st=
range
> reason you chose not to HEAR that and you carry on with your crusade that
> nobody cares about except YOU. =A0


Neither is there a discussion when you eschew any semblance of logic,
and make statements like that.

I'll re-state ... because -- unlike many of you -- I think facts
matter.

1) I'm not offended by the jokes, directly;

2) I believe your little cabal has done a FINE job of discouraging
woodworkers from participation ... who ... might add value to the
group ... simply because they aren't enthralled by gallows humor, and
jokes at the expense of others.

One reason I "beat this dead horse" is that .... at some point ...
people will -- literally -- demonstrate that they are at least
communicating with me -- honestly and directly.

At THAT point, we can see where this goes.

But even you -- a seemingly reasonable person -- are tossing logic and
facts to the wind.

So ... no communication.

So ... I'll keep trying ;-)


> I don't necessarily disagree with your message,
> but I'm so sick of hearing you go on about it that it's raising my blood
> pressure. =A0And you know what? =A0I have hypertension, and getting pisse=
d off is
> not GOOD for me, or anyone else for that matter. =A0Do you enjoy affectin=
g the
> health of others with your endless diatribes, Neil? =A0Shouldn't you feel=
some
> level of responsibility for that?


You really don't get to have it both ways, Steve.


If you're basically tacitly defending the very underpinnings of the
argument of your cohorts, here, then YOU cannot pin ANY MEASURE OF
your physiological or emotional reactions on me.


Or ... you can begin -- in any way that you think might be more user-
friendly, here -- to help people understand that actions DO have
consequences on other people.


Maybe those "other people" aren't here for the same reason there are
no mosquitos in my yard, during the summer. I use devices that repel
them.


YOU are proving my point. Take a risk. Help me make it.


Meanwhile, as a yoga practitioner, myself ... take your own medicine.
I mean THAT with compassion.


> You've made your point a THOUSAND times over, now LET IT GO. =A0Perhaps T=
HEN it
> will actually have some effect; silently and slowly. =A0I'm sorry that yo=
u won't
> actually get the credit you so badly want for instigating that change, bu=
t by
> harping on it endlessly you're only making it worse. =A0Dig?


This is but a blink of an eye on the time scale.


I disagree, too, with your assertion that I have "made my point." I
have *certainly* waved the flag a few DOZEN times over, but ... I'm
not convinced that I have made my point. All evidence is to the
contrary.


So ... if/since YOU assert that I'm causing YOU harm by offending you,
why don't YOU take up the cause ... in ANY WAY that YOU feel might be
effective.


But not by insinuation or implication in a gentle rebuke of me. Why
not just state YOUR case in an open post to YOUR cohorts?


Why not say that you have learned -- the hard way -- that you FEEL the
consequences of the WORDS of another, and that maybe ... just
maybe ... it's time to move past that, and see if the group doesn't
enlarge AND improve by INclusivity??


I'll stand down when others stand up.


Gladly.

"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> 2) I believe your little cabal has done a FINE job of discouraging
> woodworkers from participation ... who ... might add value to the
> group ... simply because they aren't enthralled by gallows humor, and
> jokes at the expense of others.

Fact: (since you claim to enjoy dealing in fact (as you see them
anyway...)) - you have now successfuly make the transition from *fearing*
that our little "cabal" *might* on some occassion, insult a woodworker who
happens along, to (look before you make an ass of yourself again Neil - at
what you say above...), asserting that we have done so. Your evidence of
such a claim would be interesting, but I'm sure it too would be some
unverified claim as have all of your assertions to date. Regardless, this
is a communition of diverse people from all sorts of backgrounds, with all
sorts of disabilities, skin colors, heritages, etc. which all by itself
defies your assertion, all by itself.



--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Feb 26, 2:52=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:7bd65890-2f2a-4b03-b611-55bc812d4e34@u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > AGAIN, no. =A0It's just a ridiculous reply on YOUR part. =A0My point
> > is ... it's not OUT OF character, around here. =A0It's IN character.
>
> My guess is you find yourself making that kind of statement in a lot of
> places you hang out.


Annnnnnd ... of course ... you'd be wrong.


But thanks for playing :-)

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:14:58 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Neil Brooks wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 8:45 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Are they ALL jokes about specific ethnic groups?
>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. Except for Aggies of course.
>>>
>>>>>> Any way, then, to convince you to *imagine* that not everybody on
>>>>>> this forum is a white, Christian male, and *pretend* that other
>>>>>> people might not think as you do?
>>>
>>>>> HeyBub already knows that at least one person on the forum is not
>>>>> "a white
>>>>> Christian male" -- he's said on numerous occasions that he's Jewish
>>>>> himself.
>>>
>>>> That covers only ONE of the two points that I made.
>>>
>>>> Next is to *pretend* that other people may not think as you do.
>>>
>>>> Pretty simple respect, really.
>>>
>>>> Lost on many, but ... never wasted, when invoked.
>>>
>>> You raise an interesting point, one that permeates our society - the
>>> notion of "respect/disrespect" is as ubiquitous as Global Warming.
>>>
>>> It's interesting that in disciplines where truth is empirically
>>> determined, such as math and the physical sciences, the disciples
>>> are indifferent to their mode of dress. In those endeavors where
>>> truth is determined by majority vote - history, social sciences,
>>> music - the the campus followers of such were uniforms (tweed
>>> jackets or basic black with pearls). Some want to "fit in" so their
>>> sense of self-worth will be validated; others don't give a shit. I'm
>>> in the latter camp.
>>>
>>> I commend for your consideration a book entitled "Why Do You Care
>>> What Other People Think?" by ... wait for it now ... Ricard P.
>>> Feynman.
>>>
>>> He convinced me; I don't care what other people think, and someday
>>> I, too, may win a Nobel Prize.
>>>
>>> As for the issue of respect that you raise, I respect people for
>>> what they do, not what they are. Specifically, if others are
>>> offended by what I say or do, they own the problem, not me. In my
>>> view, respect is earned, not inherited.
>>
>> If you don't draw the line WELL before we get to publishing dead baby
>> jokes in a public forum .... I'd suggest you need some soul searching/
>> values clarification/help.
>>
>> How much SHORT OF that you might draw the line is open to more debate.
>>
>> So ... you might respect the raconteurs who blithely deal in racial,
>> ethnic, and dead baby humor ... on ... what basis, exactly??
>>
>> Lastly, I have an old saying: if I've said the *right thing*, and I've
>> said it in *the best possible way,* only THEN can I say that I can't
>> be responsible for the response.
>>
>> Your omission of my two qualifiers puts us *worlds* apart. You
>> attempt a preemptive expiation of any responsibility -- responsibility
>> that I *know* falls to me.
>
>I agree we're worlds apart. If the discipline to which you subscribe works
>for you, I'm glad. You no doubt enjoy a great deal of self-satisfaction in
>knowing that, while you haven't affirmatively made the world a BETTER place,
>at least no one can accuse you of making it worse!
>
>That is good and I applaud you for following the maxim: "First, do no harm!"
>
>When, however, you criticise others for not harkening to the same internals
>as you, you risk becoming officious, arrogant, and presumptuous. Your
>denigration of other's lifestyles, attitudes, thought-processes, and even
>morals may mark you as a pompous pettifog and certainly is at variance with
>the view you quite possibly hold that all cultures are morally equivalent.
>
>Don't get me wrong; I don't care if you find fault with my way or thinking
>or whether you suck the heads off chickens as a religious sacrament. I'm
>indifferent in the extreme as to whether I earn your approbation or your
>scorn. I am merely pointing out there seems to be some ambivalence in your
>standards. If it's offensive to you that others give offense, then perhaps
>you should visit whether it's appropriate for YOU to give offense by
>pointing that out. (Not to worry, you don't offend ME.)
>
>This thread is reminds me of the Monty Python skit that begins: "I want to
>complain about the guy who complained!" "Yeah, and I want to complain about
>the guy who complained about the guy who complained..."
>


If nobody can answer my question -- in short, why what I'm saying
wouldn't be *a better way,* then ... I haven't caused them offense.

They may *take* offense to a -- benign isn't even the word;
constructive isn't adequate, either -- charitable suggestion that one
can be funny AND inclusive without resorting to humor at the expense
of others, but ... this is an archetypal and nearly exceptional case
where *they* should look inward and try to discern why *they* are
reacting so strongly to it.

Again: if one says the right thing (eg, one can be funny without
resorting to humor at the expense of others -- particularly in a
public forum), and one says it in the best way possible (eg, what I
just said), then ... it's tough for me to take responsibility for the
consequences.

I'm asking that people consider ... consideration, and a touch more
thoughtfulness -- granted, as I'm defining it, but ... again ... argue
that my definition is poor ... if possible.

In other words, it'd be quite hard for a fairly large group of
not-quite-so-monolithic-as-the-current-peanut-gallery people to call
what I'm suggesting ... unreasonable, mean-spirited, wrong-headed,
immoral, illegal, or fattening.

I think they'd call it "constructive criticism."

They might call it "Christian."

They might call it "sensible."

But I doubt they'd cast aspersions on the notion at hand.

Similarly, I don't think a random group of fair-minded people would
say that my approach was horribly flawed.

They *might,* however, say that the audience was anything BUT
receptive.

Again: that's their (the Peanut Gallery's) issue.

Lots of people have to be dragged -- KICKING AND SCREAMING -- into the
new millenium. That doesn't mean we should stop tossing out the line,
though.

If "Old School" people feel it necessary to continue to BE "Old
School" people, then -- for the umpteenth time -- why not start your
own private group, invoke the One Drop Rule, have a secret handshake,
wear funny hats and crimson blazers, have clandestine meetings, and
... do ... whatever else it is you want to do.

But this isn't that place. It's (still) Usenet.

I'm WIDE open to constructive, honest, and direct responses to why my
position is crap, and/or why I said it in a poor manner.

Or to direct, honest, logical, cogent, and coherent responses to the
very questions that I asked -- questions that are epithetical to my
constructive suggestion: can't we lose the humor that is at the
expense of others, and -- if not -- why not?

None has given an honest and direct resopnse, yet.

Including you -- eloquent as you were. All you endeavored to do was
to explain the puerile reactions that I've received -- as if they
needed any explanation ;-)

But ... thank you FOR your eloquent and thoughtful words. WTF are you
DOING here, anyway <grin>

"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Implying that NONE of you has even a MODICUM of control over your OWN
> actions....
>

I take exception to that. I have good control and I have not peed in my
pants today.

"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote
> CLEAR about what goes and what doesn't, and ... get the fuck off of
> Usenet.
>
> Win-win!!

I find you foul language very offensive. It is uncalled for, undignified
and shows your true character.

On Feb 27, 7:41=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 5:37=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 7:29=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 5:28=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 4:35=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > I have an idea.
>
> > > > Your ideas suck, Neil. I don't give a fuck if you have another twen=
ty
> > > > ideas.
> > > > Maybe you can enlighten us if your Jewishness has a foundation base=
d
> > > > on race/ethnicity or based on a eastern-european chosen religion.
>
> > Can you enlighten us? You keep waving that flag, now back it up.
>
> > Answer my fucking question, coward!
>
> Let's see. =A0What have you called me ... lately.
>
> Weak? =A0Coward?
>

>
Well, you whine like a little girl, what am I supposed to think?

*Looking up the meaning of faegele.*

On Feb 27, 9:08=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:58=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 8:55=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 10:45=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Any time, Buddy :-)
>
> > > Buddy? You wish!
>
> > > Call me anything you like, but I'm not your buddy. You're too fucked
> > > up for my tastes.
>
> > Awwww.
>
> > I doubt it.
>
> > I'm just not *your kind* of fucked up.
>
> > In your own way, you're likely an order of magnitude far more fucked
> > up than I've ever been, or ever will be.
>
> > But you're still hurling insults, and avoiding -- presumably due to
> > utter incapacity -- directly addressing my point.
>
> > Why, I wonder (kind of....)?
>
> You have no point, neil. THAT is the problem.

[typing it very slowly this time]

What's the advantage of *excluding* those talented and interesting
woodworkers from this forum, if they -- reasonably -- might be
offended by gallows humor -- humor at the expense of others -- humor
that tries to BE humor by making fun of ethnicities, religion, race,
sexual orientation, race, Holocaust, dead babies or other tragedies,
etc.?

What's the upside?

I typed at LESS THAN 30wpm (I timed it).

Maybe you'll endeavor a direct answer.

Ready?

Go!

On Feb 26, 2:52=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:7bd65890-2f2a-4b03-b611-55bc812d4e34@u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > AGAIN, no. =A0It's just a ridiculous reply on YOUR part. =A0My point
> > is ... it's not OUT OF character, around here. =A0It's IN character.
>
> My guess is you find yourself making that kind of statement in a lot of
> places you hang out.

Just for shits and giggles, Mike, why don't YOU take a shot at
answering the questions I just recently posed ... instead of taking a
shot at ... me ;-)

Again: just for shits and giggles....

SOMEBODY should try it ... even if they fail.

On Feb 27, 7:29=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 5:28=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 4:35=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I have an idea.
>
> > Your ideas suck, Neil. I don't give a fuck if you have another twenty
> > ideas.

> > Maybe you can enlighten us if your Jewishness has a foundation based
> > on race/ethnicity or based on a eastern-european chosen religion.
>

Can you enlighten us? You keep waving that flag, now back it up.

Answer my fucking question, coward!

On Feb 28, 9:57=A0am, "Max" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/27/2010 10:13 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> >> On Feb 27, 9:08 pm, Robatoy<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >>> You have no point, neil. THAT is the problem.
>
> >> [typing it very slowly this time]
>
> >> What's the advantage of *excluding* those talented and interesting
> >> woodworkers from this forum, if they -- reasonably -- might be
> >> offended by gallows humor -- humor at the expense of others -- humor
> >> that tries to BE humor by making fun of ethnicities, religion, race,
> >> sexual orientation, race, Holocaust, dead babies or other tragedies,
> >> etc.?
>
> >> What's the upside?
>
> >> I typed at LESS THAN 30wpm (I timed it).
>
> >> Maybe you'll endeavor a direct answer.
>
> >> Ready?
>
> >> Go!
>
> > And what exactly is the advantage of beating this dead horse? =A0The wo=
rld
> > IS changing Neil, slowly but surely, and one day it probably WILL be as
> > you envision, but clearly that day is not today, and as much as you'd l=
ike
> > to think otherwise there's nothing you can do about it. =A0It takes
> > generations for this kind of change to occur, and trying to force-feed =
it
> > to people who have no interest in what you're serving is only going to
> > piss them off. =A0You enjoy pissing people off Neil? =A0I find THAT to =
be more
> > than just a bit offensive, more-so than reading or being the butt of a
> > joke that makes fun of somebody for who they are. =A0There's even been
> > several examples of people in this group who say they're NOT offended b=
y
> > being the butt of such jokes, yet for some strange reason you chose not=
to
> > HEAR that and you carry on with your crusade that nobody cares about
> > except YOU. =A0I don't necessarily disagree with your message, but I'm =
so
> > sick of hearing you go on about it that it's raising my blood pressure.
> > And you know what? =A0I have hypertension, and getting pissed off is no=
t
> > GOOD for me, or anyone else for that matter. =A0Do you enjoy affecting =
the
> > health of others with your endless diatribes, Neil? =A0Shouldn't you fe=
el
> > some level of responsibility for that?
>
> > You've made your point a THOUSAND times over, now LET IT GO. =A0Perhaps=
THEN
> > it will actually have some effect; silently and slowly. =A0I'm sorry th=
at
> > you won't actually get the credit you so badly want for instigating tha=
t
> > change, but by harping on it endlessly you're only making it worse. =A0=
Dig?
>
> > --
> > See Nad. =A0See Nad go. =A0Go Nad!
> > To reply, eat the taco.
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
>
> QUIT FEEDING THE DAMN MONKEY............................ Oh, sorry for th=
e
> outburst.
>
> I need to set my filter to:
> "wherever the word 'Yiddish' appears, delete"
>
> Max (but,but, I enjoy the badinage)

Wow. I rarely have to look up a word, but had to look up THAT one.

I like it!

Thank you. I'm always grateful for, and responsive to, being
educated.

Yes, you WILL find my name on the theoretically endangered species
list.

Rob? THAT should make you happy, no??

On Feb 27, 8:55=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:45=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Any time, Buddy :-)
>
> Buddy? You wish!
>
> Call me anything you like, but I'm not your buddy. You're too fucked
> up for my tastes.


Awwww.

I doubt it.

I'm just not *your kind* of fucked up.

In your own way, you're likely an order of magnitude far more fucked
up than I've ever been, or ever will be.

But you're still hurling insults, and avoiding -- presumably due to
utter incapacity -- directly addressing my point.

Why, I wonder (kind of....)?

"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7bd65890-2f2a-4b03-b611-55bc812d4e34@u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

> AGAIN, no. It's just a ridiculous reply on YOUR part. My point
> is ... it's not OUT OF character, around here. It's IN character.

My guess is you find yourself making that kind of statement in a lot of
places you hang out.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Feb 27, 8:40=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:22=A0pm, Steve Turner <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/27/2010 7:55 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 6:10 pm, "Max"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> > >> "Robatoy"<[email protected]> =A0wrote
>
> > >>> Well, you whine like a little girl, what am I supposed to think?
> > >>> *Looking up the meaning of faegele.*
>
> > >> Rob,
> > >> If you'll quit feeding the monkey it'll go away.
>
> > >> Max
>
> > > Wanna' bet? :-D
>
> > I have a suggestion for you, and it's a serious one. =A0Shut the fuck u=
p for
> > about a month, go somewhere else, do some yoga, do NOT look at this new=
sgroup,
> > and try to forget this conversation ever happened. =A0Then come back an=
d reread
> > the whole thread, everything you've written and everyone's responses. =
=A0Don't
> > get caught up in your own perspective all over again; try to visualize =
yourself
> > as somebody else when you read it, your mother perhaps. =A0If you don't=
do this,
> > you have no chance of truly knowing how you're being perceived by the r=
est of
> > us right now, and I'm NOT talking about your _message_; I'm talking abo=
ut your
> > manner and your delivery. =A0Even if you still think your stance is cor=
rect (and
> > I'm sure you will), you may be surprised what you learn about yourself.
>
> > --
> > See Nad. =A0See Nad go. =A0Go Nad!
> > To reply, eat the taco.http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
>
> Good suggestion, Steve. One problem though is that Neil doesn't want
> to be in touch with his inadequacies.

Not when it's simpler to be assaulted with yours ;-)

> He has copped this aura of
> superiority like make-up on that pimple that is his core being.

Ouch. Humor at the expense of others ... in such a public forum ...
one that SHOULD be welcoming to all woodworkers ... is pretty
indefensible.

Not that you've defended it, incidentally. All YOU've done is level
schoolyard attacks at me.

Ouch.

> The
> reason he doesn't like JAP jokes, is because he IS one. He has to come
> to grips with the fact that he cannot become our conscience, because
> his own is faulty.

Nah. Mine's pretty good on this score. See above.

> Telling him to fuck off (I know you didn't) doesn't have an effect,
> because he LIKES to be spanked. He shows some rudimentary =A0ability to
> create sentences, but they lack meaning.

I read fairly simple Spanish. If I were YOU, though, I might view
*complicated* Spanish as having been written by an illiterate.

But that would be MY inadequacy to reasonably judge the subject.

Much as it is yours.

> Sad, really.
> In summation, his life is the one WE give him by responding to him.

Ouch.

Still don't have any direct, relevant, and reasonable answers for why
it's better to potentially exclude those who would NOT be so amused by
humor at the expense of others as you and your cabal, huh??

> Without us, he is nothing.

And yet ... inestimably more than you, Sir :-)

> But because the short circuit in his ego,
> he not only wants to belong to this group, but be its headmistress as
> well.

Not interested. WOULD be pretty happy, though if y'all could drop the
gallows humor, and open yourselves up to other woodworkers -- those
who might think and feel differently than you (ie, at all).

> Too bad that will never happen.
>
> Thank you for playing, neil.

Any time, Buddy :-)

On Feb 27, 10:22=A0pm, Steve Turner <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 2/27/2010 7:55 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 6:10 pm, "Max"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> "Robatoy"<[email protected]> =A0wrote
>
> >>> Well, you whine like a little girl, what am I supposed to think?
> >>> *Looking up the meaning of faegele.*
>
> >> Rob,
> >> If you'll quit feeding the monkey it'll go away.
>
> >> Max
>
> > Wanna' bet? :-D
>
> I have a suggestion for you, and it's a serious one. =A0Shut the fuck up =
for
> about a month, go somewhere else, do some yoga, do NOT look at this newsg=
roup,
> and try to forget this conversation ever happened. =A0Then come back and =
reread
> the whole thread, everything you've written and everyone's responses. =A0=
Don't
> get caught up in your own perspective all over again; try to visualize yo=
urself
> as somebody else when you read it, your mother perhaps. =A0If you don't d=
o this,
> you have no chance of truly knowing how you're being perceived by the res=
t of
> us right now, and I'm NOT talking about your _message_; I'm talking about=
your
> manner and your delivery. =A0Even if you still think your stance is corre=
ct (and
> I'm sure you will), you may be surprised what you learn about yourself.
>
> --
> See Nad. =A0See Nad go. =A0Go Nad!
> To reply, eat the taco.http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Good suggestion, Steve. One problem though is that Neil doesn't want
to be in touch with his inadequacies. He has copped this aura of
superiority like make-up on that pimple that is his core being. The
reason he doesn't like JAP jokes, is because he IS one. He has to come
to grips with the fact that he cannot become our conscience, because
his own is faulty.
Telling him to fuck off (I know you didn't) doesn't have an effect,
because he LIKES to be spanked. He shows some rudimentary ability to
create sentences, but they lack meaning. Sad, really.
In summation, his life is the one WE give him by responding to him.
Without us, he is nothing. But because the short circuit in his ego,
he not only wants to belong to this group, but be its headmistress as
well.
Too bad that will never happen.

Thank you for playing, neil.

On Feb 27, 5:28=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 4:35=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have an idea.
>
> Your ideas suck, Neil. I don't give a fuck if you have another twenty
> ideas.

But my ideas are FAR better than YOUR guesses ;-)

> I have noticed one thing though. It's that perpetual reference to your
> Jewishness.
> You have been cruising for somebody to take your Jewishness to task
> with the hope of being able to holler ANTI-SEMITE!!
> This is what this is all about, eh? (btw, in this sentence
> 'jewishness' does not need to be capitalized.)
> THIS Dutchman thinks you may have the JDL on speed dial.
> Maybe you can enlighten us if your Jewishness has a foundation based
> on race/ethnicity or based on a eastern-european chosen religion.

Keep going. One day ... if you're really lucky, and the stars align
*just right,* ... you'll get SOMETHING right.

Or ... not :-)