The end of the line. [Archive]

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 04:41 PM

"Mike Connor" wrote ...
>
> "Wolfgang"
>> Rosa Parks, exemplar of quiet grace, dignity and courage got off the bus
>> for the last time yesterday.
>>

>
> Absolutely magnificent what a single determined person can achieve. Ought
> to be required reading in every school in the world.
>
> TL
> MC

Yes.

But don't forget that Mrs. Parks was not the first person to challenge the
seating rules. Others had filed suit and won in regards to interstate
travel. Her case, which was taken by the NAACP (where she worked, BTW), was
simply chosen as the right case at the right time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

http://www.africanaonline.com/rosa_parks.htm

Don't get me wrong, she is still worthy of all the praise she received (and
will continue to receive), but the pageantry-version of her story is sorta
BS.

Dan

Mike Connor

October 25th, 2005, 04:47 PM

"Daniel-San" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..
<SNIP>
> Don't get me wrong, she is still worthy of all the praise she received
> (and will continue to receive), but the pageantry-version of her story is
> sorta BS.
>
> Dan

Yes, I am aware of that. Doubtless there were many such incidents. They were
all equally magnificent. Only one got the massive publicity.

TL
MC

Tim J.

October 25th, 2005, 04:51 PM

Daniel-San typed:
> "Mike Connor" wrote ...
>>
>> "Wolfgang"
>>> Rosa Parks, exemplar of quiet grace, dignity and courage got off
>>> the bus for the last time yesterday.
>>
>> Absolutely magnificent what a single determined person can achieve.
>> Ought to be required reading in every school in the world.
>>
> Yes. But don't forget that Mrs. Parks was not the first person to
> challenge the seating rules. Others had filed suit and won in regards
> to interstate travel. Her case, which was taken by the NAACP (where
> she worked, BTW), was simply chosen as the right case at the right
> time.
> Don't get me wrong, she is still worthy of all the praise she
> received (and will continue to receive), but the pageantry-version of
> her story is sorta BS.

Maybe, but *I* would have probably given up my seat.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 04:55 PM

"Tim J." wrote ...
>
<<snipola>>

> Maybe, but *I* would have probably given up my seat.
> --

Agreed. I guess that's why she's worthy of the praise.

Dan

George Adams

October 25th, 2005, 05:46 PM

Daniel-San wrote:
>
> Don't get me wrong, she is still worthy of all the praise she received (and
> will continue to receive), but the pageantry-version of her story is sorta
> BS.
>
> Dan

Not when you consider the physical courage and mental toughness it took
in refusing the order to give up her seat in 1955. She put herself in
great jeopardy of personal harm. Like Tim, put in the same position, I
would likely have given up my seat.

R.I.P. Rosa

Jeff Taylor

October 25th, 2005, 05:52 PM

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
> Rosa Parks, exemplar of quiet grace, dignity and courage got off the bus
> for the last time yesterday.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/25/parks.obit/index.html?section=cnn_topstories
>
> Wolfgang

As I sat in the dentist chair this morning, we (they mostly since there were
many tools in my mouth) talked about the passing of Mrs. Parks. When I
finally got a word in, I said "in all reality, it wasn't that long ago..."

I would be born about 11 years after the incident, however I find it hard to
believe this wasn't that long ago if you look at the big picture...

JT

Wayne Harrison

October 25th, 2005, 05:58 PM

"Daniel-San" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tim J." wrote ...
>>
> <<snipola>>
>
>> Maybe, but *I* would have probably given up my seat.
>> --
>
> Agreed. I guess that's why she's worthy of the praise.
>
> Dan

why, that's downright white of you, dan.

jesus.

wayno
>
>

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 06:09 PM

"Wayne Harrison" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Daniel-San" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Tim J." wrote ...
>>>
>> <<snipola>>
>>
>>> Maybe, but *I* would have probably given up my seat.
>>> --
>>
>> Agreed. I guess that's why she's worthy of the praise.
>>
>> Dan
>
> why, that's downright white of you, dan.
>
> jesus.
>
> wayno

???

huh?

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 06:17 PM

"George Adams" wrote ...
>
> Daniel-San wrote:
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, she is still worthy of all the praise she received
>> (and
>> will continue to receive), but the pageantry-version of her story is
>> sorta
>> BS.
>>
>> Dan
>
> Not when you consider the physical courage and mental toughness it took
> in refusing the order to give up her seat in 1955. She put herself in
> great jeopardy of personal harm. Like Tim, put in the same position, I
> would likely have given up my seat.
>
> R.I.P. Rosa

Look, I'm not saying that she didn't do something that took courage. She
refused to give up her seat -- in direct contravention of both the law and
the bus driver there in her face. That took cojones, no doubt. I respect her
immensely for that. What I am saying is that she did not galvanize the civil
rights movement. The NAACP used her case as a rallying point. They had been
prepared to use other cases before Parks', but did not for one reason or
another (one was a 15 year old girl -- looked good until she turned out to
be pregnant). Parks being a woman of nearly impeccable charcter made for a
good rallying point. That's all I'm saying. Sure, absolutely she was a great
human being. As I said before, worthy of the praise she received. But if you
ask 'joe on the street' who she was, you'll get an answer along the lines of
"she started the civil rights movement." That is BS.

Dan

Ken Fortenberry

October 25th, 2005, 06:22 PM

Daniel-San wrote:
> "Wayne Harrison" wrote:
>>"Daniel-San" wrote:
>>>"Tim J." wrote ...
>>><<snipola>>
>>>
>>>>Maybe, but *I* would have probably given up my seat.
>>>
>>>Agreed. I guess that's why she's worthy of the praise.
>>
>> why, that's downright white of you, dan.
>>
>> jesus.
>>
>>wayno
>
> ???
>
> huh?

I'll take a stab at it.

First, you took the occasion of her death to point out
to us that Rosa Parks wasn't exceptional and that her
story was in fact sorta BS. Then you "guess" that she
is worthy of praise.

Like my friend in the Old North State said, that's
awfully white of you.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 06:27 PM

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel-San wrote:
>> "Wayne Harrison" wrote:
>>>"Daniel-San" wrote:
>>>>"Tim J." wrote ...
>>>><<snipola>>
>>>>
>>>>>Maybe, but *I* would have probably given up my seat.
>>>>
>>>>Agreed. I guess that's why she's worthy of the praise.
>>>
>>> why, that's downright white of you, dan.
>>>
>>> jesus.
>>>
>>>wayno
>>
>> ???
>>
>> huh?
>
> I'll take a stab at it.
>
> First, you took the occasion of her death to point out
> to us that Rosa Parks wasn't exceptional and that her
> story was in fact sorta BS. Then you "guess" that she
> is worthy of praise.
>
> Like my friend in the Old North State said, that's
> awfully white of you.
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry

Well, I guess that I chose my words poorly. Very poorly as a matter of fact.
I did not say that she was not exceptional. I merely pointed out that her
actions were used by others to initiate the civil rights movement. I also
said that she is worthy of the praise she has, and will continue to receive.

If my comments were taken as degrading her, I chose my words poorly.

Dan

Tim J.

October 25th, 2005, 06:41 PM

Daniel-San typed:
> "George Adams" wrote ...
>>
>> Daniel-San wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, she is still worthy of all the praise she
>>> received (and
>>> will continue to receive), but the pageantry-version of her story is
>>> sorta
>>> BS.
>>
>> Not when you consider the physical courage and mental toughness it
>> took in refusing the order to give up her seat in 1955. She put
>> herself in great jeopardy of personal harm. Like Tim, put in the
>> same position, I would likely have given up my seat.
>>
>> R.I.P. Rosa
>
> Look, I'm not saying that she didn't do something that took courage. She
> refused to give up her seat -- in direct contravention of both
> the law and the bus driver there in her face. That took cojones, no
> doubt. I respect her immensely for that.

It was much more she was facing. She knew full well that she would be
ostracized by local white society in general. She was arrested, lost her
job, and was fined (I wonder if she was ever reimbursed the $14?).

> What I am saying is that she did not galvanize the civil rights movement.

If this act didn't galvanize the movement, what did? This started the public
transportation boycott that near bankrupted the bus line. This is what
brought Martin Luther King to the forefront. I'd say it was probably one of
the single most galvanizing moments in recent history.

> The NAACP used her case as a rallying point. They had been prepared to use
> other cases before
> Parks', but did not for one reason or another (one was a 15 year old
> girl -- looked good until she turned out to be pregnant). Parks being
> a woman of nearly impeccable charcter made for a good rallying point.

Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?

> That's all I'm saying. Sure, absolutely she was a great human being.
> As I said before, worthy of the praise she received. But if you ask
> 'joe on the street' who she was, you'll get an answer along the lines
> of "she started the civil rights movement." That is BS.

I'm not sure of these Joes of which you speak, but anyone with a brief study
of the civil rights movement knows she didn't start it. She sure did make
people focus on it.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 06:58 PM

"Tim J." wrote ...
> Daniel-San typed:
>> "George Adams" wrote ...
>>>
>>> Daniel-San wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Don't get me wrong, she is still worthy of all the praise she
>>>> received (and
>>>> will continue to receive), but the pageantry-version of her story is
>>>> sorta
>>>> BS.
>>>
>>> Not when you consider the physical courage and mental toughness it
>>> took in refusing the order to give up her seat in 1955. She put
>>> herself in great jeopardy of personal harm. Like Tim, put in the
>>> same position, I would likely have given up my seat.
>>>
>>> R.I.P. Rosa
>>
>> Look, I'm not saying that she didn't do something that took courage. She
>> refused to give up her seat -- in direct contravention of both
>> the law and the bus driver there in her face. That took cojones, no
>> doubt. I respect her immensely for that.
>
> It was much more she was facing. She knew full well that she would be
> ostracized by local white society in general. She was arrested, lost her
> job, and was fined (I wonder if she was ever reimbursed the $14?).

>
>> What I am saying is that she did not galvanize the civil rights movement.
>
> If this act didn't galvanize the movement, what did? This started the
> public transportation boycott that near bankrupted the bus line. This is
> what brought Martin Luther King to the forefront. I'd say it was probably
> one of the single most galvanizing moments in recent history
>
>> The NAACP used her case as a rallying point. They had been prepared to
>> use other cases before
>> Parks', but did not for one reason or another (one was a 15 year old
>> girl -- looked good until she turned out to be pregnant). Parks being
>> a woman of nearly impeccable charcter made for a good rallying point.
>
> Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?
>
>> That's all I'm saying. Sure, absolutely she was a great human being.
>> As I said before, worthy of the praise she received. But if you ask
>> 'joe on the street' who she was, you'll get an answer along the lines
>> of "she started the civil rights movement." That is BS.
>
> I'm not sure of these Joes of which you speak, but anyone with a brief
> study of the civil rights movement knows she didn't start it. She sure did
> make people focus on it.

The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
"slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause. She did not
make people focus on it, the NAACP did when they took her case. She was a
good, decent person who took a personal stand. As Dr. King said: "Mrs. Parks'
arrest was the precipitating factor rather than the cause of the protest.
The cause lay deep in the record of similar injustices...Actually no one can
understand the action of Mrs. Parks unless he realizes that eventually the
cup of endurance runs over, and the human personality cries out, 'I can take
it no longer.'" <<quick quote from Wikipedia... don't have my copy handy for
page, etc.>>

That's all I'm sayin'. Great person. Great action. Used by others as a
rallying-cry.

Dan

> --
> TL,
> Tim
> ------------------------
> http://css.sbcma.com/timj/
>

Brian Baldwin

October 25th, 2005, 07:03 PM

Not that I want to belittle the effect that Ms Parks action had on the
Civil Rights movement, but I seem to recall an interview with her,
before she achieved media celebrity status, where the interviewer asked
he why she refused to give up her seat. He answer was that it was
because she had just finished a long day at work and she was very tired,
and her feet hurt. She just wanted to sit and relax, and she was, after
all, in the black section of the bus seating arrangement. But, from
little unintended sparks do great fires begin.

--
B²

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 07:06 PM

"Brian Baldwin" > wrote in message
...
Not that I want to belittle the effect that Ms Parks action had on the
Civil Rights movement, but I seem to recall an interview with her,
before she achieved media celebrity status, where the interviewer asked
he why she refused to give up her seat. He answer was that it was
because she had just finished a long day at work and she was very tired,
and her feet hurt. She just wanted to sit and relax, and she was, after
all, in the black section of the bus seating arrangement. But, from
little unintended sparks do great fires begin.

--
B²

As I seem now to be the
asshole-rascist-in-charge-of-trying-to-get-things-historically-accurate, I
will point out that the actual quote from her autobio, _My Story_ is that
she was "tired of giving in", not physically tired.

Dan

Tim J.

October 25th, 2005, 07:11 PM

Daniel-San typed:
> "Tim J." wrote ...
>> Daniel-San typed:
<snip>
>>> The NAACP used her case as a rallying point. They had been prepared
>>> to use other cases before
>>> Parks', but did not for one reason or another (one was a 15 year old
>>> girl -- looked good until she turned out to be pregnant). Parks
>>> being a woman of nearly impeccable charcter made for a good rallying
>>> point.
>>
>> Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?
>>
>>> That's all I'm saying. Sure, absolutely she was a great human being.
>>> As I said before, worthy of the praise she received. But if you ask
>>> 'joe on the street' who she was, you'll get an answer along the
>>> lines of "she started the civil rights movement." That is BS.
>>
>> I'm not sure of these Joes of which you speak, but anyone with a
>> brief study of the civil rights movement knows she didn't start it.
>> She sure did make people focus on it.
>
> The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
> "slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.

I don't think it was even much of a factor.

> She
> did not make people focus on it, the NAACP did when they took her
> case. She was a good, decent person who took a personal stand.

Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?

> As Dr.
> King said: "Mrs. Parks' arrest was the precipitating factor rather
> than the cause of the protest."

Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?

> " The cause lay deep in the record of
> similar injustices...Actually no one can understand the action of
> Mrs. Parks unless he realizes that eventually the cup of endurance
> runs over, and the human personality cries out, 'I can take it no
> longer.'"

Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?

<<quick quote from Wikipedia... don't have my copy handy
> for page, etc.>>
> That's all I'm sayin'. Great person. Great action. Used by others as a
> rallying-cry.

Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?
--
TL,
Tim
(Whew! Now I'm dizzy %-( )
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Wayne Harrison

October 25th, 2005, 07:11 PM

"Daniel-San" > wrote

> If my comments were taken as degrading her, I chose my words poorly.

well, thanks for the clarification.

wayno

Mike Connor

October 25th, 2005, 07:16 PM

"Daniel-San" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
<SNIP>
> As I seem now to be the
> asshole-rascist-in-charge-of-trying-to-get-things-historically-accurate, I
> will point out that the actual quote from her autobio, _My Story_ is that
> she was "tired of giving in", not physically tired.
>
> Dan

These things tend to get very heated.

The lady made a personal stand, for whatever reasons, and this was later
used to very good effect by the civil rights movement. It is certain that
the lady did not know that her personal stand would be used in such a
manner, which in no way belittles the stand itself.

You are quite right. Others made personal stands, and they were not
publicised.

Any choice of words which might be construed as criticism of such an event,
or the person involved in it, is dangerous in the extreme.

I was not criticising you, or trying to imply in any way that you are
racist.

TL
MC

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 07:19 PM

"Tim J." > wrote in message
...
> Daniel-San typed:
>> "Tim J." wrote ...
>>> Daniel-San typed:
> <snip>
>>>> The NAACP used her case as a rallying point. They had been prepared
>>>> to use other cases before
>>>> Parks', but did not for one reason or another (one was a 15 year old
>>>> girl -- looked good until she turned out to be pregnant). Parks
>>>> being a woman of nearly impeccable charcter made for a good rallying
>>>> point.
>>>
>>> Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?
>>>
>>>> That's all I'm saying. Sure, absolutely she was a great human being.
>>>> As I said before, worthy of the praise she received. But if you ask
>>>> 'joe on the street' who she was, you'll get an answer along the
>>>> lines of "she started the civil rights movement." That is BS.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure of these Joes of which you speak, but anyone with a
>>> brief study of the civil rights movement knows she didn't start it.
>>> She sure did make people focus on it.
>>
>> The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
>> "slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.
>
> I don't think it was even much of a factor.

But I'd be very willing to bet that the average American that has only been
taught the pageantry of history in their classes would.

>
>> She
>> did not make people focus on it, the NAACP did when they took her
>> case. She was a good, decent person who took a personal stand.
>
> Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?
>
>> As Dr.
>> King said: "Mrs. Parks' arrest was the precipitating factor rather
>> than the cause of the protest."
>
> Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?
>
>> " The cause lay deep in the record of
>> similar injustices...Actually no one can understand the action of
>> Mrs. Parks unless he realizes that eventually the cup of endurance
>> runs over, and the human personality cries out, 'I can take it no
>> longer.'"
>
> Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?
>
> <<quick quote from Wikipedia... don't have my copy handy
>> for page, etc.>>
>> That's all I'm sayin'. Great person. Great action. Used by others as a
>> rallying-cry.
>
> Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?

The original post to which I replied (before I got dizzy and went from
rampant liberal to rascist 'white'....) stated "Absolutely magnificent what
a single determined person can achieve."

IMO, absolutely magnificent what a well organized group can acheive when
given the right rallying point.

Parks was not the first to refuse to give up her seat. She was the right
person at the right time for the movement.

Dan

> --
> TL,
> Tim
> (Whew! Now I'm dizzy %-( )
> ------------------------
> http://css.sbcma.com/timj/
>

Ken Fortenberry

October 25th, 2005, 07:25 PM

Tim J. wrote:
> Daniel-San typed:
>> ...
>>The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
>>"slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.
>
> I don't think it was even much of a factor.

Slavery wasn't much of a factor in the US Civil War ?

I am definitely due a refund from the University of Illinois.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 07:25 PM

"Mike Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Daniel-San" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ...
> <SNIP>

>It is certain that the lady did not know that her personal stand would be
>used in such a manner, which in no way belittles the stand itself.

Thank you for finding a way to say what I have been trying to say. I guess
my wordsmithing is rusty.

>
> You are quite right. Others made personal stands, and they were not
> publicised.
>
> Any choice of words which might be construed as criticism of such an
> event, or the person involved in it, is dangerous in the extreme.

Apparently.

>
> I was not criticising you, or trying to imply in any way that you are
> racist.
>

Thank you. While you and I will probably not meet, if we do, you will find
me to be about as anti-rascist as it gets. My undergrad (and upcoming grad
school) is centered around immigration and civil rights in the 20th century.
Maybe I should have said something alon those lines in my 1st post...

> TL
> MC
>

Dan

Tim J.

October 25th, 2005, 07:29 PM

Daniel-San typed:
> "Tim J." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Daniel-San typed:
>>> "Tim J." wrote ...
>>>> Daniel-San typed:
>> <snip>
>>>>> The NAACP used her case as a rallying point. They had been
>>>>> prepared to use other cases before
>>>>> Parks', but did not for one reason or another (one was a 15 year
>>>>> old girl -- looked good until she turned out to be pregnant).
>>>>> Parks being a woman of nearly impeccable charcter made for a good
>>>>> rallying point.
>>>>
>>>> Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?
>>>>
>>>>> That's all I'm saying. Sure, absolutely she was a great human
>>>>> being. As I said before, worthy of the praise she received. But
>>>>> if you ask 'joe on the street' who she was, you'll get an answer
>>>>> along the lines of "she started the civil rights movement." That
>>>>> is BS.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure of these Joes of which you speak, but anyone with a
>>>> brief study of the civil rights movement knows she didn't start it.
>>>> She sure did make people focus on it.
>>>
>>> The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
>>> "slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.
>>
>> I don't think it was even much of a factor.
>
> But I'd be very willing to bet that the average American that has
> only been taught the pageantry of history in their classes would.

The average American (me) was taught differently. Some pay attention in
class, some don't. I think the ones that don't are named "Joe." :)

<snip>

> The original post to which I replied (before I got dizzy and went from
> rampant liberal to rascist 'white'....) stated "Absolutely
> magnificent what a single determined person can achieve."

Well, *there's* yer problem. Freakin' liberals. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Tim J.

October 25th, 2005, 07:32 PM

Ken Fortenberry typed:
> Tim J. wrote:
>> Daniel-San typed:
>>> ...
>>> The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
>>> "slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.
>>
>> I don't think it was even much of a factor.
>
> Slavery wasn't much of a factor in the US Civil War ?
>
> I am definitely due a refund from the University of Illinois.

I could have told you that without discussing the Civil War. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Mike Connor

October 25th, 2005, 07:38 PM

"Daniel-San" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
.. .
>
<SNIP>
> Thank you. While you and I will probably not meet,

More´s the pity.

if we do, you will find
> me to be about as anti-rascist as it gets. My undergrad (and upcoming grad
> school) is centered around immigration and civil rights in the 20th
> century. Maybe I should have said something alon those lines in my 1st
> post...
>

I don´t think anybody here seriously considers you to be racist. Quite a few
just love jumping down somebody´s throat, if that person makes even a slight
mistake or perceived error of judgement.

The whole issue is extremely sensitive, and anything you say may be easily
misinterpreted, misconstrued, intentionally or otherwise, and generally
twisted to your severe disadvantage, etc. etc. Probably why discussing
politics and similar subjects on here is such a bad idea.

So, I will take my own implied advice, and return to lurking mode.

TL
MC

October 25th, 2005, 07:45 PM

Tim J. wrote:
> Daniel-San typed:
>>
>>The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
>>"slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.
>
>
> I don't think it was even much of a factor.

That's an absolute howler. Slavery was overwhelmingly the primary cause
of the Civil War.

I was fed the usual propaganda in school that it wasn't really about
slavery, that is was about states' rights. I later learned, after
educating myself in American history, that this is a rationalization
intended to avoid, ignore, and gloss over the country's racist slave
holding past. If the Civil War was about states' rights, it was about
the rights of states to practice slavery.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Ken Fortenberry

October 25th, 2005, 07:49 PM

Tim J. wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry typed:
>>Tim J. wrote:
>>>Daniel-San typed:
>>>>...
>>>>The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
>>>>"slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.
>>>
>>>I don't think it was even much of a factor.
>>
>>Slavery wasn't much of a factor in the US Civil War ?
>>
>>I am definitely due a refund from the University of Illinois.
>
>
> I could have told you that without discussing the Civil War. ;-)

Saying slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War is just
floundering about trying to find an excuse to ignore the
elephant in the living room. Of course slavery was the
cause of the Civil War, I know that and my name ain't Joe.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 07:49 PM

"Mike Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Daniel-San" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> .. .
>>
> <SNIP>
>> Thank you. While you and I will probably not meet,
>
> More´s the pity.

True... Too bad Germany's not on the to-do list anytime soon.

>
> if we do, you will find
>> me to be about as anti-rascist as it gets. My undergrad (and upcoming
>> grad school) is centered around immigration and civil rights in the 20th
>> century. Maybe I should have said something alon those lines in my 1st
>> post...
>>
>
> I don´t think anybody here seriously considers you to be racist. Quite a
> few just love jumping down somebody´s throat, if that person makes even a
> slight mistake or perceived error of judgement.
>

I think this may be the forst time I joined a 'politcal' thread. I usually
lurk through them. I was surprised to find Fortenberry (with whom I agree on
most things political, even if I don't post to that effect) jumping my back.
What I don't get is how trying to point out that what most folks are taught
is not the whole story is a 'mistake'. Perhaps the 'ocassion of her death'
is not the most opportune time, but when else is Rosa Parks gonna come up in
ROFF? Maybe I should just keep my yap shut, so to speak.

> The whole issue is extremely sensitive, and anything you say may be easily
> misinterpreted, misconstrued, intentionally or otherwise, and generally
> twisted to your severe disadvantage, etc. etc. Probably why discussing
> politics and similar subjects on here is such a bad idea.

I guess I don't know why it's sensitive. I could see affirmative action or
abortion as being sensitive issues (among others, or course), but the
details of an historical event?

Hell, I don't get it.

>
> So, I will take my own implied advice, and return to lurking mode.
>
> TL
> MC

Dan
>
>

Ken Fortenberry

October 25th, 2005, 07:57 PM

Daniel-San wrote:
> ...
> I think this may be the forst time I joined a 'politcal' thread. I usually
> lurk through them. I was surprised to find Fortenberry (with whom I agree on
> most things political, even if I don't post to that effect) jumping my back.
> <snip>

I didn't mean to "jump your back." I just took a stab at
explaining why your comments raised the hackles of my friend
in the Old North State. I mean you *did* ask.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Tim J.

October 25th, 2005, 08:02 PM

rw typed:
> Tim J. wrote:
>> Daniel-San typed:
>>>
>>> The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
>>> "slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.
>>
>> I don't think it was even much of a factor.
>
> That's an absolute howler. Slavery was overwhelmingly the primary
> cause of the Civil War.
>
> I was fed the usual propaganda in school that it wasn't really about
> slavery, that is was about states' rights. I later learned, after
> educating myself in American history, that this is a rationalization
> intended to avoid, ignore, and gloss over the country's racist slave
> holding past. If the Civil War was about states' rights, it was about
> the rights of states to practice slavery.

.. . .which all boiled down to economics and profits. Did slavery play a
part? Absolutely. Was the war about slavery and the rights of oppressed
black men and women? Nope (and that's my point.) Was it about slavery as a
means to profit? Yes. Certainly there were those concerned with the
aberration of slavery, but the predominant factors were financial
considerations.

.. . .and what is it with Ken and this elephant?
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 08:03 PM

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote ...
> Daniel-San wrote:
>> ... I think this may be the forst time I joined a 'politcal' thread. I
>> usually lurk through them. I was surprised to find Fortenberry (with whom
>> I agree on most things political, even if I don't post to that effect)
>> jumping my back. <snip>
>
> I didn't mean to "jump your back." I just took a stab at
> explaining why your comments raised the hackles of my friend
> in the Old North State.

> I mean you *did* ask.
>

Touche, I s'pose...

> --
> Ken Fortenberry

Well, then I guess I don't know why anything I said raised anyone's hackles.
I didn't slander Mrs. Parks. I did not belittle her actions. My comments
were only meant to point out that while she is ...

Ahhh, **** it. I got flies to tye.

Dan
The Upper Manistee calls this weekend. No goddamned politics.

Tim J.

October 25th, 2005, 08:08 PM

Daniel-San typed:
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote ...
>> Daniel-San wrote:
>>> ... I think this may be the forst time I joined a 'politcal'
>>> thread. I usually lurk through them. I was surprised to find
>>> Fortenberry (with whom I agree on most things political, even if I
>>> don't post to that effect) jumping my back. <snip>
>>
>> I didn't mean to "jump your back." I just took a stab at
>> explaining why your comments raised the hackles of my friend
>> in the Old North State.
>
>> I mean you *did* ask.
>>
>
> Touche, I s'pose...
>
>> --
>> Ken Fortenberry
>
>
>
> Well, then I guess I don't know why anything I said raised anyone's
> hackles. I didn't slander Mrs. Parks. I did not belittle her actions.
> My comments were only meant to point out that while she is ...
>
>
> Ahhh, **** it. I got flies to tye.

Don't worry, Dan. I'll stay here and shoulder the racist slurs. It appears
I've shifted the focus of their gun sights - RUN!
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 08:13 PM

"Tim J." wrote in message ...
> Daniel-San typed:
>>

<<snipola>>

>> Ahhh, **** it. I got flies to tye.
>
> Don't worry, Dan. I'll stay here and shoulder the racist slurs. It appears
> I've shifted the focus of their gun sights - RUN!

Enjoy...

My Civil War knowledge is slightly more than cursory, so I'll stay outta
that one.

Dan
Prepping for the next swap... maybe a para-Adams....

> --
> TL,
> Tim
> ------------------------
> http://css.sbcma.com/timj/
>

Mike Connor

October 25th, 2005, 08:14 PM

"Daniel-San" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..
<SNIP>
> I guess I don't know why it's sensitive.

It is rare that even those who may be aware of the details, or the "whole
picture", interpret it in the same manner. Most don´t even know the details,
and would not care if they did.

Obviously, there are more than a few people here with very strong
convictions. This tends to make them somewhat oversensitive to perceived
encroachment on, or diversion from, their own highly regarded precepts.

There is nothing wrong with that in principle, one must have the courage of
one´s convictions, they are otherwise worthless, but it makes even casual
conversation about many things extremely difficult.

Nevertheless, it is progress.

Saying some things at certain places, at certain times, would have gotten
you lynched.

I am rather surprised that you fail to see the extreme sensitivity of such a
subject. Especially in the light of your tenure on ROFF, and your
presumably inherent knowledge of your fellow countrymen.

My apologies, as it seems my original comment, and your reply thereto, more
or less started the landslide.

There is no knowing what even a perfectly innocent comment will break loose
on here. Often makes it difficult, or even quite impossible to converse at
all.

One is already choking, before one realises how far down the throat one´s
foot has managed to ingress.

TL
MC

Tim J.

October 25th, 2005, 08:19 PM

Daniel-San typed:
> "Tim J." wrote in message ...
>> Daniel-San typed:
>>>
>
> <<snipola>>
>
>>> Ahhh, **** it. I got flies to tye.
>>
>> Don't worry, Dan. I'll stay here and shoulder the racist slurs. It
>> appears I've shifted the focus of their gun sights - RUN!
>
> Enjoy...
>
> My Civil War knowledge is slightly more than cursory, so I'll stay
> outta that one.

C'mon - give it to us! This could be a galvanizing moment. . .

> Dan
> Prepping for the next swap... maybe a para-Adams....

Para-Adams are one of my favorites. If you need a tester. . . ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Brian Baldwin

October 25th, 2005, 08:19 PM

Daniel-San wrote:

>"Brian Baldwin" > wrote in message
...
>Not that I want to belittle the effect that Ms Parks action had on the
>Civil Rights movement, but I seem to recall an interview with her,
>before she achieved media celebrity status, where the interviewer asked
>he why she refused to give up her seat. He answer was that it was
>because she had just finished a long day at work and she was very tired,
>and her feet hurt. She just wanted to sit and relax, and she was, after
>all, in the black section of the bus seating arrangement. But, from
>little unintended sparks do great fires begin.
>
>
>
I stand corrected.

Getting it right historically dosen't make you the asshole racist. But
it does seem to make you politically incorrect.

--
B²

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 08:28 PM

"Mike Connor" wrote...
>
> "Daniel-San" ...
> <SNIP>
>> I guess I don't know why it's sensitive.
>
> It is rare that even those who may be aware of the details, or the "whole
> picture", interpret it in the same manner. Most don´t even know the
> details, and would not care if they did.
>
> Obviously, there are more than a few people here with very strong
> convictions. This tends to make them somewhat oversensitive to perceived
> encroachment on, or diversion from, their own highly regarded precepts.
>
> There is nothing wrong with that in principle, one must have the courage
> of one´s convictions, they are otherwise worthless, but it makes even
> casual conversation about many things extremely difficult.

Absolutely agreed. My best friend's wife and I have simply agreed not to
discuss politics, ever. It gets ugly when she starts calling me 'stupid' for
my beliefs.

>
> Nevertheless, it is progress.
>
> Saying some things at certain places, at certain times, would have gotten
> you lynched.

Very true. Even not saying certain things at certain times could have the
same result.

>
> I am rather surprised that you fail to see the extreme sensitivity of such
> a subject. Especially in the light of your tenure on ROFF,

Well, me thinks you may give to much credit in the time-served department. I
guess I've been casually posting for about a year or so, but to say I'm
involved is a recent development, if at all.

> and your presumably inherent knowledge of your fellow countrymen.

I've long ago given up in trying to figure out what motivates my fellow
countrymen.

>
> My apologies, as it seems my original comment, and your reply thereto,
> more or less started the landslide.

No apologies required.

>
> There is no knowing what even a perfectly innocent comment will break
> loose on here. Often makes it difficult, or even quite impossible to
> converse at all.

Yes, that is very true. I s'pose that is what gives ROFF it's 'character'.
;-)

>
> One is already choking, before one realises how far down the throat one´s
> foot has managed to ingress.

Well said.

>
> TL
> MC
>

Dan

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 08:32 PM

"Tim J." > wrote in message
...
> Daniel-San typed:
>> "Tim J." wrote in message ...
>>> Daniel-San typed:
>>>>
>>
>> <<snipola>>
>>
>>>> Ahhh, **** it. I got flies to tye.
>>>
>>> Don't worry, Dan. I'll stay here and shoulder the racist slurs. It
>>> appears I've shifted the focus of their gun sights - RUN!
>>
>> Enjoy...
>>
>> My Civil War knowledge is slightly more than cursory, so I'll stay
>> outta that one.
>
> C'mon - give it to us! This could be a galvanizing moment. . .

I'm tired and don't have the comment I wish I had for this line.

>
>> Dan
>> Prepping for the next swap... maybe a para-Adams....
>
> Para-Adams are one of my favorites. If you need a tester. . . ;-)

I've been tying them with orange EP fibers as the post. Will let you know
how they work next week. Fishing Fri, Sat, and Sun AM. Home to see SWMBO off
to the airport. Fishing Tues, Wed, and Thurs. Good week coming.

I'll send you yours galvanized.

Dan
Where's that damned zinc, anyway....

> --
> TL,
> Tim
> ------------------------
> http://css.sbcma.com/timj/
>

Ken Fortenberry

October 25th, 2005, 08:48 PM

Daniel-San wrote:
> ...
> My Civil War knowledge is slightly more than cursory, so I'll stay outta
> that one.

Good thing, I guess. I mean so far your attempts to set
the historical record straight for all us dumb "Joes" has
resulted more in raised hackles than appreciation for your
slightly more than cursory historical knowledge.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 08:57 PM

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote ...
> Daniel-San wrote:
>> ... My Civil War knowledge is slightly more than cursory, so I'll stay
>> outta that one.
>
> Good thing, I guess. I mean so far your attempts to set
> the historical record straight for all us dumb "Joes" has
> resulted more in raised hackles than appreciation for your
> slightly more than cursory historical knowledge.
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry

Now that's a jump.

Are you saying that what I said about Rosa Parks is incorrect? If so, I'd
really like to know where you got the information you're relying on. Maybe
I'll use it to write a dissertation. I'll get ****ing famous. Bancroft Prize
here I come.

Dan
Who will wait for your reply while you Google "Bancroft Prize".

Wolfgang

October 25th, 2005, 09:03 PM

"Jeff Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Rosa Parks, exemplar of quiet grace, dignity and courage got off the bus
>> for the last time yesterday.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/25/parks.obit/index.html?section=cnn_topstories
>>
>> Wolfgang
>
> As I sat in the dentist chair this morning, we (they mostly since there
> were many tools in my mouth) talked about the passing of Mrs. Parks. When
> I finally got a word in, I said "in all reality, it wasn't that long
> ago..."
>
> I would be born about 11 years after the incident, however I find it hard
> to believe this wasn't that long ago if you look at the big picture...

Whether or not is was long ago depends in part on where you're looking from.
Most people who routinely ride buses in America today would probably take a
different view than most who don't.

Many of us here in ROFF were born before the incident. For those who
remember it (I thought I did, but looking at the date proves it highly
unlikely) it must seem a lot further in the past than anything they have to
look forward to is in the future. :)

Anyway, it appears that even in death Ms. Parks hasn't lost her ability to
act as a catalyst in stirring up a bit of a ruckus......however unwittingly.
Beyond the familiar broad outlines of her story, I know very little about
her.......but I like to think that the tempest brewing in our little teacup
would bring a smile to her lips.

Wolfgang

Joe McIntosh

October 25th, 2005, 09:22 PM

"Wayne Harrison" > wrote>> Agreed. I guess that's why
she's worthy of the praise.
>>
>> Dan
>
> why, that's downright white of you, dan.
>
> jesus.
>
> wayno
>>
>>Indian Joe suggests- if you want to enjy a real study of the race problem
>>in the south read new book "Blood Done Sign My Name" by Tim Tyson---he
>>revisits a 1970 racial murder in Oxford North Carolina and expands story
>>to include discussion of the "real" reasons for failure to end race
>>question. since the early arrival of English slave boats.
Wolfgang you would enjoy his character studies

" the sumbitch sends his mother a congratulary telegram every year on his
own birthday. He is the only man I ever saw who can strut sitting down
I felt like a one legged man at an ass kicking contest-"
>
>

Wolfgang

October 25th, 2005, 09:28 PM

"Joe McIntosh" > wrote in message
...

>>>Indian Joe suggests- if you want to enjy a real study of the race problem
>>>in the south read new book "Blood Done Sign My Name" by Tim Tyson---he
>>>revisits a 1970 racial murder in Oxford North Carolina and expands story
>>>to include discussion of the "real" reasons for failure to end race
>>>question. since the early arrival of English slave boats.
> Wolfgang you would enjoy his character studies
>
> " the sumbitch sends his mother a congratulary telegram every year on his
> own birthday. He is the only man I ever saw who can strut sitting down
> I felt like a one legged man at an ass kicking contest-"

I'll keep an eye out for it, Joe. I see it's over a year old. This makes
it likely that it will be showing up in my usual haunts.....the bargain
bins.....before too long. :)

Thanks.

Wolfgang

Ken Fortenberry

October 25th, 2005, 09:29 PM

Daniel-San wrote:
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote ...
>>Daniel-San wrote:
>>>... My Civil War knowledge is slightly more than cursory, so I'll stay
>>>outta that one.
>>
>>Good thing, I guess. I mean so far your attempts to set
>>the historical record straight for all us dumb "Joes" has
>>resulted more in raised hackles than appreciation for your
>>slightly more than cursory historical knowledge.
>
> Now that's a jump.
>
> Are you saying that what I said about Rosa Parks is incorrect?

That's what I'm saying. You said "the pageantry-version of her
story is sorta BS." I don't know what that's supposed to mean
but there is nothing BS about the Rosa Parks story.

> If so, I'd
> really like to know where you got the information you're relying on.

Rosa Parks' obit is on the Times web page.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/national/25parks.html

> Maybe
> I'll use it to write a dissertation. I'll get ****ing famous. Bancroft Prize
> here I come.

Yeah, if I were writing a dissertation on Rosa Parks I'd omit
all references to BS, sorta or otherwise. But then I'm not on
the Bancroft committee so what do I know.

> Dan
> Who will wait for your reply while you Google "Bancroft Prize".

It's the small courtesies like that which make you so endearing.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 09:43 PM

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote ...
> Daniel-San wrote:
>> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote ...
>>>Daniel-San wrote:
>>>>... My Civil War knowledge is slightly more than cursory, so I'll stay
>>>>outta that one.
>>>
>>>Good thing, I guess. I mean so far your attempts to set
>>>the historical record straight for all us dumb "Joes" has
>>>resulted more in raised hackles than appreciation for your
>>>slightly more than cursory historical knowledge.
>>
>> Now that's a jump.
>>
>> Are you saying that what I said about Rosa Parks is incorrect?
>
> That's what I'm saying. You said "the pageantry-version of her
> story is sorta BS." I don't know what that's supposed to mean
> but there is nothing BS about the Rosa Parks story.

Here's the pageantry part:

Look at the title of this article:
http://www.grandtimes.com/rosa.html

First line of this article:
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/par0pro-1

That's pageantry. It's also BS.

She was a decent, good person who took a personal stand. Her personal stand
was used by others to create a rallying point for one of the most important
times in our history. That is not pageantry. That is not BS. That is not
incorrect, either.

>
>> If so, I'd really like to know where you got the information you're
>> relying on.
>
> Rosa Parks' obit is on the Times web page.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/national/25parks.html

Too bad the Times does not include the stories of the many people before
Parks that also took the same important stand, but were not chosen to be the
rallying point.

>
>> Maybe I'll use it to write a dissertation. I'll get ****ing famous.
>> Bancroft Prize here I come.
>
> Yeah, if I were writing a dissertation on Rosa Parks I'd omit
> all references to BS, sorta or otherwise.

> But then I'm not on
> the Bancroft committee so what do I know.

Hell, neither am I, but if I come up with something that refutes what I have
said, I'll meet the members personally. I'll let you know what they think.

>
>> Dan
>> Who will wait for your reply while you Google "Bancroft Prize".
>
> It's the small courtesies like that which make you so endearing.

Right back atcha.

Dan

>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry

October 25th, 2005, 10:36 PM

Daniel-San wrote:
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote ...
>>It's the small courtesies like that which make you so endearing.
>
> Right back atcha.

You can say that the break-in at DNC headquarters on
June 17, 1972 was nothing more than political dirty
tricks as usual. And in a sense you wouldn't be
provably incorrect. But most of us "Joes" know it as
Watergate and if you want to write a dissertation on
it you probably won't want to dismiss it as BS.

And you could have picked a better day to impress us
with your encyclopedic historical knowledge of the
Rosa Parks story.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Wayne Knight

October 25th, 2005, 10:43 PM

Daniel-San wrote:

> I've been tying them with orange EP fibers as the post.

That's Roff for you, comments calling Ms Parks the right person in the
wrong place at the right time gets you all kinds of crap but using an
orange synthetic post on an Adams goes untouched. :(

If you're going to tie parachutes use hair for the posts the way the
good Lord intended. And an orange post on an Adams? That's like putting
an ULA reel on a Summer's Cane rod, that just ain't right.

Wayne
Casting and hopefully blasting in Michigan this weekend myself.

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 10:46 PM

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote ...
> Daniel-San wrote:
>> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote ...
>>>It's the small courtesies like that which make you so endearing.
>>
>> Right back atcha.
>
> You can say that the break-in at DNC headquarters on
> June 17, 1972 was nothing more than political dirty
> tricks as usual. And in a sense you wouldn't be
> provably incorrect. But most of us "Joes" know it as
> Watergate and if you want to write a dissertation on
> it you probably won't want to dismiss it as BS.
>
> And you could have picked a better day to impress us
> with your encyclopedic historical knowledge of the
> Rosa Parks story.
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry

Ken,

Please go back and read the post I originally responded to, and then my
complete reply. I was commenting on what another person had written. I did
not bring up Parks, or her death. Please consider my original words as they
were meant -- as a reply to Mike Connor's post.

I have come to this group a few times asking for advice or information. You
even responded to one or two of my newbie FF questions. I do not seek to
impress anyone. Ever. I don't have a whole lot that's impressive. Except
maybe my wife, but that's neither here nor there.<<go ahead and insert jokes
here>>

I'm sure you have your hot button issues. I do, too. Mine include half- or
incomplete-history. I believe that wrapping anything up in pageantry is BS.
Tell the whole story or don't tell any story. Maybe that makes me an
asshole. Maybe that means I have poor timing. But I'm not apologizing for
either. At least not on ROFF.

Dan

October 25th, 2005, 10:49 PM

Tim J. wrote:
> rw typed:
>
>>Tim J. wrote:
>>
>>>Daniel-San typed:
>>>
>>>>The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
>>>>"slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.
>>>
>>>I don't think it was even much of a factor.
>>
>>That's an absolute howler. Slavery was overwhelmingly the primary
>>cause of the Civil War.
>>
>>I was fed the usual propaganda in school that it wasn't really about
>>slavery, that is was about states' rights. I later learned, after
>>educating myself in American history, that this is a rationalization
>>intended to avoid, ignore, and gloss over the country's racist slave
>>holding past. If the Civil War was about states' rights, it was about
>>the rights of states to practice slavery.
>
>
> . . .which all boiled down to economics and profits. Did slavery play a
> part? Absolutely. Was the war about slavery and the rights of oppressed
> black men and women? Nope (and that's my point.) Was it about slavery as a
> means to profit? Yes. Certainly there were those concerned with the
> aberration of slavery, but the predominant factors were financial
> considerations.

Oh, I see. It wasn't about slavery. It was about the economy of the
South, which just happened to NEED slavery (or so they thought), and
which was threatened by the abolition of slavery. The South wanted to
retain slavery for economic reasons, and the North wanted to abolish it
for moral reasons. That led to the War. Therefore, slavery was the issue
that caused the war. Q.E.D.

"Had there been no slavery, there would have been no war. Had there been
no moral condemnation of slavery, there would have been no war."
- Sydney E. Ahlstrome, A Religious History of the American People,
Yale University Press, 1972

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 10:49 PM

"Wayne Knight" wrote ...
>
> Daniel-San wrote:
>
>> I've been tying them with orange EP fibers as the post.
>
> That's Roff for you, comments calling Ms Parks the right person in the
> wrong place at the right time gets you all kinds of crap but using an
> orange synthetic post on an Adams goes untouched. :(
>

Believe me, after today, orange posts are the least of my worries.....

> If you're going to tie parachutes use hair for the posts the way the
> good Lord intended. And an orange post on an Adams? That's like putting
> an ULA reel on a Summer's Cane rod, that just ain't right.
>
> Wayne
> Casting and hopefully blasting in Michigan this weekend myself.

Whereabouts in Mich? We plan on hitting the CCC State Park area.

Dan

Ken Fortenberry

October 25th, 2005, 11:00 PM

Daniel-San wrote:
> ...
> I have come to this group a few times asking for advice or information. You
> even responded to one or two of my newbie FF questions. ...

Well, that's just tough **** for you, I never apologize on roff.

> ... Maybe that makes me an
> asshole.

Not yet, but keep trying, roff asshole is a worthy goal.

> Maybe that means I have poor timing. But I'm not apologizing for
> either. At least not on ROFF.

You have learned well.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Wayne Knight

October 25th, 2005, 11:01 PM

Daniel-San wrote:
>
> Whereabouts in Mich? We plan on hitting the CCC State Park area.
>

I ain't in charge of this trip as far as the blasting goes, the fishing
will probably be in the Grayling area.

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 11:12 PM

"Wayne Knight" wrote...
>
> Daniel-San wrote:
>>
>> Whereabouts in Mich? We plan on hitting the CCC State Park area.
>>
>
> I ain't in charge of this trip as far as the blasting goes, the fishing
> will probably be in the Grayling area.

Well, have fun. What's the blasting for? Deer season start? I was up near
the Claybanks area of the PM a couple weeks ago, and I think some kind of
bird season was happening. Woke up to shotgun blasts.

Dan
Who knows less about hunting than he does about the Civil War......

Tim J.

October 25th, 2005, 11:29 PM

rw wrote:
> Tim J. wrote:
>> rw typed:
>>
>>> Tim J. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Daniel-San typed:
>>>>
>>>>> The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?"
>>>>> with "slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the
>>>>> cause.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it was even much of a factor.
>>>
>>> That's an absolute howler. Slavery was overwhelmingly the primary
>>> cause of the Civil War.
>>>
>>> I was fed the usual propaganda in school that it wasn't really about
>>> slavery, that is was about states' rights. I later learned, after
>>> educating myself in American history, that this is a rationalization
>>> intended to avoid, ignore, and gloss over the country's racist slave
>>> holding past. If the Civil War was about states' rights, it was
>>> about the rights of states to practice slavery.
>>
>>
>> . . .which all boiled down to economics and profits. Did slavery
>> play a part? Absolutely. Was the war about slavery and the rights of
>> oppressed black men and women? Nope (and that's my point.) Was it
>> about slavery as a means to profit? Yes. Certainly there were those
>> concerned with the aberration of slavery, but the predominant
>> factors were financial considerations.
>
> Oh, I see. It wasn't about slavery. It was about the economy of the
> South, which just happened to NEED slavery (or so they thought), and
> which was threatened by the abolition of slavery. The South wanted to
> retain slavery for economic reasons, and the North wanted to abolish
> it for moral reasons. That led to the War. Therefore, slavery was the
> issue that caused the war. Q.E.D.
>
> "Had there been no slavery, there would have been no war. Had there
> been no moral condemnation of slavery, there would have been no war."
> - Sydney E. Ahlstrome, A Religious History of the American People,
> Yale University Press, 1972

"In all this I can see but the doom of slavery. The North do not want,
nor will they want, to interfere with the institution. But they will
refuse for all time to give it protection unless the South shall return
soon to their allegiance." - U.S. Grant, April 19, 1861, in a letter to
his father-in-law, Frederick Dent.

"My inclination is to whip the rebellion into submission, preserving all
Constitutional rights. If it cannot be whipped any other way than
through a war against slavery, let it come to to that legitimately. If
it is necessary that slavery should fall that the Republic may continue
its existence, let slavery go." - U.S Grant, November 27, 1861, in a
letter to his father.

"Take your Q.E.D. and shove it." Tim J, October 25, 2005, on roff, after
seeing that Sir Barnard completely looked past his original point to
make himself look expert on all things. Again.
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Daniel-San

October 25th, 2005, 11:31 PM

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ...
> Daniel-San wrote:
>> ... I have come to this group a few times asking for advice or
>> information. You even responded to one or two of my newbie FF questions.
>> ...
>
> Well, that's just tough **** for you, I never apologize on roff.
>
>> ... Maybe that makes me an asshole.
>
> Not yet, but keep trying, roff asshole is a worthy goal.
>
>> Maybe that means I have poor timing. But I'm not apologizing for either.
>> At least not on ROFF.
>
> You have learned well.
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry

You know... I just re-read my sentence on my own Civil War knowledge...
there was supposed to a 'just' before the word slightly.

Hmmmm.....

Dan

Wolfgang

October 26th, 2005, 12:12 AM

"Tim J." > wrote in message
...
> ...Sir Barnard completely looked past his original point to make himself
> look expert on all things. Again.

Which point, valid though it is, should not be construed as suggesting that
he succeeded. :)

Wolfgang
on the other hand, it doesn't necessarily make his assertion wrong either.

Wayne Knight

October 26th, 2005, 12:34 AM

"Daniel-San" > wrote in message
. ..

> Well, have fun. What's the blasting for? Deer season start? I was up near
> the Claybanks area of the PM a couple weeks ago, and I think some kind of
> bird season was happening. Woke up to shotgun blasts.

I don't hunt bambi any more, family will not eat the meat and I don;t
particularly care for tree stands. Grouse and Woodcock hunting. The
Claybanks area is a fairly productive spot for grouse and woodcock and
that's what you heard.

Wolfgang

October 26th, 2005, 12:40 AM

"Daniel-San" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> ...I'm sure you have your hot button issues. I do, too.

You're half wrong. Kennie doesn't give a **** about this.....or anything
else.....except insofar as he sees it as an opportunity to make himself look
like a real boy.

> Mine include half- or incomplete-history. I believe that wrapping anything
> up in pageantry is BS. Tell the whole story or don't tell any story.

Sometimes the whole story isn't a good story. Where history is concerned
this is more often than not the case. Sometimes you want history.
Sometimes it's nice just to hear a good story.

> Maybe that makes me an asshole.

Nah, that was done.....or not.....a long time ago.

> Maybe that means I have poor timing.

Nah, you just monkey-piled in ROFF. It happens to everybody who sticks
around long enough to acquire a taste for it. It ain't nuthin' to get
worked up about.

> But I'm not apologizing for either. At least not on ROFF.

Well, there's ample precedent for that. :)

Wolfgang

Tim J.

October 26th, 2005, 12:41 AM

Wolfgang wrote:
> "Tim J." > wrote in message
> ...
>> ...Sir Barnard completely looked past his original point to make
>> himself look expert on all things. Again.
>
> Which point, valid though it is, should not be construed as
> suggesting that he succeeded. :)
>
> Wolfgang
> on the other hand, it doesn't necessarily make his assertion wrong
> either.

.. . . except for that part about "...and The North wanted to abolish it
for moral reasons." The sides weren't *near* that clear cut except in
revisionist history writing. The South would have never seceded if they
hadn't had to pay higher interest rates to, in their minds (and could be
very well true), bail out the floundering banks in The North after the
"panic" of 1857, and ended up paying more than their fair share of
tariffs on exported raw materials. The North would have not started a
war just to end slavery because it was the right thing to do. They rode
that "moral high ground" horse mainly to, literally, rally the troops
and support. Since the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't even written
until several years after the war started, I fail to see how this
new-found morality entered into causing The Civil War.
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Daniel-San

October 26th, 2005, 12:54 AM

"Wayne Knight" wrote ...

|
| I don't hunt bambi any more, family will not eat the meat and I don;t
| particularly care for tree stands. Grouse and Woodcock hunting. The
| Claybanks area is a fairly productive spot for grouse and woodcock and
| that's what you heard.
|
|

Tis a shame -- while I know absolutely jack about hunting, I love it when
various friends stock their freezers with Bambi carcass. Most especially the
tenderloins. Dee-frickin-licious.

I've eaten grouse once or twice, enjoyed it, IIRC.

Have fun and good luck....

Dan

Wolfgang

October 26th, 2005, 01:02 AM

"Tim J." > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
>> "Tim J." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> ...Sir Barnard completely looked past his original point to make
>>> himself look expert on all things. Again.
>>
>> Which point, valid though it is, should not be construed as
>> suggesting that he succeeded. :)
>>
>> Wolfgang
>> on the other hand, it doesn't necessarily make his assertion wrong
>> either.
>
> . . . except for that part about "...and The North wanted to abolish it
> for moral reasons." The sides weren't *near* that clear cut except in
> revisionist history writing. The South would have never seceded if they
> hadn't had to pay higher interest rates to, in their minds (and could be
> very well true), bail out the floundering banks in The North after the
> "panic" of 1857, and ended up paying more than their fair share of tariffs
> on exported raw materials. The North would have not started a war just to
> end slavery because it was the right thing to do. They rode that "moral
> high ground" horse mainly to, literally, rally the troops and support.
> Since the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't even written until several
> years after the war started, I fail to see how this new-found morality
> entered into causing The Civil War.

Hm......

O.k., I'll play. :)

It's fun to think that people were simple, naive, and down-homey way back in
prehistory.......a hundred fifty years or so ago. In fact, though, they
were every bit as good at cheap rationalization as we are today. And those
who didn't have the intellectual capital to do their own rationalizing had
sense enough to get clubbed into buying whatever was being offered locally.
That said, there was a long and honorable tradition of moral outrage against
slavery both in Europe and North America for centuries before the **** hit
the fan here. Were there other problems? To be sure. But, dig through the
bull**** and trim away the fat, and there stands slavery.....alone and
naked.....at the root of every one of them. The rest is revisionist
horse****. And it's wrong. And it's disgusting.

Wolfgang

Daniel-San

October 26th, 2005, 01:03 AM

"Wolfgang" wrote ...
|
| > ...I'm sure you have your hot button issues. I do, too.
|
| You're half wrong. Kennie doesn't give a **** about this.....or anything
| else.....except insofar as he sees it as an opportunity to make himself
look
| like a real boy.

From what I've seen around here... everyone has something that sends them
thru the roof. No comment on Ken's motives -- I'm not 'roff educated' enough
on that subject.

|
| > Mine include half- or incomplete-history. I believe that wrapping
anything
| > up in pageantry is BS. Tell the whole story or don't tell any story.
|
| Sometimes the whole story isn't a good story. Where history is concerned
| this is more often than not the case. Sometimes you want history.
| Sometimes it's nice just to hear a good story.

Agreed, but when 'a good story' about something important gets propagated, a
world full of bull**** ensues. Probably some pageantry, too. If you're
interested in another line of BS, poke around for some stories about Hellen
Keller. The latter part of her life was....interesting.

|
| > Maybe that makes me an asshole.
|
| Nah, that was done.....or not.....a long time ago.

Most would go with 'done'. Really makes zero difference to me anyway. Just
don't want to ever be construed as a rascist. Almost any other label might
fit in one context or another. Rascist, however is one I'll fight.

|
| > Maybe that means I have poor timing.
|
| Nah, you just monkey-piled in ROFF. It happens to everybody who sticks
| around long enough to acquire a taste for it. It ain't nuthin' to get
| worked up about.

Fair 'nuff.

|
| > But I'm not apologizing for either. At least not on ROFF.
|
| Well, there's ample precedent for that. :)

Yes there is. I can't figure out if I enjoy this sewer of a NG or loathe it.
Sort of like the cigarette habit I recently kicked. Hated every second of
it, but loved it, too.

|
| Wolfgang
|
|

Dan

Tim J.

October 26th, 2005, 01:06 AM

Wolfgang wrote:
> "Tim J." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Wolfgang wrote:
>>> "Tim J." > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> ...Sir Barnard completely looked past his original point to make
>>>> himself look expert on all things. Again.
>>>
>>> Which point, valid though it is, should not be construed as
>>> suggesting that he succeeded. :)
>>>
>>> Wolfgang
>>> on the other hand, it doesn't necessarily make his assertion wrong
>>> either.
>>
>> . . . except for that part about "...and The North wanted to abolish
>> it for moral reasons." The sides weren't *near* that clear cut
>> except in revisionist history writing. The South would have never
>> seceded if they hadn't had to pay higher interest rates to, in their
>> minds (and could be very well true), bail out the floundering banks
>> in The North after the "panic" of 1857, and ended up paying more
>> than their fair share of tariffs on exported raw materials. The
>> North would have not started a war just to end slavery because it
>> was the right thing to do. They rode that "moral high ground" horse
>> mainly to, literally, rally the troops and support. Since the
>> Emancipation Proclamation wasn't even written until several years
>> after the war started, I fail to see how this new-found morality
>> entered into causing The Civil War.
>
> Hm......
>
> O.k., I'll play. :)
>
> It's fun to think that people were simple, naive, and down-homey way
> back in prehistory.......a hundred fifty years or so ago. In fact,
> though, they were every bit as good at cheap rationalization as we
> are today. And those who didn't have the intellectual capital to do
> their own rationalizing had sense enough to get clubbed into buying
> whatever was being offered locally. That said, there was a long and
> honorable tradition of moral outrage against slavery both in Europe
> and North America for centuries before the **** hit the fan here. Were
> there other problems? To be sure. But, dig through the
> bull**** and trim away the fat, and there stands slavery.....alone
> and naked.....at the root of every one of them. The rest is
> revisionist horse****. And it's wrong. And it's disgusting.

Agreed. It *still* didn't cause the war.
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

October 26th, 2005, 01:12 AM

Daniel-San wrote:

> I can't figure out if I enjoy this sewer of a NG or loathe it.

Wiser to do both than to wallow in indecision.

Wolfgang

October 26th, 2005, 01:18 AM

"Tim J." > wrote in message
. ..
> Wolfgang wrote:
>> "Tim J." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Wolfgang wrote:
>>>> "Tim J." > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> ...Sir Barnard completely looked past his original point to make
>>>>> himself look expert on all things. Again.
>>>>
>>>> Which point, valid though it is, should not be construed as
>>>> suggesting that he succeeded. :)
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>> on the other hand, it doesn't necessarily make his assertion wrong
>>>> either.
>>>
>>> . . . except for that part about "...and The North wanted to abolish
>>> it for moral reasons." The sides weren't *near* that clear cut
>>> except in revisionist history writing. The South would have never
>>> seceded if they hadn't had to pay higher interest rates to, in their
>>> minds (and could be very well true), bail out the floundering banks
>>> in The North after the "panic" of 1857, and ended up paying more
>>> than their fair share of tariffs on exported raw materials. The
>>> North would have not started a war just to end slavery because it
>>> was the right thing to do. They rode that "moral high ground" horse
>>> mainly to, literally, rally the troops and support. Since the
>>> Emancipation Proclamation wasn't even written until several years
>>> after the war started, I fail to see how this new-found morality
>>> entered into causing The Civil War.
>>
>> Hm......
>>
>> O.k., I'll play. :)
>>
>> It's fun to think that people were simple, naive, and down-homey way
>> back in prehistory.......a hundred fifty years or so ago. In fact,
>> though, they were every bit as good at cheap rationalization as we
>> are today. And those who didn't have the intellectual capital to do
>> their own rationalizing had sense enough to get clubbed into buying
>> whatever was being offered locally. That said, there was a long and
>> honorable tradition of moral outrage against slavery both in Europe
>> and North America for centuries before the **** hit the fan here. Were
>> there other problems? To be sure. But, dig through the
>> bull**** and trim away the fat, and there stands slavery.....alone
>> and naked.....at the root of every one of them. The rest is
>> revisionist horse****. And it's wrong. And it's disgusting.
>
> Agreed. It *still* didn't cause the war.

Then it never happened.....because sure as hell, nothing else did.

Wolfgang

Wayne Knight

October 26th, 2005, 01:23 AM

"Daniel-San" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've eaten grouse once or twice, enjoyed it, IIRC.

I've shot at grouse once or twice, never have eat one if that gives you an
idea of the dangers they face from me.

> Have fun and good luck....

Same to you.

Less than 6 months until the early Wisconsin Trout Season. <g>

Wayne

Tim J.

October 26th, 2005, 01:27 AM

Wolfgang wrote:
> "Tim J." > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Wolfgang wrote:
>>> "Tim J." > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Wolfgang wrote:
>>>>> "Tim J." > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> ...Sir Barnard completely looked past his original point to make
>>>>>> himself look expert on all things. Again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which point, valid though it is, should not be construed as
>>>>> suggesting that he succeeded. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Wolfgang
>>>>> on the other hand, it doesn't necessarily make his assertion wrong
>>>>> either.
>>>>
>>>> . . . except for that part about "...and The North wanted to
>>>> abolish it for moral reasons." The sides weren't *near* that clear
>>>> cut except in revisionist history writing. The South would have
>>>> never seceded if they hadn't had to pay higher interest rates to,
>>>> in their minds (and could be very well true), bail out the
>>>> floundering banks in The North after the "panic" of 1857, and
>>>> ended up paying more than their fair share of tariffs on exported
>>>> raw materials. The North would have not started a war just to end
>>>> slavery because it was the right thing to do. They rode that
>>>> "moral high ground" horse mainly to, literally, rally the troops
>>>> and support. Since the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't even
>>>> written until several years after the war started, I fail to see
>>>> how this new-found morality entered into causing The Civil War.
>>>
>>> Hm......
>>>
>>> O.k., I'll play. :)
>>>
>>> It's fun to think that people were simple, naive, and down-homey way
>>> back in prehistory.......a hundred fifty years or so ago. In fact,
>>> though, they were every bit as good at cheap rationalization as we
>>> are today. And those who didn't have the intellectual capital to do
>>> their own rationalizing had sense enough to get clubbed into buying
>>> whatever was being offered locally. That said, there was a long and
>>> honorable tradition of moral outrage against slavery both in Europe
>>> and North America for centuries before the **** hit the fan here.
>>> Were there other problems? To be sure. But, dig through the
>>> bull**** and trim away the fat, and there stands slavery.....alone
>>> and naked.....at the root of every one of them. The rest is
>>> revisionist horse****. And it's wrong. And it's disgusting.
>>
>> Agreed. It *still* didn't cause the war.
>
> Then it never happened.....because sure as hell, nothing else did.

Looking at it your way, births cause every man-caused problem known to
mankind. True statement. In any case, enough is enough, especially when
it's too much. You boys have fun.
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Daniel-San

October 26th, 2005, 01:28 AM

"Wayne Knight" wrote
|
| Less than 6 months until the early Wisconsin Trout Season. <g>
|
| Wayne
|
|

That is truly a comforting thought. At least Michigan isn't too far from
Chicago. And, they have the sense to keep some water open year-round.

Dan

October 26th, 2005, 01:31 AM

Tim J. wrote:
>
> . . . except for that part about "...and The North wanted to abolish it
> for moral reasons." The sides weren't *near* that clear cut except in
> revisionist history writing. The South would have never seceded if they
> hadn't had to pay higher interest rates to, in their minds (and could be
> very well true), bail out the floundering banks in The North after the
> "panic" of 1857, and ended up paying more than their fair share of
> tariffs on exported raw materials. The North would have not started a
> war just to end slavery because it was the right thing to do. They rode
> that "moral high ground" horse mainly to, literally, rally the troops
> and support. Since the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't even written
> until several years after the war started, I fail to see how this
> new-found morality entered into causing The Civil War.

Oh for God's sake. Slavery was THE burning moral issue dividing North
and South from the very founding of the country, and even before. It's
simultaneously a miracle and a disgrace that the Founding Fathers
managed to sidestep it when writing the Constitution.

The abolitionist Northern states had to accept three bitter compromises
to the South in the Constitution: the Enumeration Clause, which counted
a slave as 3/5 of a person for Congressional apportionment
(disgraceful); an express continuation of the slave trade until 1808
(when it was finally banned); and the Fugitive Slave Clause, which
required runaway slaves to be return from free states (disgraceful).

Have you even read any American writing from the early 19th century?
Don't you have any idea how moralistic those people were? They make us
look incredibly cynical by comparison. Not only Northerners were
tortured by the immorality of slavery, but so were many Southerners.

"There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our
people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce
between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous
passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading
submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate
it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all
education in him."

-- Thomas Jefferson, slaveholder

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Wolfgang

October 26th, 2005, 01:39 AM

"Daniel-San" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" wrote ...
> |
> | > ...I'm sure you have your hot button issues. I do, too.
> |
> | You're half wrong. Kennie doesn't give a **** about this.....or
> anything
> | else.....except insofar as he sees it as an opportunity to make himself
> look
> | like a real boy.
>
> From what I've seen around here... everyone has something that sends them
> thru the roof. No comment on Ken's motives -- I'm not 'roff educated'
> enough
> on that subject.
>
> |
> | > Mine include half- or incomplete-history. I believe that wrapping
> anything
> | > up in pageantry is BS. Tell the whole story or don't tell any story.
> |
> | Sometimes the whole story isn't a good story. Where history is
> concerned
> | this is more often than not the case. Sometimes you want history.
> | Sometimes it's nice just to hear a good story.
>
> Agreed, but when 'a good story' about something important gets propagated,
> a
> world full of bull**** ensues. Probably some pageantry, too. If you're
> interested in another line of BS, poke around for some stories about
> Hellen
> Keller. The latter part of her life was....interesting.

Charles Lindbergh, Henry L. Mencken, Mohandas Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Donald
Duck, John F. Kennedy, George Washington, Samuel Johnson, Jean D'Arc, a few
score Popes (not to mention some tens of thousands of other sanctified
clergymen), a pair of Elizabeths, blah, blah..........

So?

Any less bull**** here today as a result of your efforts? :)

> |
> | > Maybe that makes me an asshole.
> |
> | Nah, that was done.....or not.....a long time ago.
>
> Most would go with 'done'. Really makes zero difference to me anyway.
> Just
> don't want to ever be construed as a rascist. Almost any other label might
> fit in one context or another. Rascist, however is one I'll fight.

And at the end of the fight all that's left standing is the label. Pyrrhic
victory, anyone?

> | > Maybe that means I have poor timing.
> |
> | Nah, you just monkey-piled in ROFF. It happens to everybody who sticks
> | around long enough to acquire a taste for it. It ain't nuthin' to get
> | worked up about.
>
> Fair 'nuff.
>
> |
> | > But I'm not apologizing for either. At least not on ROFF.
> |
> | Well, there's ample precedent for that. :)
>
> Yes there is. I can't figure out if I enjoy this sewer of a NG or loathe
> it.
> Sort of like the cigarette habit I recently kicked. Hated every second of
> it, but loved it, too.

I haven't kicked the cigarette habit. Nor the ROFF habit. And I have no
intention of doing either. Aristippus of Cyrene had the right
idea....."Habeo, non habeor."

Wolfgang

Tim J.

October 26th, 2005, 01:40 AM

rw wrote:
> Tim J. wrote:
<snip>
>
> Oh for God's sake.

You are, by far, one of the most obnoxious, condescending people I have
never met. Try having a normal discussion some day without virtually
rolling your freakin' eyes.
--
BIOYA,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

October 26th, 2005, 01:55 AM

Tim J. wrote:
>
> Agreed. It *still* didn't cause the war.

I never took you for a Marxist, Tim. Your position is pure economic
determinism.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

October 26th, 2005, 02:10 AM

Tim J. wrote:

> rw wrote:
>
>>Tim J. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Oh for God's sake.
>
>
> You are, by far, one of the most obnoxious, condescending people I have
> never met. Try having a normal discussion some day without virtually
> rolling your freakin' eyes.

You only think I'm condescending because I'm pointing out your ignorance
and demolishing your illogical argument. :-)

BTW, we've never met.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Tim J.

October 26th, 2005, 02:13 AM

rw wrote:
> Tim J. wrote:
>
>> rw wrote:
>>
>>> Tim J. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Oh for God's sake.
>>
>>
>> You are, by far, one of the most obnoxious, condescending people I
>> have never met. Try having a normal discussion some day without
>> virtually rolling your freakin' eyes.
>
> You only think I'm condescending because I'm pointing out your
> ignorance and demolishing your illogical argument. :-)
>
> BTW, we've never met.

.. . . and you can't read. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Daniel-San

October 26th, 2005, 02:40 AM

October 26th, 2005, 02:41 AM

Tim J. wrote:
>
>
> . . . and you can't read. ;-)

Yes I can. Reading is one of my strong suits. You should try reading
primary sources sometime, instead of relying on Marxist and/or Neocon
propaganda. I suggest The Adams-Jefferson Letters to start.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Jeff Miller

October 26th, 2005, 02:50 AM

JR wrote:

> Daniel-San wrote:
>
>> I can't figure out if I enjoy this sewer of a NG or loathe it.
>
>
> Wiser to do both than to wallow in indecision.
>
>

oooh... i like that advice.

oblomov.

daytripper

October 26th, 2005, 03:30 AM

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:41:27 -0600, rw >
wrote:

>Tim J. wrote:
>>
>>
>> . . . and you can't read. ;-)
>
>Yes I can. Reading is one of my strong suits. You should try reading
>primary sources sometime, instead of relying on Marxist and/or Neocon
>propaganda. I suggest The Adams-Jefferson Letters to start.

You missed where he stated you have never met...

Tim J.

October 26th, 2005, 03:42 AM

daytripper wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:41:27 -0600, rw
> > wrote:
>
>> Tim J. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> . . . and you can't read. ;-)
>>
>> Yes I can. Reading is one of my strong suits. You should try reading
>> primary sources sometime, instead of relying on Marxist and/or Neocon
>> propaganda. I suggest The Adams-Jefferson Letters to start.
>
> You missed where he stated you have never met...

Killjoy. :(
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

William Claspy

October 26th, 2005, 04:09 AM

On 10/25/05 4:28 PM, in article , "Wolfgang"
> wrote:

>
> "Joe McIntosh" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>> Indian Joe suggests- if you want to enjy a real study of the race problem
>>>> in the south read new book "Blood Done Sign My Name" by Tim Tyson---he
>>>> revisits a 1970 racial murder in Oxford North Carolina and expands story
>>>> to include discussion of the "real" reasons for failure to end race
>>>> question. since the early arrival of English slave boats.
>> Wolfgang you would enjoy his character studies
>>
>> " the sumbitch sends his mother a congratulary telegram every year on his
>> own birthday. He is the only man I ever saw who can strut sitting down
>> I felt like a one legged man at an ass kicking contest-"
>
> I'll keep an eye out for it, Joe. I see it's over a year old. This makes
> it likely that it will be showing up in my usual haunts.....the bargain
> bins.....before too long. :)

You gotta start going to the library more often.

Wait.

On second thought, disregard my previous statement.

:-)

Wm

daytripper

October 26th, 2005, 04:11 AM

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:42:05 -0400, "Tim J."
> wrote:

>daytripper wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:41:27 -0600, rw
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Tim J. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> . . . and you can't read. ;-)
>>>
>>> Yes I can. Reading is one of my strong suits. You should try reading
>>> primary sources sometime, instead of relying on Marxist and/or Neocon
>>> propaganda. I suggest The Adams-Jefferson Letters to start.
>>
>> You missed where he stated you have never met...
>
>Killjoy. :(

Sorry, but no sense y'all wasting all that effort on an errant premise.

I'm sure you boys will find something more substantial to bicker about,
shortly ;-)

/daytripper ()

Wolfgang

October 26th, 2005, 10:35 AM

"daytripper" > wrote in message
...

> ...no sense y'all wasting all that effort on an errant premise.

Uh oh. Thus begins the death of ROFF. :(

Wolfgang
oh well, it was fun while it lasted.....no, it wasn't.....yes, it was.......

Conan The Librarian

October 26th, 2005, 12:56 PM

Wayne Knight wrote:

> That's Roff for you, comments calling Ms Parks the right person in the
> wrong place at the right time gets you all kinds of crap but using an
> orange synthetic post on an Adams goes untouched. :(

I'm guessing you *really* wouldn't like the para Adams I tie then.
I usually use fl. chartreuse "parapost" stuff, but have been playing
around with crystal flash in various colors.

I also have para Adams tied with calf body hair and turkey flats, if
that's any help. :-)

Chuck Vance (who ties the posts for my benefit, not the fish)

Wayne Knight

October 26th, 2005, 03:39 PM

Conan The Librarian wrote:

> I'm guessing you *really* wouldn't like the para Adams I tie then.
> I usually use fl. chartreuse "parapost" stuff, but have been playing
> around with crystal flash in various colors. [snip]
> (who ties the posts for my benefit, not the fish)

This from a guy who can wax poetic about tradition and handtools in
woodworking.

My likes or dislikes about how you tie flies is not the issue. It's
about the tradition, the good Lord meant for trout flies to be tied
with fur, hair, and feathers. Is nothing sacred these days?

Wayne
Conviently being hypocritical about using Chenile, Krystal Flash,
floss, and copper wire in his nymphs and streamers.

William Claspy

October 26th, 2005, 03:45 PM

On 10/26/05 10:39 AM, in article
. com, "Wayne Knight"
> wrote:

>
> Conan The Librarian wrote:
>
>> I'm guessing you *really* wouldn't like the para Adams I tie then.
>> I usually use fl. chartreuse "parapost" stuff, but have been playing
>> around with crystal flash in various colors. [snip]
>> (who ties the posts for my benefit, not the fish)
>
> This from a guy who can wax poetic about tradition and handtools in
> woodworking.
>
> My likes or dislikes about how you tie flies is not the issue. It's
> about the tradition, the good Lord meant for trout flies to be tied
> with fur, hair, and feathers. Is nothing sacred these days?
>
> Wayne
> Conviently being hypocritical about using Chenile, Krystal Flash,
> floss, and copper wire in his nymphs and streamers.

Not to mention that enormous pom-pom I've seen on your leader. :-)

Enjoy yourself this weekend, Wayne, and say hello to the place for me.

Bill

Conan The Librarian

October 26th, 2005, 03:50 PM

Wayne Knight wrote:

> Conan The Librarian wrote:
>
>> I'm guessing you *really* wouldn't like the para Adams I tie then.
>>I usually use fl. chartreuse "parapost" stuff, but have been playing
>>around with crystal flash in various colors. [snip]
>>(who ties the posts for my benefit, not the fish)
>
> This from a guy who can wax poetic about tradition and handtools in
> woodworking.

Heh. Good one.

> My likes or dislikes about how you tie flies is not the issue. It's
> about the tradition, the good Lord meant for trout flies to be tied
> with fur, hair, and feathers. Is nothing sacred these days?

I know what you mean. The next thing you know, folks will be using
graphite rods, nylon leaders and plastic flylines.

> Wayne
> Conviently being hypocritical about using Chenile, Krystal Flash,
> floss, and copper wire in his nymphs and streamers.

Hey, it's only hypocritical if the other guy does it. :-)

Chuck Vance

October 26th, 2005, 04:00 PM

Wayne Knight wrote:
> Conan The Librarian wrote:
>
>
>> I'm guessing you *really* wouldn't like the para Adams I tie then.
>>I usually use fl. chartreuse "parapost" stuff, but have been playing
>>around with crystal flash in various colors. [snip]
>>(who ties the posts for my benefit, not the fish)
>
>
> This from a guy who can wax poetic about tradition and handtools in
> woodworking.
>
> My likes or dislikes about how you tie flies is not the issue. It's
> about the tradition, the good Lord meant for trout flies to be tied
> with fur, hair, and feathers. Is nothing sacred these days?

Nothing is sacred. Different people have different likes and dislikes.
For example, I really like the imaginative use of modern synthetic
materials in flies, and I thought those plastic "eggs" we were using in
Alaska were cool -- perfect imitations. Let a million flowers bloom.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Wayne Knight

October 26th, 2005, 04:13 PM

William Claspy wrote:
>
> Not to mention that enormous pom-pom I've seen on your leader. :-)
>

Hey, I only use *real* yarn on those pom-pom's. Doesn't your local
sheep farm have neon green sheep too?

Thanks Bill

Wayne

Wayne Knight

October 26th, 2005, 04:14 PM

Conan The Librarian wrote:

> know what you mean. The next thing you know, folks will be using
> graphite rods, nylon leaders and plastic flylines.

Just what is this sport coming to?

Wayne Knight

October 26th, 2005, 04:35 PM

rw wrote:

> Nothing is sacred.

I expected a answer along this line from you (that's not an attack) but
if take a step back and re-read some of your own posts, even to you
some things are sacred. It may be some political or moral idea, another
area outside of fishing, or whatever else floats your boat. The good
librarian residing in Texas has different standards for his woodworking
tools than his flies and rods. Me, I think tradition in trout fishing
is sacred. While foam bodies, plastic eggs, and synthetic posts may be
easier to tie; to me tradition counts for something and I wish they
(the synthetics)could be outlawed in a trout fly.

Similar to fly fishing for warm water fish IMO, I've been out probably
50-60 times since Spring fishing for bass and bream with a fly rod this
year. I only slowed it down recently because I broke my foot helping a
neighbor move a huge china cabinet and it just recently healed. It was
fun, I rarely got skunked and actually had a few small mouth and big
bream put up a halfway decent fight on the three and four weights. It's
fishing, but the tackle doesn't really match the species in a
traditional sense and I use the fly rod more than anything else just to
enjoy the stroke of casting and to keep in practice for the few times I
can go chase a trout. Trout being the reason I took up fly fishing in
the first place. And that's not a knock on those who prefer those
species with a fly rod.

I suppose you use the leatherman as a vice too? ;)

>Let a million flowers bloom.

Only until they get covered with all the discarded synthetics eh?

Jeff Taylor

October 26th, 2005, 04:52 PM

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> Whether or not is was long ago depends in part on where you're looking
> from.

Very true, not living through that time, it's difficult for me to realize
there was segregation on buses not that long ago...

> Many of us here in ROFF were born before the incident. For those who
> remember it (I thought I did, but looking at the date proves it highly
> unlikely) it must seem a lot further in the past than anything they have
> to look forward to is in the future. :)

I guess that is true for me as well, it's all relative I suppose.

> Anyway, it appears that even in death Ms. Parks hasn't lost her ability to
> act as a catalyst in stirring up a bit of a ruckus......however
> unwittingly. Beyond the familiar broad outlines of her story, I know very
> little about her.......but I like to think that the tempest brewing in our
> little teacup would bring a smile to her lips.

She's going out with a bang on ROFF... :)

JT

October 26th, 2005, 04:59 PM

Wayne Knight wrote:
> rw wrote:
>
>
>>Nothing is sacred.
>
>
> I expected a answer along this line from you (that's not an attack) but
> if take a step back and re-read some of your own posts, even to you
> some things are sacred.

Nothing is sacred to me, because Im an atheist, but I have preferences
like anyone else.

> The good
> librarian residing in Texas has different standards for his woodworking
> tools than his flies and rods. Me, I think tradition in trout fishing
> is sacred. While foam bodies, plastic eggs, and synthetic posts may be
> easier to tie; to me tradition counts for something and I wish they
> (the synthetics)could be outlawed in a trout fly.

It's not the "easier to tie" aspect that interests me -- it's the
creative use of new materials to make better imitations or better
attractors.

If you restricted yourself to "natural" materials with sal****er flies,
you'd be at a serious disadvantage. For trout flies it probably doesn't
matter that much, if you discount the "easier to tie" aspect. :-)

>
> I suppose you use the leatherman as a vice too? ;)

I use a Renzetti Sal****er Traveler. Love it. It can handle a huge range
of hook sizes.

Take care of that foot, Wayne.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Conan The Librarian

October 26th, 2005, 06:44 PM

Wayne Knight wrote:

> rw wrote:
>
>>Nothing is sacred.
>
> I expected a answer along this line from you (that's not an attack) but
> if take a step back and re-read some of your own posts, even to you
> some things are sacred. It may be some political or moral idea, another
> area outside of fishing, or whatever else floats your boat. The good
> librarian residing in Texas has different standards for his woodworking
> tools than his flies and rods. Me, I think tradition in trout fishing
> is sacred. While foam bodies, plastic eggs, and synthetic posts may be
> easier to tie; to me tradition counts for something and I wish they
> (the synthetics)could be outlawed in a trout fly.

This made me stop and think about how I approach woodworking vs. fly
fishing. I think it can be summed up by offering this aside: When I
first started woodworking, I got caught up in the powertool side of
things. As I started to make more things, I realized that I was
spending too much of my time setting up jigs and too little actually
*working* wood.

Gradually I started honing (no pun intended) my handtool skills
until I felt confident I could do all of the tasks necessary by hand. I
enjoyed the process more, and I consider myself a more well-rounded
woodworker. This "de-evolution" was only possible because I became a
better woodworker.

With fly fishing, I'm still in a relative newbie state; I don't
consider myself to have learned enough about it to be able to settle
into the "right" way for me. I fully intend to get my hands on a bamboo
rod, silk line and horsehair leader (just kidding about the last one)
and see if that really is the path I want to follow.

With tying, I've got decent skills, but due to the majority of my
fishing being warm water, I am currently not locked in to a Catskill
dries or nothing style of tying/fishing. Maybe some day I'll live on a
trout stream and devolve to that point. Only time will tell. :-)

As for the issue of synthetics for parachute posts -- I use them
because I can find a wide variety of easily visible colors; the post is
just for me to sight the fly. I have some arctic fox hair dyed
chartreuse that I've played around a bit with. Would that be OK from a
purist standpoint since it's natural? :-)

Chuck Vance