The end of the line.
 

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

The end of the line.
 

"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".

The end of the line.
 

"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/par...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

The end of the line.
 

"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-"

The end of the line.
 

"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

The end of the line.
 

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

The end of the line.
 

"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

The end of the line.
 

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

The end of the line.
 

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.

The end of the line.
 

"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

The end of the line.
 

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.

The end of the line.
 

"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

The end of the line.
 

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

The end of the line.
 

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.

The end of the line.
 

"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......

The end of the line.
 

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/

The end of the line.
 

"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

The end of the line.
 

"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.

The end of the line.
 

"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.

The end of the line.
 

"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

The end of the line.
 

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/

The end of the line.
 

"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

The end of the line.
 

"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

The end of the line.
 

"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

The end of the line.
 

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/

The end of the line.
 

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.

The end of the line.
 

"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

The end of the line.
 

"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

The end of the line.
 

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/

The end of the line.
 

"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

The end of the line.
 

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.

The end of the line.
 

"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

The end of the line.
 

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/

The end of the line.
 

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.

The end of the line.
 

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.

The end of the line.
 

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/

The end of the line.
 

"Wolfgang" wrote ...
|
| "Daniel-San"
| "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?

I think people should find the whole story before deciding on something.
Seems simple to me. Why decide an opinion based on half truths? To each his
own, I guess.

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

No. The supply here (and elsewhere) is entropic in its growth. Ever
expanding universe and all.

|
| |
| | 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?

See below....

|
| | 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.

I have a feeling you take advice quitting smoking in much the same way I
take advice about shutting up rather than seek a pyrrhic victory. Yeah, it
makes sense, but I ain't gonna do it.


Aristippus of Cyrene had the right
| idea....."Habeo, non habeor."
|

Me no speaky the Greek. English mostly. Spanish mostly. Greek... none. Well,
I guess Gyros, spanokopita, and Ouzo, but not much else.

((****, that's Latin, ain't it? Don't speak that one, either))

| Wolfgang
|
Dan

The end of the line.
 

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.

The end of the line.
 

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.

The end of the line.
 

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...