worth thinking about
 

"Joe Smith" wrote in message
. ..
Wolfgang wrote:

"Joe Smith" wrote in message
. ..

rw wrote:


Joe Smith wrote:


Oh don't oversell yourself. You're no bother. I've dealt with
worse trolls than you.


Wolfgang isn't a troll.

He's an institution. :-)


Or at the very least should be in one.


Comic genius.

Wolfgang
how DO they do it?

When you've got funny material, it just writes itself.

Like the man said; once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever
remains, however improbable, is the truth.

Wolfgang

worth thinking about
 

Wolfgang wrote:

"Joe Smith" wrote in message
...

Wolfgang wrote:

That's the second step to recovery, admitting that you have a problem.


Problem?

$0.05

I do, I do.


Well, that makes roughly two of you.

And he can count.


I'm actually pretty good at it.

But everyone complains about the stench when you have to
count above 10.


it's obvious that they believe what they say.


Kennie doesn't believe in anything.......and dicklet doesn't say
anything.

Show me where I said that did.


Show me where I said that you said that did.

You did.


Did what?

Show me where you said I did.


On this board, you're just a pitiful little person.


Yeah, not the sort of thing you'd bother with.......right?

Oh don't oversell yourself. You're no bother. I've dealt with
worse trolls than you.


Worse? Yet, somehow, I managed to lure you not only into this thread, but
another as well........and without posting a single word.

Oh no, you've lured me into this dreaded quagmire. How ever shall I
escape? Betcha you respond to this. You just can't help yourself
can you.

The boy just won't learn.

worth thinking about
 

Wolfgang wrote:

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

By the way, did you call me yesterday?......or did I have a really odd
fever induced dream? :(


Yup, I called.


Whew! I was asleep again seconds after you called. Woke up about an hour
later and had forgotten about it completely. Stumbled about the house for a
few hours and then crashed again. Just as I was falling asleep around 9:30
I thought I heard the phone ring. Sat bolt upright in bed, said
"huh?.....Wayne?" and collapsed again. Woke up in the morning and didn't
remember any of it.

Hm......come to think of it, this must all have been Friday, not yesterday.
Yesterday was kind of foggy too, though. Last night, with a steely
determination born of desparation, I even tried what my Romanian/Californian
friend calls the "hat cure". You lie in bed on your back with a hat perched
on one foot (he didn't specify which foot......I don't think it matters) and
then drink whiskey till you see two hats. Didn't have any whiskey. Used
red wine. Didn't work......ran out of wine. :(

So, like, I got the ****in' plague ain't enough!......Becky hauls my still
feverish ass out of bed at 7:00 this morning and says "Come on. You're
going to yoga with me!" "huh?......yoga?" quoth I, rather wittily (I think)
considering the circumstances. "It's good for you." Well.....yeah.....I
guess.....sit on a mat, do a little deep
breathing....meditate....chant....whatever.....can 't hurt, I s'pose. Sweet
merciful Christ, they like ta ****in' killed me! I got twisted....I got
stretched....I got pummeled! I did down dogs, up dogs, warrior stances,
crows, pigeons and whatnot all animals.

"Turn your head." she says.
"Like this?" sez I.
"No, like THIS!"
"AAAAAAAAAHHH! AAAAAAAAHHHH! AAAAAAAAHHH!"
"Now, look down."
"Down? Um.....what are those bumps?"
"Those are your vertebrae."
"Vertebrae? AAAAAAAAAHHH! AAAAAAAAHHH! AAAAAAAHHH!"
"Oh, stop being silly!"
"Silly? Where's my left leg?"
"Right there!"
"Th.....? AAAAAAAHHH! AAAAAAAAAHHH! AAAAAAAAHHH!

I escaped......eventually......well, most of me.

Anyway, it all came back in a flash.....um.....well, o.k., sort of a dull
fizz to be more precise.....when I saw your name on the screen this morning.


I owe you half a lunch.


Fat lot of good it's gonna do me. I think the perky little Nazi
torturer/instructor sent my intestines out to be laundered or
something......I don't know.....all day I've been afraid to look down there.
:(

Wolfgang



that was funny. ...but, um, we won't be doing yoga or pasties in sept,
right?

jeff

worth thinking about
 

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:44:55 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:41:41 -0600, "Fiddleaway"
wrote:

rw wrote
How do you figure?

Well ... I was kinda bein cutsie (hence the smiley) ... but the clause
itself can be viewed as a "law respecting an establishment of religion"

No, it can't. "Congress" didn't "make" the Bill of Rights in the sense
contemplated by the Amendment, it proposed it to the legislatures of the
States. But in any case, the Bill of Rights (the 1st ten amendments)
is/are not law(s), it/they is/are a bar against Federal (and now, as
decided by the SCOTUS, State and local) action that the law promulgated
must follow, not laws made that citizens must follow.

And a close study of what the SC has popped as prohibited by the 1st
will show that, for the most part, they've been right, but it's not
their job to consult with a State's legislature while they draft law, it
is, generally speaking, their job to tell them when they've done it
improperly.

Good God, you are dim.

Well, maybe yes, maybe no, but IAC, at least not as dim as some - _I_
don't owe _you_ a shiny new nickel - see below...

Wolfgang
who would bet a shiny new nickel that the boy gets a flaming bag of **** on
his porch every day.......with mind numbingly predictable results.

Cool...free money...OK, bet accepted...yet again, you lose...please
FedEx my nickel.

worth thinking about
 

"Jeff Miller" wrote in message
news:JgdRf.31222$2c4.1515@dukeread11...

that was funny. ...but, um, we won't be doing yoga or pasties in sept,
right?

Hm......I'll have to get back to you on that. Gotta check the
pantry......after I finish inventorying my remaining body parts. :(

Wolfgang

worth thinking about
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

Wolfgang wrote:

Good God, you are dim.


What was wrong with it ?

I assume, by virtue of your use of the past tense, that you mean to ask what
was wrong with dicklet's analysis rather than what is still wrong with him
which, while it would make for a fascinating exploration, far exceeds in
scope what we could conveniently deal with here in a single thread. And
so.....

In the first place, Fiddleaway had already made it pretty clear (twice) that
his little proposition was a joke. Restating the proposition as: "the
clause
itself can be viewed as a 'law respecting an establishment of religion'",
recasts it as a simple logical parlor trick.. Of course, one CAN take such
things seriously. One sees it happen every day in junior high schools (or
their equivalents) around the world. And it's a beautiful thing to behold
in its proper milieu......young minds grappling with difficult ideas like
paradox using nothing more than their own wits and a fractious language.

However, for dicklet to take it seriously under the circumstances is much
like taking seriously a defense against a plagiarism charge based on the
proposition that the defendant was lying when he took the oath promising to
tell the truth, the whole truth (now, THAT would be a marvel to behold
sometime!) etc. He wasn't really under oath because the promise wasn't
sincere. And he can't be prosecuted for lying while taking the oath because
he wasn't under oath at the time. The logic is unassailable......regardless
of the fact that the argument ain't likely to fly very high or very far in
court.

BUT!, you may interject, the ineffable beauty of the logic notwithstanding,
my example has absolutely nothing to do with the question under
consideration! Exactly! Elegant.....and serious....but entirely
irrelevant.

So?

So, dicklet can take Fiddleaway's proposition as seriously as he likes, and
he can take whatever position he pleases with respect to it, and he can
support his position however he sees fit.

Now, we simply take another look at the proposition: "the clause itself can
be viewed as a 'law respecting an establishment of religion.'" This is
undeniably and demonstrably true. The clause in question (or any other for
that matter) can be viewed however one chooses to view it......just as
dicklet can undeniably and demonstrably take the proposition seriously if he
so chooses. The trouble is that, as I just demonstrated, this makes his
response, "No, it can't.", just plain flat wrong.....and his supporting
argument has absolutely nothing to do with the question under consideration.
As always, dicklet at his most serious is irrelevant......but screamingly
funny. :)

Wolfgang

worth thinking about
 

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:16:45 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

Wolfgang wrote:

Good God, you are dim.


What was wrong with it ?

I assume, by virtue of your use of the past tense, that you mean to ask what
was wrong with dicklet's analysis rather than what is still wrong with him
which, while it would make for a fascinating exploration, far exceeds in
scope what we could conveniently deal with here in a single thread. And
so.....

In the first place, Fiddleaway had already made it pretty clear (twice) that
his little proposition was a joke. Restating the proposition as: "the
clause
itself can be viewed as a 'law respecting an establishment of religion'",
recasts it as a simple logical parlor trick.. Of course, one CAN take such
things seriously. One sees it happen every day in junior high schools (or
their equivalents) around the world. And it's a beautiful thing to behold
in its proper milieu......young minds grappling with difficult ideas like
paradox using nothing more than their own wits and a fractious language.

However, for dicklet to take it seriously under the circumstances is much
like taking seriously a defense against a plagiarism charge based on the
proposition that the defendant was lying when he took the oath promising to
tell the truth, the whole truth (now, THAT would be a marvel to behold
sometime!) etc. He wasn't really under oath because the promise wasn't
sincere. And he can't be prosecuted for lying while taking the oath because
he wasn't under oath at the time. The logic is unassailable......regardless
of the fact that the argument ain't likely to fly very high or very far in
court.

BUT!, you may interject, the ineffable beauty of the logic notwithstanding,
my example has absolutely nothing to do with the question under
consideration! Exactly! Elegant.....and serious....but entirely
irrelevant.

So?

So, dicklet can take Fiddleaway's proposition as seriously as he likes, and
he can take whatever position he pleases with respect to it, and he can
support his position however he sees fit.

Now, we simply take another look at the proposition: "the clause itself can
be viewed as a 'law respecting an establishment of religion.'" This is
undeniably and demonstrably true. The clause in question (or any other for
that matter) can be viewed however one chooses to view it......just as
dicklet can undeniably and demonstrably take the proposition seriously if he
so chooses. The trouble is that, as I just demonstrated, this makes his
response, "No, it can't.", just plain flat wrong.....and his supporting
argument has absolutely nothing to do with the question under consideration.
As always, dicklet at his most serious is irrelevant......but screamingly
funny. :)

Wolfgang

Yeah, yeah, yeah...whatever - I want my Goddamned nickel! Shenanigans!
Shenanigans! Get the brooms! Get the brooms!

worth thinking about
 

Wolfgang wrote:
I assume, by virtue of your use of the past tense, that you mean to ask what
was wrong with dicklet's analysis rather than what is still wrong with him
which, while it would make for a fascinating exploration, far exceeds in
scope what we could conveniently deal with here in a single thread. And
so.....

I detect a friendly insult buried somewhere in that verbiage, but
yes, your interpretation of the subject of my question is correct.

As always, dicklet at his most serious is irrelevant......but screamingly
funny. :)

He can be very funny and what's even better, he is trying to be
so, much of the time. At the same time, I think that he made a
very good point in that post, one which escapes most people.

worth thinking about
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

Wolfgang wrote:
I assume, by virtue of your use of the past tense, that you mean to ask
what
was wrong with dicklet's analysis rather than what is still wrong with
him
which, while it would make for a fascinating exploration, far exceeds in
scope what we could conveniently deal with here in a single thread. And
so.....

I detect a friendly insult buried somewhere in that verbiage, but
yes, your interpretation of the subject of my question is correct.

Not so friendly......but it wasn't directed at you. :)

As always, dicklet at his most serious is irrelevant......but screamingly
funny. :)

He can be very funny and what's even better, he is trying to be
so, much of the time.

There's no accounting for tastes, they say. I find his efforts to impress,
to obfuscate, to dissemble, to dodge and to bull**** absolutely hilarious.
Honestly. The rest is tedious.

At the same time, I think that he made a
very good point in that post, one which escapes most people.

A good enough point.....if it had been to the point. But he can't have it
both ways. Actually, he can't have it either way. He missed the obvious
paradoxically humorous point.....despite the fact that it was pointed out to
him.....twice.....and he missed only slightly less glaring philosophical
point. And then, to top it all off, he simply dismissed the point he never
even SAW and defended the action with a not particularly insightful (however
many people it may escape) disquisition on the roles of the constitution and
the supreme court, AND informed us (much to our edification.....and relief)
that the latter were right......mostly. AND he was (also obviously)
blithely unaware of ANY of this the whole while.

Now, THAT is funny! :)

Wolfgang
who, were he one of them rich hollywood liberals that terrify the boy so
(and rightly), would PAY him to write his stuff......and see to it that it
was disseminated as widely as possible.

worth thinking about