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