worth thinking about
 

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:20:38 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.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! :)

Well **** fire and save matches! We actually agree on something...yes,
it is pretty funny, but because it is per your usual, wrong. It seemed
clear what Fiddleaway meant without his explaining it: "it clearly
prohibits itself," implying that a "law" (the clause) prohibiting the
passing of such a law would be prohibited by the law, but striking down
the "law" would then make the "law" OK, except it wouldn't be "law"
anymore because it was struck down, but trying to repass it would simply
start the whole thing over, and thus, would present a "Catch-22." Except
it doesn't because the clause isn't "a law" in the sense contemplated by
the clause. And as such, there is nothing to create the Catch-22 or
"paradoxically humorous point." I didn't respond to his (mistaken)
implication of a paradox, I responded to his explanation - "but the
clause itself can be viewed as a 'law respecting an establishment of
religion'"

And you still owe me a nickel...

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.

Now THAT is funny...if you only knew how much...

worth thinking about
 

Wolfgang wrote
Fiddleaway had already made it pretty clear (twice) that
his little proposition was a joke...

Thanks for clarifying ... I had hoped to just let the thing die, but it got
a life of it's own.

Actually, my original quip was a weak attempt to comment on the "clarity"
of The Clause claimed by rw.

My experience in hearing people talk about the Constitution is that one
man's clarity is another's fuzzy logic.

For me, going from "the Congress shall make no law" to "a public school
teacher shall not lead student volunteers in prayer during classtime" is a
big step; not a simple application of clarity

-dnc-

worth thinking about
 

"Fiddleaway" wrote

My experience in hearing people talk about the Constitution is that one
man's clarity is another's fuzzy logic.

true, indeed; and the primary reason why folks like myself can make a
living.

and if you think the jurisprudence engendered by the first amendment is
unclear, have a look at that associated with the fourth amendment.

yfitons
wayno

worth thinking about
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:20:38 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


wrote in message
groups.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! :)

Well **** fire and save matches! We actually agree on something...yes,
it is pretty funny, but because it is per your usual, wrong. It seemed
clear what Fiddleaway meant without his explaining it: "it clearly
prohibits itself," implying that a "law" (the clause) prohibiting the
passing of such a law would be prohibited by the law, but striking down
the "law" would then make the "law" OK, except it wouldn't be "law"
anymore because it was struck down, but trying to repass it would simply
start the whole thing over, and thus, would present a "Catch-22." Except
it doesn't because the clause isn't "a law" in the sense contemplated by
the clause. And as such, there is nothing to create the Catch-22 or
"paradoxically humorous point." I didn't respond to his (mistaken)
implication of a paradox, I responded to his explanation - "but the
clause itself can be viewed as a 'law respecting an establishment of
religion'"

And you still owe me a nickel...

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.

Now THAT is funny...if you only knew how much...

Explain it to me.

Wolfgang

worth thinking about
 

"Fiddleaway" wrote in message
news:01c646ff$21866b20$8bfe1345@micron...
Wolfgang wrote
Fiddleaway had already made it pretty clear (twice) that
his little proposition was a joke...

Thanks for clarifying ... I had hoped to just let the thing die, but it
got
a life of it's own.

Actually, my original quip was a weak attempt to comment on the "clarity"
of The Clause claimed by rw.

My experience in hearing people talk about the Constitution is that one
man's clarity is another's fuzzy logic.

For me, going from "the Congress shall make no law" to "a public school
teacher shall not lead student volunteers in prayer during classtime" is a
big step; not a simple application of clarity

Ah! I see. NEITHER of you had any idea of what either was saying. Oh,
goody! These are my favorites. I'll just sit back and watch........for a
while.......maybe. :)

Wolfgang

worth thinking about
 

"Fiddleaway" wrote in message
news:01c646f7$759986a0$8bfe1345@micron...
wrote

Yeah, yeah, yeah...whatever - I want my Goddamned nickel!

Which quite logically, you're owed. .... Unless Dubyah was speaking
metaphorically
-dnc-
who wishes he had a shiny nickel for every bag of flaming **** deposited
herein.

Refresh my memory. What exactly have you contributed here since your
return.......aside from a bunch of little flaming bags of ****, starting as
you came through the door?

Wolfgang
fiddledeedee.

worth thinking about
 

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:37:15 -0600, "Fiddleaway"
wrote:

Wolfgang wrote
Fiddleaway had already made it pretty clear (twice) that
his little proposition was a joke...

Thanks for clarifying ... I had hoped to just let the thing die, but it got
a life of it's own.

Actually, my original quip was a weak attempt to comment on the "clarity"
of The Clause claimed by rw.

My experience in hearing people talk about the Constitution is that one
man's clarity is another's fuzzy logic.

For me, going from "the Congress shall make no law" to "a public school
teacher shall not lead student volunteers in prayer during classtime" is a
big step;

How so?

not a simple application of clarity

Why do you feel it is not? What purpose other than religious can there
be in a public (in the US sense - IOW, a government institution) school
teacher leading students in prayer during classtime, whether they
"volunteer" or not? And note that private (again, in the US sense)
schools can ask the kids, the teachers, the parents, and the guy who
delivers the food to the cafeteria to pray every 17 seconds if they
wish. Once the SC decided that it applied to States, the legislatures
were bound by the same rule as "Congress." Before that, States had
"official religions" and all sorts of other religious matter. But it
ain't the "symbol" itself that gets things popped, it's the intent -
Muhammad, Confucius, and Moses are "lawgivers," and the Ten Commandments
are laws, and as such, they can be Constitutionally OK. But when a law
attempts to put them into a religious context, then it becomes a
problem. If you're interested, Google up "Supreme Court Lemon test" and
go from there, including cases that tend to get away from it.

TC,
R

worth thinking about
 

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:10:24 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:

Now THAT is funny...if you only knew how much...

Explain it to me.

Not until I get my nickel, you welsher! (I can't imagine you're reading
this nonsense, but if you are - sorry, Bill...at least I didn't
capitalize it...)

worth thinking about
 

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:43:48 GMT, "Wayne Harrison"
wrote:


"Fiddleaway" wrote

My experience in hearing people talk about the Constitution is that one
man's clarity is another's fuzzy logic.

true, indeed; and the primary reason why folks like myself can make a
living.

and if you think the jurisprudence engendered by the first amendment is
unclear, have a look at that associated with the fourth amendment.

Um, "engendered" and "well-considered" rarely seem to share the same
pleadings in the modern system, even by accident...which goes a long way
to summarize why I chose the study rather than the practice...I mean,
judges don't seem to take it particularly well if you slap the **** out
of them and say "What the **** are thinking?!"...

yfitons

right back at ya...well, except for the "itons" part...
R

worth thinking about
 

Wolfgang wrote:

"Fiddleaway" wrote in message
news:01c646f7$759986a0$8bfe1345@micron...

wrote


Yeah, yeah, yeah...whatever - I want my Goddamned nickel!

Which quite logically, you're owed. .... Unless Dubyah was speaking
metaphorically
-dnc-
who wishes he had a shiny nickel for every bag of flaming **** deposited
herein.


Refresh my memory. What exactly have you contributed here since your
return.......aside from a bunch of little flaming bags of ****, starting as
you came through the door?

Wolfgang
fiddledeedee.

Compared to your contributions I'd say he's contributed infinitely more.
Hell even I've contributed more than you have.