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...