Biking w/o Cindy Sheehan

gwhite wrote:
Unrelated to this thread, I have a planned investment/commitment
beginning Wednesday and continuing for years if things go well. It will
require intense and sustained effort. Due to this, I will not be
posting to or reading the usenet, starting Thursday, at the latest.

Good luck.

Any chance you could let Lafferty in on it?

Bob Schwartz

Michael Press wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
Irony is a form of humor. It needs a person to produce it.
Irony is not to be found the way one picks seashells on
the beach.

Irony uses statement of facts to promote exclusiveness:
entertaining the inner circle by heaping ridicule upon the
outer circle in such a way as to mystify the OC.
To put an entirely fine point on it, you did not make a
humorous remark of any sort. How's your ass?

The internet resulted from government funded research. gwhite claimed
that government funded research should not exist, but he made this claim
on the Internet. Has your grok level improved ?

Yes, thanks for explaining it. The state of affairs Bob
Schwartz refers to is not irony, not ironic; cannot be by
definition. Had he made fun of gwhite's apparently
inconsistent position, that would have been humor. Had he
done it in such a way as to keep gwhite in the dark as to
what he was doing, _that_ would be irony.

Ever notice that in that Alanis Morrissette song, none
of the things that she says are ironic actually are?

Rhetoricians recognize, at a minimum, four types of irony,
Socratic, dramatic, verbal irony, and irony of fate.
These are related to the definitions heather posted.

Socratic and dramatic irony require a contrast between the
ignorant audience and the audience which perceives the
irony: in Socratic irony the philosopher essentially
pretends to be ignorant, while in dramatic irony it's the
characters in the play who are ignorant of the contradiction
in their situation, though the theater audience can see it.
A friend of mine gave the example of Oedipus, vowing to kill
the king.

Verbal irony is saying one thing and expecting the
audience to realize that you mean the opposite, as in
Mark Antony's "honorable men" speech which you quoted.

Irony of fate is like dramatic irony, but without a play -
when Fate plays you for a fool in real life. One verbal way
to do this is to place yourself in the role of Oedipus, making
an utterance whose contradictory nature only those around you
can see. This is what Schwartz claimed Greg was doing.

There's a fifth, little-known type of irony: RBR irony.
That's when you sincerely lecture other people about what
the meaning of irony is. I, of course, would never do
such a thing.

Ben

You may or may not have noticed that rbr hosts some
accomplished users of irony. Half the fun is discerning
who is in on the joke.

"Here, under leave of Brutus, and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man,
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral."

In article et,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

NOW we see that the Clintonistas put their Liberal philosophy ABOVE the
security of the USA and forbad US Military Intelligence from transfering a
list of 60 names to the FBI for investigation. On that list were 4 of the
highjackers involved in 9/11 including Mohamed Atta himself!

By the way, this is factually incorrect. The mistake you're making is
thinking that the Gorelick Memo prevented info exchange between the FBI and the
Dept. of Defense. It does nothing of the sort; it is a definition of procedures
for info exchange between the FBI and the criminal division of the Dept. of
Justice.

"The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the
Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines
had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it
from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else."
- 9/11 Commissioner Slade Gordon


As far as the list actually having M. Atta's name on it, well, the guy who
has been pushing that theory, Sen. Weldon, has changed his story any number of
times. And, more importantly, the guy who made the original claim, Lt. Col.
Shaffer, has not been able to offer any proof of his claims.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050822/1/3uexl.html

-------------
A Pentagon review has so far found no evidence that a secret intelligence
operation identified Mohammad Atta as a member of a US-based Al-Qaeda cell
before the September 11, 2001 attacks, a spokesman said.

Representative Curt Weldon and Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer have
charged that Atta and three other September 11 hijackers were identified as
early as mid-2000 through a data-mining program codenamed "Able Danger."

But Lawrence DiRita, a Pentagon spokesman, said a review of materials related
to Able Danger has so far turned up no evidence that it identified Atta, the
reputed leader of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
-------------

Your MO is always "Blame Clinton First".

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck wrote:
In article et,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

NOW we see that the Clintonistas put their Liberal philosophy ABOVE the
security of the USA and forbad US Military Intelligence from transfering a
list of 60 names to the FBI for investigation. On that list were 4 of the
highjackers involved in 9/11 including Mohamed Atta himself!

By the way, this is factually incorrect. The mistake you're making is
thinking that the Gorelick Memo prevented info exchange between the FBI and the
Dept. of Defense. It does nothing of the sort; it is a definition of procedures
for info exchange between the FBI and the criminal division of the Dept. of
Justice.

"The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the
Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines
had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it
from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else."
- 9/11 Commissioner Slade Gordon


As far as the list actually having M. Atta's name on it, well, the guy who
has been pushing that theory, Sen. Weldon, has changed his story any number of
times. And, more importantly, the guy who made the original claim, Lt. Col.
Shaffer, has not been able to offer any proof of his claims.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050822/1/3uexl.html

-------------
A Pentagon review has so far found no evidence that a secret intelligence
operation identified Mohammad Atta as a member of a US-based Al-Qaeda cell
before the September 11, 2001 attacks, a spokesman said.

Representative Curt Weldon and Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer have
charged that Atta and three other September 11 hijackers were identified as
early as mid-2000 through a data-mining program codenamed "Able Danger."

But Lawrence DiRita, a Pentagon spokesman, said a review of materials related
to Able Danger has so far turned up no evidence that it identified Atta, the
reputed leader of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
-------------

Your MO is always "Blame Clinton First".

--
tanx,
Howard


Howard you're mostly right. I was listening to a discussion of this
stuff last night, especially since the Navy Capt. has come out backing
Schaeffer we need to get the truth, but I don't see it happening.
Whenever the Pentagon investigates itself, it's just amazing how they
come out clean every time. No matter how much eveidence they have to
ignore and shred.
Anyway the only thing everyone involved could agree on was that the
rules that prevented the sharing of this info were rooted in the
reorganization after the Church Committee hearings. The idea was to
prevent US Military, CIA, and other assets from being used against
Americans inside the US. This firewall is nothing new and had nothing
to do with the Clinton Administration. The other thing people aren't
taking into account were the rivalries between the different agencies
and their intense dislike of the FBI and Justice Dept. I believe that
they very well may have had this info and didn't pass it on, and are
now going into CYA mode. I'm sure that tons of this **** has been
shredded already. Can you say Iran Contra, Fawn Hall?
One of the ways around the rules that NSA used was to allow British
monitoring in the US. We monitored the UK and then they swapped info,
which technically got inside the letter of the law.
I can't believe how much time I'm spending lately defending someone I
intensely dislike, Clinton, but if he's going to get hammered there's
plenty he actually did to hold him accountable for so we don't need to
be making **** up. Same for Bush.
Bill C

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:47:38 +0200, Donald Munro
wrote:

I won't attempt to explain it to a witless serf who years ago
sold his critical faculties for a mess of pottage.

Well it was specially enriched pottage that contained a high percentage of
panache.

Is it that residual testing for panache from old samples is affected
by high levels of irony, or the other way around? Have you left any
old blood samples lying around that you need worry about?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On 24 Aug 2005 15:35:35 -0700, "
wrote:

Retard, we were talking about lies that Bush told. I pointed out a
number of them to which you replied "where's the lie".


****stain, I see we need to add selective amnesia to your long and
growing longer list of mental deficiencies - to remind you, you said TO
ME, and I quote, "Why would I argue with someone about liar when they
don't even know what a lie is."

It's called the scroll button. Use it.


??? I lost track - are you proving your side of the argument or his?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Donald Munro wrote:
Well it was specially enriched pottage that contained a high percentage of
panache.

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
Is it that residual testing for panache from old samples is affected
by high levels of irony, or the other way around? Have you left any
old blood samples lying around that you need worry about?

I've been assured that panache degenerates into apathy when stored in
frozen pee for long periods (spending time suspended in frozen pee is a
good way to appreciate existentialist philosophy).

In article
,
h squared
wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

Yes, thanks for explaining it. The state of affairs Bob
Schwartz refers to is not irony, not ironic; cannot be by
definition. Had he made fun of gwhite's apparently
inconsistent position, that would have been humor. Had he
done it in such a way as to keep gwhite in the dark as to
what he was doing, _that_ would be irony.

i am on hydrocodone, so forgive me if i'm worse than normal at
expressing myself (i've never taken it before so i don't know how it
will affect me exactly).

where are you getting your specialized and exact-to-a-point definitions?

I made it up based upon what I know about irony. My
description accounts for all but definition 3a below.

i think you said you've done math, so i understand the definition
fetish, but all the dictionaries i've checked do not specify that irony

Fetish, huh?

is only defined as humor that ridicules someone who's in the dark on the
matter. for example-

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...rony&x=16&y=17
Main Entry: iro·ny
1 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another
assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by
adroit questioning -- called also Socratic irony
2 a : the use of words to express something other than and especially
the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually humorous or sardonic
literary style or form characterized by irony c : an ironic expression
or utterance
3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events
and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by
such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a
drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the
audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic
irony, tragic irony

Yes, what I said is defective in that I do not account for
situational irony.

--
Michael Press

In article
.com,
" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
Irony is a form of humor. It needs a person to produce it.
Irony is not to be found the way one picks seashells on
the beach.

Irony uses statement of facts to promote exclusiveness:
entertaining the inner circle by heaping ridicule upon the
outer circle in such a way as to mystify the OC.
To put an entirely fine point on it, you did not make a
humorous remark of any sort. How's your ass?

The internet resulted from government funded research. gwhite claimed
that government funded research should not exist, but he made this claim
on the Internet. Has your grok level improved ?

Yes, thanks for explaining it. The state of affairs Bob
Schwartz refers to is not irony, not ironic; cannot be by
definition. Had he made fun of gwhite's apparently
inconsistent position, that would have been humor. Had he
done it in such a way as to keep gwhite in the dark as to
what he was doing, _that_ would be irony.

Ever notice that in that Alanis Morrissette song, none
of the things that she says are ironic actually are?

Rhetoricians recognize, at a minimum, four types of irony,
Socratic, dramatic, verbal irony, and irony of fate.
These are related to the definitions heather posted.

Socratic and dramatic irony require a contrast between the
ignorant audience and the audience which perceives the
irony: in Socratic irony the philosopher essentially
pretends to be ignorant, while in dramatic irony it's the
characters in the play who are ignorant of the contradiction
in their situation, though the theater audience can see it.
A friend of mine gave the example of Oedipus, vowing to kill
the king.

Verbal irony is saying one thing and expecting the
audience to realize that you mean the opposite, as in
Mark Antony's "honorable men" speech which you quoted.

Irony of fate is like dramatic irony, but without a play -
when Fate plays you for a fool in real life. One verbal way
to do this is to place yourself in the role of Oedipus, making
an utterance whose contradictory nature only those around you
can see. This is what Schwartz claimed Greg was doing.

Agreed; the matter is ironic.


There's a fifth, little-known type of irony: RBR irony.
That's when you sincerely lecture other people about what
the meaning of irony is. I, of course, would never do
such a thing.

Ben

You may or may not have noticed that rbr hosts some
accomplished users of irony. Half the fun is discerning
who is in on the joke.

"Here, under leave of Brutus, and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man,
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral."

Yes, I have not accounted for situational irony, quite
wrongly. Yet, I prefer that when situational irony
presents itself that the observer draw attention to it
without using the words 'irony' or 'ironic'; possibly with
an ironic remark instead. If he cannot, the situation may
not be as remarkable as it appears.

--
Michael Press

Robert Chung wrote:

gwhite wrote:


Unrelated to this thread, I have a planned investment/commitment
beginning Wednesday and continuing for years if things go well. It will
require intense and sustained effort. Due to this, I will not be
posting to or reading the usenet, starting Thursday, at the latest.

Damn. I've been refraining from posting anything to this thread but you've
trolled me in.

Best of luck.

Thanks much, and same to you.