> >> On 27/06/2011 03:46, RussellMc wrote:
> >>> ×× ×™ שומר ××—×™?
> >>>
> >> We all should be.
>
> > I love it! We have brushed against the forbidden topic of religion for
> > over 12 hours without some whiner taking offense!
>
> 1. You need to be properly conversant with the list rules.
> Such items are permitted as long as no longer than one line (by Olin's
> definition) and written in Hebrew, Klingon, Greek or any other dead
> language for which a font set is not available and/or which is not
> translated by Gargoyle or BabelFish. (For symbol based languages,
> individual hieroglyphs must be counted as having the equivalent word
> count as their translation into some qualifying language.) Languages
> which involve recursion or whose words represent hashes into larger
> table structures are disqualified regardless of otherwise being
> meretricious. .
>
> 2. You probably do one of my littermates [tm][virtual] a disservice in
> your adumbrations.
>
> True religion has a distinctly different ring to it that what we have
> been seeing here.
> Be it
>
> Gods gods, g_ds, motor vehicles from certain regions - or
> not, O/Ss from certain manufacturers - or not, or same with cute
> animals as logos, or people or parties that about nearly half of your
> countrymen voted either for or against, morally sound societally
> justifiable just-how-g_d-intended-it economo-societal philosophical
> belief systems from the too far right and too far left, or ...
>
> there is a certain circling of wagons, curling of the lip, flattening
> of the ears, quickening of the pulse, curdling of the stomach, hints
> of adrenalin pumping into the system, turbines and turbos spooling up
> and coming on line and ... that characterises such things. Of all
> these here we have none. So far.
>
> My aforementioned littermate is indeed somewhat more hairtriggered
> towards eschewing all such, but examination of the record would sadly
> show that he is more prescient and experienced in such things than
> some give merit. Sometimes, alas, important person agrees with him
> even when I don't :-). Sometimes not.
>
> Odds may be laid that now you have raised the spectre of fevered
> partisan bias, we may see some such soon added to the mix. But, maybe
> not. I'd wager that "Oriental" may not be a term that Klingons , or
> even Ferrengi, have concepts, let alone words, for, whether in the
> realms of construction of fine machines or other. The Greeks
> undoubtedly did (but probably not wrt machinery).
>
> My aforementioned littermate and anyone who does not try excessively
> hard may have concluded before now that I am babbling. As well may be
> the case. Even though it all scans (E&OE) and makes a degree off sense
> (YMMV).
>
> > I find it very interesting. Perhaps adding a suffix of Taboo to the OT
> > tag would allow us to continue indefinitely? Something like
> > [OT]:Taboo?
>
> No. Alas.
> What is required is "my strength is as the strength of ten because..."
> straight dealing and intentions, which, largely, in such things, we
> have not got*.
> People think 'taboo' or whatever means 'it's now OK not to be nie' as
> has been long since demonstrated. And, when freedom is allowed the OT
> channel becomes soon captive to the extreme right and extreme left of
> whatever subject enters its door. If there is anything more
> disquieting than observing zealots of opposing view showing everyone
> how facile they are, its a eisteddfod of zealots all of a feather
> slapping each other on the back and saying how right they are and what
> turkeys the other guys are. Don't ask me how I know.
>
> [* Naming of parts][Gargoyle knows]**.
>
> ** Much as I hate to make it easy to follow my semi-random forays,
> this seems a better than average commentary on N.O.P.
> Because: it has various individuals happily disagreeing with each
> other, some having little idea of what they speak of [tm].
> Turbines spooling up ...
>
>
http://wonderingminstrels.blogspot.com/2000/04/naming-of-parts-henry-reed.html
>
> > Or is it the case that he who complains wants to limit what I can do?
>
> That approaches a self evident truth to possibly not be useful.
> It would, I think, be unusual to complain about any wrong, imagined or
> true, it you were not seeking redress. No?
>
> > Please do continue!
>
> :-)
>
>
> llessuR
>
>
nope9.com> wrote:
