Thanks for this. I love the really well-informed input.
I do know that these golden, "spiky" roasts are really not "my cup of tea", and they have taken the premium-coffee set for a whirl.
Dark roasting can hide an inferior coffee, so it appears that the reverse assumption is being made: dark roasts are inferior quality.
Frankly? I like burgundies. I like 82% cacao. I like Guiness and top-fermented Ales that often contain no hops. I like dark coffees, and light ones make my skin itch...:-)
Give me Arabica from Java, Indonesia, equatorial Africa.
Yeah, I don't care what the fixed-gears with handle-bar moustaches say, down at Intellgensia. They're the same sheep-flock gourmets, who swill down small batch beers, with preference for hops to malt. Hops. Yechh.
Jobs had to croak, before the company betrayed it's service users, and handed them wholesale for illegal data-rape by an invasive, secret-police venture.
You advocate equivalency, but it's a false tactic. It's like saying the cop was defending himself, pepperspraying a child in the eyes, after handcuffing him - because the child's cries and thrashing constitute "resisting arrest" and "threat of assault".
Keep backing the pigs. Someday, you'll see how those with no honor treat their friends and defenders. Then? It'll be too late.
BTW, Your handle is the same as my car... And one of John Lennon's.
What else do you call a country in outstanding violation of a half-dozen UN resolutions for more than thirty years, non-signatory to the NNPT, uses chemical weapons and torture on civilian non-combatants, and withholds land ownership, inheritance rights and full citizenship privileges to inhabitants, based on ethnicity?
This is a complete obfuscation and dereliction from your entire thread.
Again, you somehow evade logic and rhetorical conclusion - instead making this a canard about my level of concern and participation.
The validity of recognizing an injustice is NOT measured by the observer's resource and opportunity to assist.
This is the same false argumentation that invalidates criticism, when it is not accompanied by a solution. It is a position which pretends to stand on the high-ground. It is a pose, apparently removed from thorny ethical matters by honoring practicality - while implicating the critic of mere contrariness or outright bad faith.
Later on, you call this "flaming Israel". I suppose that's what you call examining the historical and moral circumstances.
Israel the least of Palestine's problems? It's to laugh! Hell, there's plenty of Israeli's who'll argue that one with you. They show up on mondoweiss.net, often enough.
Christ, I know the Mail, Telegraph and Express. But? That's know different than NYT, the Times, Observer or Guardian. Differentiation is just which socioeconomic bracket they aim the stream of sewage at.
It was all over, when Guardian left Manchester, really. Now the most astute british commentary on world and domestic events come from comedians. Wait. I guess that may have always been so.
Still, seeing that the only people who got Woolrich right, and with any nuance, were Stephen Fry and... Russell Brand!?!
Is there a logical or rhetorical fallacy you won't ignore, in the pursuit of your defense for the outlaw nation?
Yeah, on both sides. Did you know that the Jews globally lost more property than they gained in 1948? After Arabs lost the war, Jews everywhere in the Middle East were essentially evicted and all their stuff was confiscated, depriving them of wealth amounting to almost three billion dollars (1948 dolllar value, try adjusting *that* for current value) and lands larger than the 1948 Israel.
But the people murdered by Stern and Irgun were innocent. Those who lost homes and property were not even indirectly responsible. It's like claiming Catholic farmworkers should be exploited because there are priests who molest children.
It's funny that countries such as Jordan and other, despite supposedly being the same ethnic group, don't actually want these troublemakers.
Yeah. Like why England and Finland weren't asking to accept the whole nation of Croatia in the 90's. Hey! There the same ethnic group. Your racism is vile. "Troublemakers"? They were just born there, descendents of Ancient Greece, Phoenecia, Rome, Egypt, Sumer and - dare I say Judea. But that's "causing trouble".
"Mass aerial bombardment"? And do you actually have anything to support this claim?
I may be wrong, but isn't it the case that Israel actually provides the water to the West Bank and to Gaza at their own expense, essentially at a loss?
"Here, we stole your aquifers. Aren't we forebaring and even magnanimous in trickling some back, after diverting it to water illegal colonial settlements? Gosh. What's a little matter of war crime, compared to our virtues?"
You talk nonsense. People were murdered and their home stolen. After pushing them onto reservation-type camps, they are still subject to things like collective punishments - which include mass aerial bombardment of civilian homes with white phosphorus, or the interruption of potable water.
Both are war crimes.
None of this can be justified in any way by the alleged rhetoric of some ill-defined "arabs" saying something that - if you are understood correctly - would amount to: "If you leave your property that you own, and your orchards and shops, then after you are refugees, you might be able to squat on the couple of Kibbutz those Poles stole from your parents, instead!"
I wonder if the so-called "libertarians" and "rational independent thinkers" who so liberally disparage Assange and this piece got as far as the following:
Despite accounting for an infinitesimal fraction of violent deaths globally, terrorism is a favorite brand in United States policy circles. This is a fetish that must also be catered to, and so âoeThe Future of Terrorismâ gets a whole chapter. The future of terrorism, we learn, is cyberterrorism. A session of indulgent scaremongering follows, including a breathless disaster-movie scenario, wherein cyberterrorists take control of American air-traffic control systems and send planes crashing into buildings, shutting down power grids and launching nuclear weapons. The authors then tar activists who engage in digital sit-ins with the same brush.
Well. I guess you can try to support Lawrence Lessig on one hand, while taking pot-shots at Assange.
But I think you just get mad, when someone thinks there is evidence to indicate that your toys are bad for you, and perhaps your father is a corrupt policeman.
Dispense with the ad hominem, and construct a supportable argument that finds fault with his proposition and his premise. If you think that "WikiLeaks did a good thing, at one time", what WAS that and what was the good you saw in it?
Now, how does the intention of Assange's review differ from that of what you found of his earlier work, which by your admission was one of merit?
You don't have to like someone because of their correct application of Andy Warhols' adage. He may have become tiresome, by refusing to "do one thing well" then go away.
But you may find that he has - at least - something worthy of notice, among the many things said herein. This, regardless of your accepting his entire thesis.
The interesting linkage between Kissinger and the Google authors, that Assange draws to attention, for instance. There are many in the US and around the world who have a considered and defensible case of international war-crimes against Mr. Kissinger.
You may be dismissive. That is an indication of prejudice, not of analysis.
My own prejudice? I believe that some people can love their country, or they can love the truth. In no nation that ever existed, could they ever do both things with commitment, at the same time.
They are powerful gangsters, with a militarized party-apparatus, who use the cultural cues for religious piety to validate their rule.
These are the same people that perfected the rules of chess. They managed to "sacrifice a bishop" in the 19th century and avoided becoming a part of the British empire.
Cannier that you think. Including playing religion as a card.
Right. Sympathy. "Please feel bad for us, we are a target for ordinance."
I really don't think the soft-asset value of any such sympathy generated is a reasonable calculation vs. the risk incurred.
Let me tell you, I dislike the Iranian government for many political and personal reasons. But, unlike propagandists, I do not ascribe to them madness or irrationality. The mullahs are as canny as they come.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for this. I love the really well-informed input.
I do know that these golden, "spiky" roasts are really not "my cup of tea", and they have taken the premium-coffee set for a whirl.
Dark roasting can hide an inferior coffee, so it appears that the reverse assumption is being made: dark roasts are inferior quality.
Frankly? I like burgundies. I like 82% cacao. I like Guiness and top-fermented Ales that often contain no hops. I like dark coffees, and light ones make my skin itch... :-)
I hate the American stuff. Bright, tangy, awful.
Give me Arabica from Java, Indonesia, equatorial Africa.
Yeah, I don't care what the fixed-gears with handle-bar moustaches say, down at Intellgensia. They're the same sheep-flock gourmets, who swill down small batch beers, with preference for hops to malt. Hops. Yechh.
This is one round of "Magic: the Gathering" I'm going to steer well clear of!
Notice the timeline for Prism access to Apple?
Jobs had to croak, before the company betrayed it's service users, and handed them wholesale for illegal data-rape by an invasive, secret-police venture.
iOS needs to be able to resuscitate the dead corpse of Steve Jobs, and save us from the coming disaster - The Cook and Ives Show.
They did once call this "the Jesus Phone"... Oh, but for "Lo, he has risen..."
Before Apple allowed this.
Then it was Cook who opened up his cheeks...
It's called "imbalance of power".
You advocate equivalency, but it's a false tactic. It's like saying the cop was defending himself, pepperspraying a child in the eyes, after handcuffing him - because the child's cries and thrashing constitute "resisting arrest" and "threat of assault".
Keep backing the pigs. Someday, you'll see how those with no honor treat their friends and defenders. Then? It'll be too late.
BTW, Your handle is the same as my car... And one of John Lennon's.
What else do you call a country in outstanding violation of a half-dozen UN resolutions for more than thirty years, non-signatory to the NNPT, uses chemical weapons and torture on civilian non-combatants, and withholds land ownership, inheritance rights and full citizenship privileges to inhabitants, based on ethnicity?
It's like Wehrmacht on the Riviera.
They want their Gnome/KDE flame war back... :-)
This is a complete obfuscation and dereliction from your entire thread.
Again, you somehow evade logic and rhetorical conclusion - instead making this a canard about my level of concern and participation.
The validity of recognizing an injustice is NOT measured by the observer's resource and opportunity to assist.
This is the same false argumentation that invalidates criticism, when it is not accompanied by a solution. It is a position which pretends to stand on the high-ground. It is a pose, apparently removed from thorny ethical matters by honoring practicality - while implicating the critic of mere contrariness or outright bad faith.
Later on, you call this "flaming Israel". I suppose that's what you call examining the historical and moral circumstances.
Israel the least of Palestine's problems? It's to laugh! Hell, there's plenty of Israeli's who'll argue that one with you. They show up on mondoweiss.net, often enough.
Christ, I know the Mail, Telegraph and Express.
But? That's know different than NYT, the Times, Observer or Guardian. Differentiation is just which socioeconomic bracket they aim the stream of sewage at.
It was all over, when Guardian left Manchester, really. Now the most astute british commentary on world and domestic events come from comedians. Wait. I guess that may have always been so.
Still, seeing that the only people who got Woolrich right, and with any nuance, were Stephen Fry and... Russell Brand!?!
Yeah. an Orange-grove ghetto, in Tel Aviv.
Zionism is amoral sociopathy.
You hit it on the head.
It is the moral equivalent of American "Manifest Destiny", the annexation of Silesia, and colonial rule of Congo, Kenya and Nigeria.
I'm always with the Cherokee and the Mau-Maus.
Is there a logical or rhetorical fallacy you won't ignore, in the pursuit of your defense for the outlaw nation?
Yeah, on both sides. Did you know that the Jews globally lost more property than they gained in 1948? After Arabs lost the war, Jews everywhere in the Middle East were essentially evicted and all their stuff was confiscated, depriving them of wealth amounting to almost three billion dollars (1948 dolllar value, try adjusting *that* for current value) and lands larger than the 1948 Israel.
But the people murdered by Stern and Irgun were innocent. Those who lost homes and property were not even indirectly responsible. It's like claiming Catholic farmworkers should be exploited because there are priests who molest children.
It's funny that countries such as Jordan and other, despite supposedly being the same ethnic group, don't actually want these troublemakers.
Yeah. Like why England and Finland weren't asking to accept the whole nation of Croatia in the 90's. Hey! There the same ethnic group. Your racism is vile. "Troublemakers"? They were just born there, descendents of Ancient Greece, Phoenecia, Rome, Egypt, Sumer and - dare I say Judea. But that's "causing trouble".
"Mass aerial bombardment"? And do you actually have anything to support this claim?
Operation Cast Lead
I may be wrong, but isn't it the case that Israel actually provides the water to the West Bank and to Gaza at their own expense, essentially at a loss?
"Here, we stole your aquifers. Aren't we forebaring and even magnanimous in trickling some back, after diverting it to water illegal colonial settlements? Gosh. What's a little matter of war crime, compared to our virtues?"
You talk nonsense. People were murdered and their home stolen. After pushing them onto reservation-type camps, they are still subject to things like collective punishments - which include mass aerial bombardment of civilian homes with white phosphorus, or the interruption of potable water.
Both are war crimes.
None of this can be justified in any way by the alleged rhetoric of some ill-defined "arabs" saying something that - if you are understood correctly - would amount to: "If you leave your property that you own, and your orchards and shops, then after you are refugees, you might be able to squat on the couple of Kibbutz those Poles stole from your parents, instead!"
What do you mean, "now".
Here are six mass graves discovered this week, in Jaffa, full of Arab native civilians "cleansed" from their city in 1948.
'The remains belong to people of different ages, including women, children and the elderly, some of which bear signs of violence.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334205/Mass-grave-uncovered-containing-dozens-Palestinians-killed-1948-war-founded-Israel.html
I wonder if the so-called "libertarians" and "rational independent thinkers" who so liberally disparage Assange and this piece got as far as the following:
Despite accounting for an infinitesimal fraction of violent deaths globally, terrorism is a favorite brand in United States policy circles. This is a fetish that must also be catered to, and so âoeThe Future of Terrorismâ gets a whole chapter. The future of terrorism, we learn, is cyberterrorism. A session of indulgent scaremongering follows, including a breathless disaster-movie scenario, wherein cyberterrorists take control of American air-traffic control systems and send planes crashing into buildings, shutting down power grids and launching nuclear weapons. The authors then tar activists who engage in digital sit-ins with the same brush.
Well. I guess you can try to support Lawrence Lessig on one hand, while taking pot-shots at Assange.
But I think you just get mad, when someone thinks there is evidence to indicate that your toys are bad for you, and perhaps your father is a corrupt policeman.
We are deeply offended by any comparison with Schmidt and Cohen.
Our harmless and ineffective curses, incantations and potions are a comfort, and not without entertainment value.
Please refrain, Mr. Assange, from making further degrading likenesses of our calling, to that of the subjects for your article.
Dispense with the ad hominem, and construct a supportable argument that finds fault with his proposition and his premise. If you think that "WikiLeaks did a good thing, at one time", what WAS that and what was the good you saw in it?
Now, how does the intention of Assange's review differ from that of what you found of his earlier work, which by your admission was one of merit?
You don't have to like someone because of their correct application of Andy Warhols' adage. He may have become tiresome, by refusing to "do one thing well" then go away.
But you may find that he has - at least - something worthy of notice, among the many things said herein. This, regardless of your accepting his entire thesis.
The interesting linkage between Kissinger and the Google authors, that Assange draws to attention, for instance. There are many in the US and around the world who have a considered and defensible case of international war-crimes against Mr. Kissinger.
You may be dismissive. That is an indication of prejudice, not of analysis.
My own prejudice? I believe that some people can love their country, or they can love the truth. In no nation that ever existed, could they ever do both things with commitment, at the same time.
You are now being slotted.
They are NOT "religious wackos".
They are powerful gangsters, with a militarized party-apparatus, who use the cultural cues for religious piety to validate their rule.
These are the same people that perfected the rules of chess. They managed to "sacrifice a bishop" in the 19th century and avoided becoming a part of the British empire.
Cannier that you think. Including playing religion as a card.
While listening to Michelle Bachman coo sweet nothings...
You eat propaganda for breakfast, do not speak Farsi, and accept the fulminations of biased intermediaries without evidence or examination.
You are unworthy to engage in argument.
Genocidal Iranian regime.
Genocidal?
Hyperbole becomes you. Evidence?
Right. Sympathy. "Please feel bad for us, we are a target for ordinance."
I really don't think the soft-asset value of any such sympathy generated is a reasonable calculation vs. the risk incurred.
Let me tell you, I dislike the Iranian government for many political and personal reasons. But, unlike propagandists, I do not ascribe to them madness or irrationality. The mullahs are as canny as they come.