...and listening to The Beastie Boys' "Paul Revere" made millions of white, suburban boys ride off on a horse, rape a cop's daughter, kill four people, and rob a bar.
Heck, those honky slackers didn't even fight for their right to party...
Look, journalist boy, I'm not being interviewed here. If you are too stupid to understand what I've said so far, so be it.
Maybe when you can think for yourself, or learn to check source documents, we can have a chat. But until then, you can keep on quoting English professors and deluding yourself into believing that you are actually smart. Until then, keep up on your daytime TV. Maybe you can go to one of those truck-driving schools they're always advertising during your favorite shows and get a job.
Alright! I've acquired another freak! I take it that you're mad because I said you watch Jerry Springer. You Jenny Jones fans are so sensitive....
More importantly, you've now shown yourself for the idiot that you are. Apparently, you can't read the Bible for yourself. This isn't surprising, since you keep quoting sources rather than using common sense or checking absurd statements.
The Children of Israel are commanded to remember what Amalek did (attack the weak in the back rather than the strong in the front) and to blot them out from under heaven (ie, exterminate them). Gee, know anyone who attacks the weak and unprotected and deserves to be exterminated?
A smart person might consider this the original definition of terrorist, as well as the primordial decision on how to respond to terrorists. But an idiot like yourself would probably miss the point, unless someone with a PhD in Comparative Bullshit told you it was true.
Since you've proved incapable of going to the source material, here's Deuteronomy 25:17-19 for your edification (NIV translation):
"Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!"
Notice the words "Remember" and "Do not forget!" Also, since you're obviously stupid, I'll have to educate you and let you know that "blot out the memory" means "exterminate". It's like "know" in the Bible means "have sex". See, Adam and Eve didn't have children by way of formal introduction.
All the things they didn't teach you in journalism school...like how to think, read, check original sources. And is it any wonder I don't respect anything you have to say?
So, not only are you a writer who thinks that English professors hold the key to gnosis, but a JOURNALIST? My esteem for you creeps ever lower.
So, tell me: do you write these missives while you're standing in the Welfare line, or when you're at home watching Jerry Springer? Because based on your answer, I'm going to do a detailed psychological profile on you. And then, just to be sure I'm right, I'm going to ask the sock puppet on my hand if he agrees with me. After all, he's an expert on loonies.
OK, I don't have time for this, but here is a quick response:
1. Excusing your pejorative armchair psychology as informative is pathetic. If you're going to insult someone, own up to it. If not, don't hide behind big words and pretend you're doing something you aren't.
2. I believe words mean things. I belive in objective reality and objective truth. I believe there is a difference between right and wrong, good and bad, and even between bad and worse. Most English professors don't. MLA is held hostage by a bunch of fools, who are unfortunately turning generations of liberal arts majors into similar fools. Telling me to ask one of these bullshit peddlers for their opinion on the meaning of a particular word is pointless.
3. Appealing to authority is an invalid reasoning technique. If you want to appeal to authority, then I appeal to myself as the ultimate authority on every topic, and declare myself right and you wrong. See how easy that was?
4. Semantic relativism is a sign of moral relativism.
Now, go forth, writer, and write a good book composed of quotes from English professors. I'm sure it will be fascinating.
I shouldn't have been influenced into depreciating the validity of my post with a personal attack.
You're just a narrow-minded, outspoken and arrogant person reacting childishly to a challenge to your ideas.
Gee, that makes you 2 for 2! Pretty impressive.
You keep quoting other people and ignoring common sense. That's OK.
If you feel any of these dictionaries are invalid, Jon, perhaps you need to speak to some English professors at the nearest university or technology institute.
Anyone who considers anything said by English professors as proof of anything should get no respect. Heck, most English professors deny the concept of "meaning". It's all just subjective, post-modern, deconstructionist. There's no truth, just interpretation. So since it's all just interpretation, how can I rely on them as an authority on anything?
I'll let you think about that for a bit. Maybe you can even come up with a pity quote.
Well, some Rabbis claim that the Song of Songs is a metaphor for the relationship between God and Israel. I think they're stretching, but, hey, that's the great thing about interpretation.
Untrue. For example, the love poetry in the Song of Songs (part of the Bible, for those of you with no grounding in the core books of Western civilization) is well over a thousand years older than the 11th century. Tradition says it dates from Solomon, which would be something like 1000BC, but it's probably a bit later than that.
Anyway, it's quite clearly a romantic book. Romance novel, even.
D John Tennant, whoever the fuck he is, doesn't matter. Moral relativism means not having to choose between not only good and bad, but between bad and worse. It's lazy and doesn't require knowing anything about the actual situation, just reducing it down to a "matter of opinion." It's also only possible in a rich, pampered person. You won't find moral relativists in slums. Poor people know right from wrong and don't think it's just a matter of opinion.
And I did define terrorism, so you can shut the fuck up. Notice that I can drop to your level of intellectual discourse.
Just because you found one dictionary that defined terrorism without mentioning civilians doesn't make it a universal definition. In fact, that definition is provably false, as it would cover every act of war. If the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition, considers D-Day to be terrorism, they are in the vast minority. The goal of the Allies was to use violence and intimidation in order to pursue their political goals.
So you can continue quoting irrelevancies, or you can start thinking for yourself. I take it you can't think, so you'll find more quotes. Keep up the good work.
I did define terrorism in my original post, you illiterate monkey. Terrorism is attacking civilians for political gains by terrorizing civilians. This is opposed to valid military action, which is attacking (duh) military targets for political gains.
Yeah. Just like the Soviets did in Afghanistan, and Iran and Iraq (when attacking Kurdish and Shiite minorities) did in Iraq. The US, on the other hand, has been attacking military targets in both countries. If the US wanted to inflict massive casualties on civilians, Iraq would be a radioactive sheet of glass.
You sure wasted a lot of space quibbling over my poorly phrased response. You couldn't argue with the content, so you decided to go after a missing word or two. How pathetic.
When responding to someone who called the US a terrorist regime, yeah, I'm going to label him as anti-American. What would you call him, Patriot of the Year?
The US screws up plenty. Go figure, a country made up of imperfect people is often imperfect. But most of the time, it's on the side of good. The people who think the US is the embodiment of evil (many of whom are so disgusted by the evil of the US, they continue to live here and demand money from the evil government to support themselves) and can do no right are delusional and/or ignorant of history. Given that they think that France is the epitome of civilization, a country that sinks Greenpeace boats, tests nuclear bombs above ground, allows Muslims to lynch Jews and blow up synagogues, killed one million Algerians during the Algerian fight for independence, and has fascism as its second most popular political platform, I don't hold their opinions in high regard.
It's been known for just about forever by military folks that attacking civilian targets doesn't work. The TARGETS were not civilians in WWII and Vietnam. The targets were military. If generals didn't care about hitting military targets only, then there wouldn't be so much money spent on smart weapons.
Note that the Nazis DID target civilians in the Blitz and in the Holocaust. As I said, the Nazis were nuts.
There has been a pretty clear consensus on the difference between military and civilian for quite a while. Even a twit like you can understand it when you aren't trying to play word games.
The military are the guys with the weapons. The guys making the weapons are also considered valid targets, even if they don't get to wear a pretty uniform.
The civilians are the guys without the weapons, making non-weapon sorts of things.
And killing is always justified in self-defense. Notice how it doesn't argue anything else. Self-defense. Fighting to be left alone. How simple to state, and how hard an idiot like you tried to make it.
There's nothing terroristic about guerilla warfare against armies. Especially stupid ones, like the British, wearing easy-to-see red coats and making all sorts of noise.
And they didn't want to pay their taxes, but they didn't have any way to get a say in what those taxes would be. And when they protested, the government became opressive. So they rebelled.
Granted, a tool like you might like it when someone else arbitrarily takes your money and puts soldiers in your house, but thankfully, Washington and the other Founding Fathers weren't chickens like you.
See, this is the typical anti-American bullshit that is so easy to swat away.
No rational military wastes effort (and expensive bombs) on civilian targets, because ATTACKING CIVILIANS DOESN'T WORK. It just pisses them off. Taking out the capability for the other side to defend/attack is where it's at.
This is the difference between what Palestinians do when they kill Jews sitting down for a religious meal (this is attacking civilians for the anti-Semites in the audience), and what the Israeli government did when it took out the bomb factories and bomb makers in the West Bank (this is attacking military targets).
Notice the results, too. The Passover Massacre led to the full-scale attack on the West Bank. Despite massive coverage in the Western media of the 300 or so Israelis who refused to serve, somehow the same media outlets didn't notice the 3,000+ people who volunteered even when not called up, as well as the higher-than-usual response from Israelis called up to service. Meanwhile, there has been all of one suicide bomb attack in a month, down from one a day. That's results. Attack military targets, get military results.
This is also part of the reason why the Nazi were insane. Rather than concentrating on, oh, the war, they were spending resources on gassing Jews.
The reason why most countries used high altitude bombers was that (1) it mostly, kinda worked and (2) it protects your own guys. Now that bombs are getting smarter, this is less and less of an issue.
Calling the US a terrorist regime is the worst kind of doublespeak. I take it that you are a worshiper of Noam Chomsky, who proclaimed that the Cambodian genocide was a myth and just makes up quotes and figures when reality doesn't serve his agenda. Funny how he likes living in pampered luxury in that terrorist regime.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't chosen at random. They weren't the largest concentrations of population. They were both valid, military targets in a war that Japan started. Hiroshima was a military and communications center. Nagasaki was the home of the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works plant. Sound like valid targets to me. Info on why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted is at http://www.airpowermuseum.org/trtargts.html.
And for the Japanese to piss and moan over nuclear bombs after the Rape of Nanking and thousands of other wartime atrocities is the pot calling the kettle black. Or it's just typical anti-American bullshit.
And yes, the ANC were terrorists. So were the Irgun, and the IRA. Just because your cause is just doesn't make it right.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" has been a truism for so long now that the label "terrorist" no longer even holds meaning for many people.
Horseshit.
Terrorists attack civilian populations for the PRIME reason of sowing (duh) terror. This is why George Washington wasn't a terrorist, but he was a freedom fighter. I'm not aware of any mass executions of British loyalists during the Revolutionary War (yes, many were driven out of their homes and into Canada. But that's what happens when you support the losing side in ANY war.)
Since the rebels attacked a MILITARY base (the Death Star), it wouldn't have been an act of terrorism. If they had killed Grand Moff Tarkin's Momma, that would have been terror.
Moral relativism is the sign of a lazy, spoiled mind.
-jon
Re:Mm.... Bitter java...
on
Bitter Java
·
· Score: 2
I've got the book. Just bought it last week; it's very good.
It is pretty Java-specific (there's a chapter devoted to JSP, for example), but in the memory leak chapter ("Bitter Memories"), he covers the C++ memory model, as a comparison to the Java one.
If you are capable of understanding the meta-pattern, then "Bitter Java" is useful for non-Java developers. The JSP examples could certainly apply to any HTML scripting language (the horror of seeing bad ASP programmers converted into even worse JSP programmers is something that should be outlawed).
BTW, there is an associated web site: www.bitterjava.com.
Slashdot Mirror
-jon
"In addition, consumers need protection from fraudulent, unauthorized copies."
What, are pirated SACDs going to steal the family silver while you are sleeping?
-jon
Heck, those honky slackers didn't even fight for their right to party...
-jon
Maybe when you can think for yourself, or learn to check source documents, we can have a chat. But until then, you can keep on quoting English professors and deluding yourself into believing that you are actually smart. Until then, keep up on your daytime TV. Maybe you can go to one of those truck-driving schools they're always advertising during your favorite shows and get a job.
-jon
Why, that would be the terrorists. Or the French, attacking another Greenpeace boat. You decide.
-jon
More importantly, you've now shown yourself for the idiot that you are. Apparently, you can't read the Bible for yourself. This isn't surprising, since you keep quoting sources rather than using common sense or checking absurd statements.
The Children of Israel are commanded to remember what Amalek did (attack the weak in the back rather than the strong in the front) and to blot them out from under heaven (ie, exterminate them). Gee, know anyone who attacks the weak and unprotected and deserves to be exterminated?
A smart person might consider this the original definition of terrorist, as well as the primordial decision on how to respond to terrorists. But an idiot like yourself would probably miss the point, unless someone with a PhD in Comparative Bullshit told you it was true.
Since you've proved incapable of going to the source material, here's Deuteronomy 25:17-19 for your edification (NIV translation):
"Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!"
Notice the words "Remember" and "Do not forget!" Also, since you're obviously stupid, I'll have to educate you and let you know that "blot out the memory" means "exterminate". It's like "know" in the Bible means "have sex". See, Adam and Eve didn't have children by way of formal introduction.
All the things they didn't teach you in journalism school...like how to think, read, check original sources. And is it any wonder I don't respect anything you have to say?
-jon
So, not only are you a writer who thinks that English professors hold the key to gnosis, but a JOURNALIST? My esteem for you creeps ever lower.
So, tell me: do you write these missives while you're standing in the Welfare line, or when you're at home watching Jerry Springer? Because based on your answer, I'm going to do a detailed psychological profile on you. And then, just to be sure I'm right, I'm going to ask the sock puppet on my hand if he agrees with me. After all, he's an expert on loonies.
-jon
You're right. Please start the removal of humanity from the universe and kill yourself ASAP.
Or does your hatred of humanity not include yourself?
-jon
1. Excusing your pejorative armchair psychology as informative is pathetic. If you're going to insult someone, own up to it. If not, don't hide behind big words and pretend you're doing something you aren't.
2. I believe words mean things. I belive in objective reality and objective truth. I believe there is a difference between right and wrong, good and bad, and even between bad and worse. Most English professors don't. MLA is held hostage by a bunch of fools, who are unfortunately turning generations of liberal arts majors into similar fools. Telling me to ask one of these bullshit peddlers for their opinion on the meaning of a particular word is pointless.
3. Appealing to authority is an invalid reasoning technique. If you want to appeal to authority, then I appeal to myself as the ultimate authority on every topic, and declare myself right and you wrong. See how easy that was?
4. Semantic relativism is a sign of moral relativism.
Now, go forth, writer, and write a good book composed of quotes from English professors. I'm sure it will be fascinating.
-jon
You're just a narrow-minded, outspoken and arrogant person reacting childishly to a challenge to your ideas.
Gee, that makes you 2 for 2! Pretty impressive.
You keep quoting other people and ignoring common sense. That's OK.
If you feel any of these dictionaries are invalid, Jon, perhaps you need to speak to some English professors at the nearest university or technology institute.
Anyone who considers anything said by English professors as proof of anything should get no respect. Heck, most English professors deny the concept of "meaning". It's all just subjective, post-modern, deconstructionist. There's no truth, just interpretation. So since it's all just interpretation, how can I rely on them as an authority on anything?
I'll let you think about that for a bit. Maybe you can even come up with a pity quote.
-jon
-jon
Anyway, it's quite clearly a romantic book. Romance novel, even.
-jon
And I did define terrorism, so you can shut the fuck up. Notice that I can drop to your level of intellectual discourse.
Just because you found one dictionary that defined terrorism without mentioning civilians doesn't make it a universal definition. In fact, that definition is provably false, as it would cover every act of war. If the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition, considers D-Day to be terrorism, they are in the vast minority. The goal of the Allies was to use violence and intimidation in order to pursue their political goals.
So you can continue quoting irrelevancies, or you can start thinking for yourself. I take it you can't think, so you'll find more quotes. Keep up the good work.
-jon
-jon
-jon
When responding to someone who called the US a terrorist regime, yeah, I'm going to label him as anti-American. What would you call him, Patriot of the Year?
The US screws up plenty. Go figure, a country made up of imperfect people is often imperfect. But most of the time, it's on the side of good. The people who think the US is the embodiment of evil (many of whom are so disgusted by the evil of the US, they continue to live here and demand money from the evil government to support themselves) and can do no right are delusional and/or ignorant of history. Given that they think that France is the epitome of civilization, a country that sinks Greenpeace boats, tests nuclear bombs above ground, allows Muslims to lynch Jews and blow up synagogues, killed one million Algerians during the Algerian fight for independence, and has fascism as its second most popular political platform, I don't hold their opinions in high regard.
-jon
Note that the Nazis DID target civilians in the Blitz and in the Holocaust. As I said, the Nazis were nuts.
-jon
There has been a pretty clear consensus on the difference between military and civilian for quite a while. Even a twit like you can understand it when you aren't trying to play word games.
The military are the guys with the weapons. The guys making the weapons are also considered valid targets, even if they don't get to wear a pretty uniform.
The civilians are the guys without the weapons, making non-weapon sorts of things.
And killing is always justified in self-defense. Notice how it doesn't argue anything else. Self-defense. Fighting to be left alone. How simple to state, and how hard an idiot like you tried to make it.
-jon
And they didn't want to pay their taxes, but they didn't have any way to get a say in what those taxes would be. And when they protested, the government became opressive. So they rebelled.
Granted, a tool like you might like it when someone else arbitrarily takes your money and puts soldiers in your house, but thankfully, Washington and the other Founding Fathers weren't chickens like you.
-jon
No rational military wastes effort (and expensive bombs) on civilian targets, because ATTACKING CIVILIANS DOESN'T WORK. It just pisses them off. Taking out the capability for the other side to defend/attack is where it's at.
This is the difference between what Palestinians do when they kill Jews sitting down for a religious meal (this is attacking civilians for the anti-Semites in the audience), and what the Israeli government did when it took out the bomb factories and bomb makers in the West Bank (this is attacking military targets).
Notice the results, too. The Passover Massacre led to the full-scale attack on the West Bank. Despite massive coverage in the Western media of the 300 or so Israelis who refused to serve, somehow the same media outlets didn't notice the 3,000+ people who volunteered even when not called up, as well as the higher-than-usual response from Israelis called up to service. Meanwhile, there has been all of one suicide bomb attack in a month, down from one a day. That's results. Attack military targets, get military results.
This is also part of the reason why the Nazi were insane. Rather than concentrating on, oh, the war, they were spending resources on gassing Jews.
The reason why most countries used high altitude bombers was that (1) it mostly, kinda worked and (2) it protects your own guys. Now that bombs are getting smarter, this is less and less of an issue.
Calling the US a terrorist regime is the worst kind of doublespeak. I take it that you are a worshiper of Noam Chomsky, who proclaimed that the Cambodian genocide was a myth and just makes up quotes and figures when reality doesn't serve his agenda. Funny how he likes living in pampered luxury in that terrorist regime.
-jon
And for the Japanese to piss and moan over nuclear bombs after the Rape of Nanking and thousands of other wartime atrocities is the pot calling the kettle black. Or it's just typical anti-American bullshit.
And yes, the ANC were terrorists. So were the Irgun, and the IRA. Just because your cause is just doesn't make it right.
-jon
But if Kevin Smith said it first, it doesn't make it any less true.
-jon
Horseshit.
Terrorists attack civilian populations for the PRIME reason of sowing (duh) terror. This is why George Washington wasn't a terrorist, but he was a freedom fighter. I'm not aware of any mass executions of British loyalists during the Revolutionary War (yes, many were driven out of their homes and into Canada. But that's what happens when you support the losing side in ANY war.)
Since the rebels attacked a MILITARY base (the Death Star), it wouldn't have been an act of terrorism. If they had killed Grand Moff Tarkin's Momma, that would have been terror.
Moral relativism is the sign of a lazy, spoiled mind.
-jon
It is pretty Java-specific (there's a chapter devoted to JSP, for example), but in the memory leak chapter ("Bitter Memories"), he covers the C++ memory model, as a comparison to the Java one.
If you are capable of understanding the meta-pattern, then "Bitter Java" is useful for non-Java developers. The JSP examples could certainly apply to any HTML scripting language (the horror of seeing bad ASP programmers converted into even worse JSP programmers is something that should be outlawed).
BTW, there is an associated web site: www.bitterjava.com.
-jon
There's a DB9 port on it. First for a Mac, AFAIK.
-jon