klenke

Uh, somehow I think this diatribe of posts lost the point. I'm cornfused. What are we talking about? I seem to have got ChucK off his rocker even though I was merely inoccuously ribbing him. But, ChucK, regarding lies. They're still lies whether they're little bitty ones or humongo biggo ones. Lies are lies--period. True, Clinton's Lewinsky cigar job lie is not as big a lie as Bush's Iraqsky lie, but it's still a lie. Anyway, regarding lying about boffing an intern. You say this is 'white lie' material. Well, I'm sure the family of Chandra Levy were not too pleased with Rep. Gary Condit for having an affair with their daughter, initially lying about it, and then covering up the murder (if he indeed was involved with the murder). That is all. Gutta nacht.

Hey Distel:

Yeah, nobody does give a shit including you ChucK, for I distinctly remember a signature you used to have up for a long while: Nobody died when Clinton lied. Alex: you say "return to their regularly scheduled programming." Beg to differ. They never left their regularly scheduled programming.

It's easy to become a Beck. Simply start sporting some funky yellow-green tinted glasses and try to pick fights with any and all high schoolers that cross your path. Also, you must carry a chair projectile at all times.

It's a snafflehound. Hint for you is in the script code for the little guy. If that's not enough for you, send me a PM and I'll explain the long history of that beast.

Is it "prate tell" or "pray tell?" I thought it was the former but could be wrong.

Keep it up and I might be smitin' too at the next NWMJ meeting. I might even bring along my pet to do the smitin'.

Greg, Teneriffe via SW Ridge is a good choice. It's a little harder than Si due to steeper terrain and worse trail, but there is a trail. Last bit would have lingering snow. Ice axe might be handy up through a small rock band. Even your lame ass could do it in 3 hours if you hustle (it's about 3 miles and 3,900 ft of gain).

Nice TR. Might do the very same in a few days. The peak in the background in the first picture is Eightmile Mountain (7,996 ft). A picture of it (far away): Eightmile & Cashmere from Aasgard Pass

Snugtop said, "Actually that's my knee in the bottom left corner of the last one." I've got to say that's the sexiest knee in the picture. Much more sexy than Thinker's knee. Although Michelle's knee is kind of sexy with its worn top. I would like to direct your attention to the sign on the wall behind Toast in the second picture. It says "We Serve Right Fuse Vice." What exactly is a right fuse vice? Is that some special beer with narcotics in it? Did anyone have one on Tuesday night?

Ah, ya got me. I'm so unworthy.

Though you seem to be clone of j_b, props to you for using correct punctuation and capitalization.

Why on Earth: No doubt some percentage of Iraqis feel the U.S. are the enemy. They may even be enemies of the Western World (Europe, America, etc.) in ideology much less whether or not the coilition is an occupying entity. So, when you speak of the Iraqis, Marylou & Doolittle, are you speaking of all of them across ethnicities and sects, or simply the Sunnis. I'm sure the Kurds don't want us there now, but they sure did like our help when it came to overthrowing Saddam. The Shiites also liked the fact that we overthrew the Baathists, which were dominated by Sunnis. I recall seeing images of Iraqis (mainly Shiites in the south but also Sunnis in the triangle) welcoming the U.S. Army with open arms. I remember images of whupping it up, crowd simul-hopping (whatever that action is called), and other signs of support. Were these images staged? I'd like to think not, that at least some of the Iraqi people were happy for what we had done for them. I saw just as much footage of unhappy Iraqis. Both types of people were to be expected. I really can't say what the percentages were but I certainly won't generalize by saying it was all or none one way or the other. And yet, how quickly they must forget. The war has happened, the regime toppled. That can't be undone. So now those that were against the war in the first place must move somewhat on from protesting that action. Now, those that were against the war should be shouting out about how we should deal with the Iraq situation going forward. What should we do now? The enemy of the U.S. now is not the Iraqi people (I think we can agree there). The enemy is now the terrorists within Iraq supposing to have the support of the Iraqi people. What should we do over there? Should we pull out now, 3 months, 10 months, when the democracy seed has finally sprouted roots? I'd like to hear some proactive ideas, not reactive complaints as to what has already happened. I'm willing to listen to proactive solutions. I tire of reactive complaints. Anyone? Anyone?

No, actually j_b, you finally adequately answered my question (though not thoughtfully and not without errors in reference to what I really said). I also answered your question (paraphrased: "am I also for SA apartheid if I'm for the fence") in my last, long response. Plus murraysovereign correctly pointed out that the fence issue was not germane to the subject of this thread. All those things added up to my declaration that the fence issue had run it's course (that I wished to put a kibosh on it). That was the logic behind my comment. I'm sure we could debate it for another 40 posts but I'd like to think you and I have got better things to do, like debate other equally contentious subjects. And, for Pete's sake (and mine), use some proper punctuation!

Dude, let's not get pornographic Unintended goof. (one always has to take into account others taking phrases out of context)

Thinker: I had heard the fence has a tortuous route to it (if that's the non-engineered point you were alluding to). It does look quite odd and certainly wouldn't have been constructed that way if it was completely up to the engineers and the terrain. However, the tapeworm look is probably due more to capturing Israeli settlements (and, conversely, not un-capturing Palestinian settlements, if you know what I mean) than anything else. So, it's maybe 1/6th engineering, 3/6th geography, and 2/6th politically routed. True, the fence sucks and I wish it wasn't necessary but it is a way to (possibly) keep the innocents from being killed. You will note that we have a fence right here in America too on the border with Mexico. Are we practicing apartheid in the U.S. too, then? If there was no fence and border patrol, what kind of influx of illegal immigrants would we get from Mexico? Would it be a bad thing? It's never cut and dry, is it? There's always practicality and ideology. Very often, they're at odds. Okay, enough of the Israeli fence bruhaha. I tire of the subject. j_b: don't bother posing any more questions to me concerning the fence because I won't be responding to them. This tangential topic has persisted long enough.

Response to j_b: I didn't discuss what you said because what you said was directed to JayB. This left him the chance to respond to you. I don't feel it appropriate to insert my views between yours and his especially since he was so clear in his writing. The three articles give evidence, but undisputed evidence is dependent on those viewing said evidence. What I'm trying to say is that most evidence--but especially evidence of the political kind--is disputable. One thing I know I don't like about the fence is that it was built over Palestinian land (and some Jewish land too). But you've got to build a fence somewhere. Any construction project can have obstructions. So perhaps that is what you mean by access to their lands--the lands that have been usurped for the construction of the fence. The fence has gates. Those with proper identification are still allowed to pass through to go to their jobs. True, the waiting is slow for Palestinians to get across. That I don't like. But it is not strict separation of the two peoples. By "Jewish conceit" I was referring to the policies of the Jewish State, not Jews worldwide. Such an inference I'm sure you would have understood or did you just say what you said to attempt to discredit me? Note that Dr. Davis in the 1st article refers to the Jewish State more than he does the Zionist State or Israel. In response to your last bit, sorry but I'm going to have to call bullshit. Another case of seeing only what you want to see and disregarding the rest. I have pasted below what I actually said (verbatim): "Note that I am not a supporter of Israel and their aggressive expansionist ideologies, but I tend to give them more of the benefit of the doubt in terms of their methodologies for combating the killing of their innocents (for instance, I am for the security fence)." To this whole sentence, you only parsed out the parenthetical part then simplistically responded: "Were you in favor of South African apartheid? There is no difference." In your last post, you reapplied my context to be "[within the context of discussing Israel and the Palestinians]" What you have done here is taken my specific reference to Israel's methodologies for combating the killing of their innocents and applied it to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle as a whole. That is, you took a specific facet of the struggle and generalized it to the whole struggle. Yes, the Jewish State practices some form of apartheid. But that is NOT why I'm for the fence. Here is why I am for the fence (I am NOT for apartheid): The killing of innocents on buses, in restaurants, and shops has been going on and on. The Israeli government had to do something in the short term to stem this slaughter. They could not assume the bombings would abate. Maybe they did assume a couple of times but ultimately found they were wrong. They can then ask, if I build this fence will it exacerbate the struggle? Yes, probably. But, will it also curtail the bombings to some degree? Yes, probably. Therefore, build the fence (as a band-aid as Toast so astutely pointed out) to seal up the porous barrier between the origin of the bombs and bombers and the places where the bombs are detonated. There are basically two general methodologies in warfare: offensive measures and defensive measures. Offensive measures are battles. Defensive measures are guards, fences, walls, etc. You therefore must look at the fence for both practical and ideologic reasons. While ideologically (the direction you're coming from) the fence looks bad and damages diplomacy, it also saves lives by making it harder for the bombs and bombers to get to their victims. If it could be proven that the fence doesn't save lives at all, then I would be the first to scream out for it's removal. However, I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt [same phrase I used before]. You will note that fences are nothing new. The coilition compound in Baghdad has a wall and fence around it in order to keep bombers away. It is folly to not institute defensive measures simply because someone might oppose them for ideological reasons. The security fence being built in Israel is in many ways similar to the tangible measures being taken in the U.S. at border crossings, airports, and ship terminals. Within these three areas, we have erected "fences" (not necessarily real fences but the suggestion of fences--i.e., screening machines, etc.) with the intent of keeping the terrorists on the other side. Once someone has been deemed safe, they are free to enter. In Israel's situation, the major conduit for these bombers is simply by walking or driving into the bombing areas. If you build a fence, you can force those that would bomb into screening bottlenecks and thus maybe deter them. Let's pose this scenario: If you have a neighbor who has a dog that always comes into your yard to take his shits, what can you do? You can shoot the dog (looks bad and maybe is against the law). Or you can talk to the neighbor. But what if the neighbor (Arafat) keeps saying he'll do something but actually does nothing? What can you do then? You can try and befriend the dog. That might help. But what if the dog never comes to greet you but instead waits while you're not looking to do his dirty business (terrorist bombings)? If you can't open a dialogue with the dog because it always hides from you (terrorists), you have another option: you can put up a fence between your lawn and your neighbor's lawn. No more problem with the dog shitting on your lawn. Now, the erection of the fence does not necessarily imply you hate the dog, only that you want it to stop shitting on your lawn. Conclusion, the Israeli fence is MORE than simply a tool for apartheid, it is also a means to stop the carnage. The former ideological evil may be seen as necessary for the latter practical good. Ergo, there is a difference between South Africa's apartheid program (and, by extension, Israel's apparent apartheid) and the security fence. Yes, I'm sure you still don't understand me.

Thanks for the info, Barry. Good to know. Question: is "harvest" the standard medical term used for organ donation/extraction? Reads kind of strange.

The first comment was an observational point not constructed as an argument. Plus, I am/was still trying to get you to use better grammar. As for you answering my security fence question, you still have not done so. Not only that but you couldn't even put it in your own words, which is what I really want. I read the first article. Dr. Davis makes very good points and I find myself in agreement with what he says. I don't like the Jewish conceit anymore than he does. However, there is no mention whatsoever of the security fence. I began reading the second article and got about four paragraphs into it. Not seeing reference to the fence, I decided to do use the search function to look for "fence" and "barrier" and other variants. No dice: the second article also does not refer to the fence. Lastly, because I suspected as much, a search on the third article also did not refer at all to the fence. In conclusion, then, you have not answered my question, which refers to the security fence, not the Jewish State as as whole. Please answer my question: how is there "no difference" between the security fence and South Africa's former apartheid program?

That is true, but it is still a generalization.

To give an example of a generalization, folks, I shall quote Mr. Doolittle (the generalization has been emboldened to make it easier for you to find): "And if this applies to the whole of Iraq, that means that the citizens don't trust the US troops, or may even see them as the enemy." Gottcha!

I don't really care where we go but if I had to make a decision I'd be apt to choose a place I haven't been to before (just call me a barbagger ). In that regard, though a few I was talking with suggested the Wedgewood Broiler, I could see aligning myself with snugtop's Lil Red Hen.

Jeez, j_b where do you get this stuff? Since you don't use proper punctuation or capitalization, I wonder if you even slow down long enough to consider what you've just typed. Do you even preview your posts? Oh, and can you please answer my question: How are South Africa's former apartheid program and Israel's security fence no different from one another? I would really like to know why you made your initial comment to this effect ("there is no difference"). I'd like to understand your reasoning for equating the security fence with apartheid.

Q: How many Irish men does it take to change a light bulb? A: Two, one to hold the light bulb and the other to drink Guinness until the rooms starts spinning.