j_b

either that or it's worrisome to ponder if we'll all experience the loss of feeling that seems required to do it

never understood people who own dangerous dogs. probably small penis types. we always hear about cougars and bears but i am willing to bet that mean dogs are way more of a problem.

Man Mistakenly Cuts Off Penis, Dog Eats It Mon Oct 4, 2004 10:41 AM ET BUCHAREST (Reuters) - A elderly Romanian man mistook his penis for a chicken's neck, cut it off and his dog rushed up and ate it, the state Rompres news agency said Monday. It said 67 year-old Constantin Mocanu, from a village near the southeastern town of Galati, rushed out into his yard in his underwear to kill a noisy chicken keeping him awake at night. "I confused it with the chicken's neck," Mocanu, who was admitted to the emergency hospital in Galati, was quoted as saying. "I cut it ... and the dog rushed and ate it." Doctors said the man, who was brought in by an ambulance bleeding heavily, was now out of danger.

that is imo the most difficult issue to address when dealing with an overuse injury (which airline fractures often are). doctors and therapists often ignore that exercise becomes psychologically necessary for people who make physical activity a regular part of their lives. just telling people to lay off is not very productive if they are obsessive about the activity that caused the injury (lots of climbers know the feeling). jim makes good suggestions, perhaps bicycling would get his mind off running temporarily and allow him to heal?

here you go jon: Interview with Richard Moser: Was Kerry Right About Vietnam Atrocities?

full transcript: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html i thought kerry was quite sharp, especially in explaining how he would win in iraq. notably, he said he would make sure arabs and iraqis in particular understand that the u.s. would not maintain a permanent presence in iraq (then he talked about the bases). my opinion of kerry went up a whole lot.

so go check these 58 others against what is said in the movie and how it is supported by evidence before you do anymore obfuscating. your finding a source which says that saudi investments are 450billions and not 680 does not amount to evidence that mmoore lies. especially since there are sources quoting 680 and that even if it is 450, it does not change the implications of having huge investments by a single foreign nation (few families actually) that could bring our economy down to a standstill (at best) whenever they see fit.

scott: what you are doing is commonly known as "throwing the baby out with the bath water". we probably could argue pointlessly ad-infinitum about what is the exact figure of saudi investments in the u.s. but it would not change one essential fact which is that it is enormous. i.e. even a few % of total capitalized assets represent a huge mean to lever u.s. policy, which is exactly mmoore's point. btw the info presented on mmoore's site is properly referenced so you can check it.

here is what is said in f911: "Saudi’s have $860 billion dollars invested in America." here is the supporting evidence: “Over the next twenty-five years, roughly eighty-five thousand ‘high-net-worth’ Saudis invested a staggering $860 billion in American companies – an average of more than $10 million a person and a sum that is roughly equivalent to the gross domestic product of Spain.” Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud, (Scribner: New York, 2004). and “Allan Gerson, an attorney who represents about 3,600 family members of victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks … said he is not suing the Saudi government, but he is pursuing ‘Saudi interests’ in the United States he estimated totaled about $860 billion.” “ $113 Million in Terrorism Funds Frozen,” CNN, November 20, 2002. what is also said in f911:" In terms of investments on Wall Street, $860 billion is “roughly six or seven percent of America.” supporting evidence: “With a total market capitalization exceeding $12 trillion, the NYSE Composite represents approximately 82 percent of the total U.S. market cap.” New York Stock Exchange News Release, “NYSE to Reintroduce Composite Index,” January 2, 2003. ($860 billion is about 7 percent of $12 trillion.) http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=20 as i said, criticism of mmoore's work usually doesn't stand up to scrutiny. now if you have any other assertions of lies why don't you check them yourself before you write them onthis board? all of the facts presented in f911 are presented and supported at the above link and other links you'll find on the same page.

yes, i did so after he had written several pages of personal attacks directed at me. i consider myself quite restrained in that department. perhaps you should read the content of his posts in this thread. crushed under the boot of reality upon meeting me. if it was only a rhetorical issue why would he need to meet me? what is it that he needs to convey that cannot be conveyed on the screen? think about it. certainly more than most people we see on the news everyday.

that guy's drivel is deliberately obtuse. i have read it before and it is by the same dude who has an obsession with moore and who has always failed to show that moore is wrong and/or that the inaccuracies in some of moore's work amount to anything more than minor errors. if anybody's work was put under as much scrutiny, it would not pass any 100% standard of accuracy either.

that has been tried before to little effect. demagogue.

errr ... where, when? right, telling someone they can't wait to meet so they can squash them under their boot is not a veiled threat . i am not sure what world you live in rbw666 but to me it is eerily reminiscent of another period of world history. he is straight shooter and knows that only shock value will get a liberal in the news. moore is one of the few public national voices that progressives have and i am not about to let some rightwingers with an agenda drag him in the mud so that he can dismissed summarily.

killjoy Definition: [n] (informal) someone who spoils the pleasure of others http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/killjoy party pooper Definition: [n] (informal) someone who spoils the pleasure of others http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/party+pooper Synonyms: killjoy, party pooper, spoilsport , wet blanket That giant sucking sound you hear is all of the fun being taken out of spray. demagogue: an orator who appeals to the passions and prejudices of his audience do you also argue that people who take offense at racist/sexist jokes are killjoys? there is something called poor humor and your attempt fits right in there. you, in fact, appear to believe that mmoore is an extremist. your premise is thus that everyone believes that it is so for it to be funny. more than an attempt at a joke i viewed your thread as a troll.

there you go, why do you move on to baseless demonizing? you labeling of anyone who opposes your far rightwing politics as a socialist is in itself the telltale sign of your extremism (or is it stupidity?)

you are free to pretend that jokes don't mold public perception and i am free to know better.

snoboy: i see now that making pm's public are officially against board policy. mark me down against such broad rule as it enables abusers under the cover of privacy; the fear of public exposure is precisely the reason why such comments are not made in the public forum. the sending of barely veiled threats, by a group of posters that everyone is familiar with, has been a recurring problem on this board. as i have made clear, i personally won't be intimidated and will make it known if i continue receiving threats in pm's for discussions that take place in the public arena. greg: i don't care one way or another if you are going to rope up. interpret it as you wish, but i am not interested in meeting or discussing with you face to face. furthermore, from now on, any of your pm's will go unread by me. so don't bother.

first, the point is to determine was is normal behavior, then decide on that basis what is extreme. you fail to do so, by declaring moore an extremist without considering whether his behavior departs from 'normal' and without considering whether, say bush's, departs from normality. the behavior of the neocons departs much more from 'normality' than anything that moore has advocated for. this points to the hypocrisy of your argument and thus your agenda. not true. it's not because moore did not discuss saddam's atrocities in f911 that he says what you claim he says. f911 is about 9/11 and the response of this adminstration to a terrorist attack. bush knew what was going on before he stepped into that classroom and didn't react for 7 minutes (or however long it was) after hearing of further attacks. a decisive leader which bush claims to be would have excused himself, and consulted with his staff on whether all appropriate measures were taken since more attacks were possible. what was he thinking? my staff is taking care of the problem and i can keep reading "my pet goat" to pre-schoolers? simply not true. legitimate question that, many others have asked, considering the business ties between the 2 families and the 2 countries. have you heard of the riggs bank scandal? funny how clarke also tells that whatever he said about anti-terror measures was summarily dismissed prior to 9/11, yet on this matter he was allowed to decide unilateraly to let go of people who may have had valuable info to provide. moore is biased like everybody else, that does not make him an extremist, and his positions are a lot more 'normal' than that of many in the present adminsitration.

greg: if you ever thought that you could tell me in a private message: "[snip]" and not suffer any repercutions, you need to reassess your mode of participation to this board (to put it mildly}

Well if you are a doc film maker, that is your job. You have to get everything right. the problem is that for you, "right" means "with scott harpell's bias". all documentary movies have bias to pretend otherwise is deceptive.

you'll have to be less cryptic to gain any point.

another standard technique used by abusers on this site and the real world: "be a man, grow a pair". as if being a man meant not taking offense at anti-free speech behavior. let's assume for a moment that in your simple frame of thinking, i am a 'coward', or let's say that i am reserved and timid. more than likely i would not respond or reveal greg_w's tactics and make sure to move along as far away from the dude as possible. how can it be reasonable that the bully be left standing in control of the "discussion" while mister coward/timid sees his freedom of expression curtailed? are you saying that might/intimidation is right?

scott: nobody has ever provided convincing evidence that mmoore lied on any of these topics (which includes those cooky websites you link to whenever we have this debate). perhaps mmoore does not get everything 100% right, like most mortals, or uses comedy to poke at his opponent but his material is usually very well researched.

here is the rule i have always used: any threatening private message is put out for everyone to evaluate. i have already done so and will continue to do so. i also encourage everyone to do the same. standard tactics for exposed abusers on this site and in the real world: "no, no, really it was a metaphor, a joke, i did not mean it literally, etc ..." in the end, even if the recipient of abuse is not cowed into submission it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech. disgusting. what you are really is of no importance (until you break the law, of course). what matters right now is how your words and actions affect this forum.

i think it's obvious to everyone that threatening individuals for holding differing views is what extremists do.