I'm still rereading that chain mail waiting for the ironic self-referential punchline at the end.
Oy. Vey. Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:In no way will buying this stamp help to fund terrorists (unless they're working for the USPS),
Hmmm.... Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
This diet of jingoism is starting to get disturbingly monotonous.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That "patriotic" idiots send reams of moronic email is not a symptom of American jingoism, but it IS an example of why we need to expand the death penalty to include the ignorant.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Can you qualify that? Are you saying there's no such thing as American Jingoism, therefore this guy can't be a part of it? Or, are you saying this guy, who is presumably an American and is displaying a certain degree of Jingoism, is in fact exhibiting behaviour that is quite distinct from actual American Jingoism?
John Brunner's excellent novel on overpopulation, Stand on Zanzibar, regularly quotes a book written by one of the characters, pop sociologist Chad C. Mulligan, entitled You're an Ignorant Idiot. I really wish this book actually existed. 8)
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:why we need to expand the death penalty to include the ignorant.
So does this mean that you must have all knowledge of all things or you would be killed? Because last I checked, and I could be wrong(but you would have me killed if I was ignorant of the knowledge) everyone is ignorant about something. This would leave only the last executioner alive and he would be obliged to commit suicide after killing the last person. You should be killed first for being ignorant of the consequences of proposing this.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Shush, you. Farquad knows everything. He's a librarian, you know. 8)
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Speaking of librarians. Gargh. I'm writing a ten-page term paper as we speak (er, type) ... My topic is homoeroticism in Merchant of Venice, Twelfth Night, and The History of Henry IV.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Here's a tip: all the women were played by men.
Grocka: There's ignorance, and then there's Ignorance. The former is incidental. The latter is intentional.
People who don't know that water expands when it freezes, that the cube of 14 is 2744, or that the capital of Kazakhstan is Alma-ata are ignorant.
People who believe a giant rogue planet is coming to destroy us in May of 2003, that stamps make a difference in the war against Terrorism, or that anarchy is a viable political system are Ignorant.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Here's a tip: all the women were played by men.
But beyond that. At the moment I'm analyzing Antonio's relationship to Bassanio. Then I get to look at Antonio to Sebastian ... yay. So many plays, so many Antonio's ...
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
This is my thesis:
quote: A friend of mine once told me that he did not think Alexander �was that �Great�� after learning that the famed conquer was a homosexual, as if a person�s sexual orientation tainted their life�s deeds. In this paper, I will argue that despite the actions they take, the fate of homosexual characters are determined not by their actions, but rather their sexual orientations. I intend to use Antonio�s relationship to Bassanio in Merchant of Venice; both Viola and Orsino�s attraction to Cessario and Antonio�s role in aid of Sebastian in Twelfth Night; and Prince Harry�s relationship to Falstaff in The History of Henry the Fourth.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Please excuse my na�v�t� as a lowly first year uni student, but I thought you weren't supposed to refer to yourself in formal writing?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I think that's going to be a looong paper.
First, you have to convince the reader that said characters are homosexual.
Then you have to convince the reader of your main point.
This will be hard work, good luck.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Grocka: There's ignorance, and then there's Ignorance. The former is incidental. The latter is intentional.
You mean, like spelling someone's name incorrectly? Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
People who don't know that water expands when it freezes, that the cube of 14 is 2744, or that the capital of Kazakhstan is Alma-ata are ignorant.
And people who know all three (and mention it) are very, very dull indeed.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Grocka: There's ignorance, and then there's Ignorance. The former is incidental. The latter is intentional."
"You mean, like spelling someone's name incorrectly?"
Zing!
Rob: So, what are you going to do when the majority decide that non-theism == Ignorance, and execute you?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Topher,
But it's not neccessary to do so.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Kazakhstan? Oh I remember that one.. it was in an episode of that syndicated show, about the special forces unit that did all sortsa stuff. it was on between 'Suberboy' and that other show about Ken Olandt in the robot police battle suit!
Its a real country too?
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
But backward. So it doesn't entirely qualify as such.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Natshkazak?
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Grocka: There's ignorance, and then there's Ignorance. The former is incidental. The latter is intentional."
"You mean, like spelling someone's name incorrectly?"
Zing!
Rob: So, what are you going to do when the majority decide that non-theism == Ignorance, and execute you?
That's why Hugo, the Great Eternal Platypus, invented the minigun.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, basically, you're saying that anything bad is a good idea as long as it only applies to other people?
You realize, of course, that no arguement you make from this point forward can be taken seriously (if they were in the first place).
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
This implies that you were actually Ignorant enough to take such a clearly ludicrous statement as "we should expand the death penalty to include the ignorant" seriously.
Line on the left, one cross each.
Obvioulsy, for folks like you, I should wear the moose antlers when I'm being ludicrous -- whups -- *puts antlers on* -- when I'm being ludicrous, and take them off when I'm not. *takes antlers off*
Nature, when we let her, takes care of many of the Ignorant for us. Like those folks who qualify for Darwin awards. I see no reason to help Nature along. However, I see no reason to hinder Her, either.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: This implies that you were actually Ignorant enough to take such a clearly ludicrous statement as "we should expand the death penalty to include the ignorant" seriously.
Yes. It so side splittingly funny that there's no way it can be anything other than a joke. And a genius joke at that! Said by a genius! Which is you!
Ha ha ha. And so forth.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"This implies that you were actually Ignorant enough to take such a clearly ludicrous statement as 'we should expand the death penalty to include the ignorant' seriously."
But, when it's you talking, how do I tell the difference between the clearly ludicrous statements that you're not serious about, and the clearly ludicrous statements that you are serious about?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Zing! Score one for the Nixmeister! 8)
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Perhaps it has to do with expression? Damn this text based messaging world!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Like I said...
quote:Obvioulsy, for folks like you, I should wear the moose antlers when I'm being ludicrous -- whups -- *puts antlers on* -- when I'm being ludicrous, and take them off when I'm not. *takes antlers off*
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
But, see, the antlers meant you were being ludicrous. Which means you wouldn't really put moose antlers on. But you did, so you must have been serious. But, if you were serious, then the moose antlers meant you were being ludicrous. Which means you wouldn't really put moose antlers on. Ad infinitum.
So, basically, you don't make sense, so we should ignore you henceforth, yes?
[ December 18, 2002, 13:51: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
and then Jeff would run you down with his Jeep. the antlers are like a beacon.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)