< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Ladies Mud Wrestle?


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Ladies Mud Wrestle?

Looks like it's going to be the World Series ladies mud wrestling championship. Condi versus Hillary. Oh I just can't wait to see the Donk dorks dicked by a Presbyterian black, alleged (by them) lesbian, svelte lady from the South.

US Secretaries of State with their myriad international responsibilities rarely make official domestic visits. So when Dr Rice — in a 21-car motorcade — returned to her old primary school for the first time since she left aged 13, it was bound to raise questions about wider political motives.

Every candidate needs a base, especially one who has not been a governor or senator, and the US media virtually ignored Mr Straw while they worked themselves into a frenzy over whether Dr Rice was preparing to run for the White House in 2008. The crowds who lined the streets cheered as if the President was already in their midst.

Here's an excerpt from Condi's speech comemorating the 1963 bombing of a black church by KKK terrorists (not insurgents or activists) - source Powerline

"I remembered the bombing of that Sunday school at 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963. I did not see it happen, but I heard it happen and I felt it happen, just a few blocks away at my father's church. It is a sound that I will never forget, that will forever reverberate in my ears. That bomb took the lives of four young girls, including my friend and playmate Denise McNair. The crime was calculated, not random. It was meant to suck the hope out of young lives, bury their aspirations, and ensure that old fears would be propelled forward into the next generation.

Those fears were not propelled forward. Those terrorists failed."

And the idiots of the left think Iraq is about oil?

· Linked Article

Posted by Adolf Fiinkensein | 10/24/2005 11:33:00 AM


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Explain how you get from the KKK in 1963 to Iraq in 2003, please. Once there, explain why the US-led coalition went to Iraq 'after' Afganistan.

10/24/2005 05:13:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

Aha. This must be the reason why Bush's approval rating has dropped to 2% among African Americans. Clearly like Condi they understand the the reasons for the WOT unlike the idiots on the left.

10/24/2005 05:16:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Anonymous, if you can't see the connection then it's no wonder you are a leftie. Go find a brain.

10/24/2005 05:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a leftie? How did you figure that?

10/24/2005 06:13:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Because you lack a brain.

10/24/2005 08:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This weblog makes me sad. The content is interesting enough, but everytime someone questions a post they are shut down with "go find a brain" or similar. I wish it wasn't this way.

This phenomenon is common amongst authors. I can only assume that one of you once tried to debate but got shown up for not having a solid grasp of the subject matter.

When you answer with "Go find a brain" you may avoid the embarrassment of not knowing what you're talking about, but you still look feeble.

10/24/2005 09:08:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

From what I've seen the authors on this blog participate in direct discussion with its commenters more than any other popular NZ blog, except maybe Aaron Bhatnagar.

As there is no reasonable way you could have arrived at your premise I conclude you made it up so you could make a grand insult.

Your comment is sad.

10/24/2005 10:13:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Anonymous, you said: "Everytime someone questions a post they are shutdown"

Could you please explain what you mean by "everytime".

Could your answer be in reference to the 2188 posts we have done, and the several thousand questions we have responded to, with a mix ranging from rude to polite.

I'd also like a graph to illustrate the range of answers grouped by "rude", "terse" and "polite".

It would be advantageous to see the occasions we were rude, if the comment fell into any of the following categories:

1. It was trolling by dropping an impolite and inflammatory comment.

2. The commenter clearly demonstrated they had not read the supplied links.

3. The comment was completely off topic.

4. The comment was valid, but phrased impolitely.

5. The comment demanded (asked) the author to provide remedial training on the topic of the post, seemingly in isolation of information presented via links, information presented on the host blog in other posts, or the reader indicating a general laziness to cover the base groundwork themselves.

6. The comment was completely valid and well intentioned and did not fall into the other categories listed above.

6a. A scholar might like to examine the way comments are made, examining the different techniques in writing to communicate. We understand that the comment phrased thus:

"Explain how you get from the KKK in 1963 to Iraq in 2003, please. Once there, explain why the US-led coalition went to Iraq 'after' Afghanistan."

Achieved the result "go get a brain"

What would it have been if the comment had simply been

"I don't understand how a terrorist act by the KKK killing Condi's friend has anything to do with the "War on Terror", or how people reacted not in fear, but in resolution to resist. I don't see how it is relevant.

But then, we would not have seen a glimpse of how the argument was to be evolved or shaped by the more trollsome comment - for example bringing in the request to "explain why the US-led coalition went to Iraq 'after' Afghanistan." This would indicate you had a particular line of attack you wanted to take in commenting about Dr Rice, the KKK and people's reaction to fighting terrorist acts. It was something not mentioned in the post, or connected article. Interesting, n'est-ce pas?

You also said

"I can only assume that one of you once tried to debate but got shown up for not having a solid grasp of the subject matter."

I wonder how the experience of one author could affect the desire of other authors to engage in debate, and would be interested to see you explain that logic.

I am also surprised that you "can only assume" and present the reason for your assumption, seemingly failing to think of at least 3 other possibilities. Your deductive reasoning powers might be a clue as to the current impasse between yourself and Adolf. Indeed, it might be proof you cannot see any connection, thus adding credence to Adolf's suggestion to locate a brain.

On the other hand, you may well see the connection, but preferred Adolf to explain it in greater detail, as you had outlined a good counter to the thrust of the post. This is a common trolling tactic. A hint of that lies in the statement "you may avoid the embarrassment of not knowing what you're talking about", perhaps suggestive that you feel you know much more about the topic, your opinion unassailable and allowing you the certainty of that statement. In that situation, again, Adolf's suggestion to locate a brain (a less passive-aggressive one) would be reasonable.

Of course, this could be an innocent comment that went the wrong way.

But I wouldn't assume anything further until I can judge the full results of your analysis.

I look forward to it.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

10/24/2005 10:14:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Very well said Zen, and impeccable timing I might add.

10/24/2005 10:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

zen....(7) the coyote must howl as the chook crosses the road.....then ...and only then...

it'd be easier to join the masons..wouldn't it..?


10/24/2005 10:33:00 PM  
Blogger suze said...

Zen, that is a very interesting and distracting idea. Now I want to go research blog comments and personality and language :)

10/24/2005 10:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I read was some interesting commentary on the KKK/Condi, followed by "And the idiots of the left think Iraq is about oil?"

Getting from the KKK in 1963 to a line on Iraq/Oil is a huge jump. I was being quite serious when I asked how AF got there. There is no mention of Oil or Iraq in the linked article.

Since AF brought up Iraq/Oil, lets discuss this point. Do I think they went into Iraq for Oil? I don't know. I don't believe they did. They certainly didn't go in there to destroy WMD.

As to the War in Terror. If you were to say "And the idiots of the left think the War on Terror is about oil" then I'd have less of an argument with you. I do not believe, however, that Iraq was the logical step in such a war after Afghanistan.

10/24/2005 10:49:00 PM  
Blogger Psycho Milt said...

You perhaps missed the telltale giveaway, anon: "And the idiots of the left think Iraq is about oil?" Those of us on the left who aren't idiots are specifically exempted from this view...

10/25/2005 04:25:00 AM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Well done, PM!!!!

10/25/2005 07:24:00 AM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

And of course there is always the possibility that there are even more idiots on the right who think that Iraq is about oil.

10/25/2005 09:21:00 AM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Anon, thanks for the reply. In a sense I think P.M. has answered the question in general terms: some on the left (lets call them idiots) believe the Iraqi war is largely mostly about oil. Others on the left (lets call them the intelligentsia, or perhaps the illuminati) entertain a variety of alternatives. Many even credit the Republicans of being capable of such deviousness as "planning", "ulterior motives" and "long term strategy". Where's the proof of that I say!

As ackers1 suggests, there is always a possibility that there are even more idiots on the right who think Iraq is about oil. I personally think ackers1 might be pushing it - I thought we on the right were a minority. (I base that on the newspapers and the comments I get from the few ardent socialists who deign talk to me).

Rumour also have it that some on the right believe this wacky theory that a group of radical fundamentalist Islamic folk are hell bent on the destruction of Christian/western civilisation. Many regard them as potentially dangerous, especially if they get a hold of WMD, something becoming increasingly easier to do. Indeed, one theory is that Osama bin Laden is behind the advertising campaigns for gas guzzling 4 wheel drives, bringing forward the peak oil crisis by 10 years.

Who knows? And whilst you pose some interesting questions, I unfortunately, am busier than usual and only have time for this very rapid (even though wordy) response.

However, I feel certain, as dangerous as Sir Humphrey's is, we may inadvertently address your questions over the next 2188 posts.

I hope you stick around.

10/25/2005 09:03:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home