Chef Juke wrote:
> Okay, I recall hearing once upon a time that there was some golden
> rule of newsgroup threads that says that once someone invokes the name
> of Hitler the friggn thread has to stop, right?
>
> Then HITLER, already.
>
> As I implied before, I'm sorry I ever brought up the whole Jan Egelund
> thing in the first place.
>
> When I was up in Wenatchee, one of the things I commented on was what
> I liked about this newsgroup and the majority of the regular posters
> to it:
>
> That while we all come from very different backgrounds, political and
> otherwise, we can all come together and get along great when we talk
> about our common interest in BBQ.
>
> Can we get back to that?
>
> As for discussion and debate about the topics touched on in this
> thread...
>
> I love to discuss and debate such issues. I love to explore and learn
> new facts about issues and thus expand my understanding of them as
> well as adjust my position on them when I get new information that
> contradicts my earlier position. That kind of discourse I love...
>
> BUT...
>
> You just can't effectively have that kind of discourse in this type of
> forum. Both the delays in the communication method and the lack of
> the personal interaction hinders the exchange of the ideas...you can't
> hear someone's tone of voice or see the expressions on their face in a
> newsgroup posting....so what inevitably happens is that the discourse
> eventually gets reduced to a meaningless tit-for-tat exchage (see,
> it's far easier to insult someone when you are not face-to-face).
>
> Besides, even if you DID want to have a prolonged discussion on this
> topic in a newsgroup, this ain't the right one for it. I'm sure
> there's an Alt.Politics.the.UN.Sucks or Alt.Politics.Bush.is.Great or
> some such newsgroups that would welcome this discussion...but it
> doesn't really belong here.
>
> So...we can continue this thread....which will likely mean seeing more
> and more links to URLS promoting or insulting one 'side' or the
> other... and more personal insults being flung in the directions of
> the posters who support one position or the other...
>
> Or we can just stop.
>
> I vote for the 'stop' option.
>
>
>
> -Chef Juke
> "EVERYbody Eats When They Come To MY House!"
> www.chefjuke.com

Actually, it's called Godwin's Law and it's Nazis, not Hitler, but I suppose
that would do just as well.

Pat, I believe you have said in your very nice, polite and
non-confrontational manner, pretty much what I've said in my ****ed off had
enough of this crap manner.

Politics and religion don't belong here. I'm glad to stop all
political/religious discussions, Nazis or not. I hope everyone else can
agree to that too.

Jack Curry

Chef Juke wrote:
> Okay, I recall hearing once upon a time that there was some golden
> rule of newsgroup threads that says that once someone invokes the name
> of Hitler the friggn thread has to stop, right?
>
> Then HITLER, already.
>
> As I implied before, I'm sorry I ever brought up the whole Jan Egelund
> thing in the first place.
>
> When I was up in Wenatchee, one of the things I commented on was what
> I liked about this newsgroup and the majority of the regular posters
> to it:
>
> That while we all come from very different backgrounds, political and
> otherwise, we can all come together and get along great when we talk
> about our common interest in BBQ.
>
> Can we get back to that?
>
> As for discussion and debate about the topics touched on in this
> thread...
>
> I love to discuss and debate such issues. I love to explore and learn
> new facts about issues and thus expand my understanding of them as
> well as adjust my position on them when I get new information that
> contradicts my earlier position. That kind of discourse I love...
>
> BUT...
>
> You just can't effectively have that kind of discourse in this type of
> forum. Both the delays in the communication method and the lack of
> the personal interaction hinders the exchange of the ideas...you can't
> hear someone's tone of voice or see the expressions on their face in a
> newsgroup posting....so what inevitably happens is that the discourse
> eventually gets reduced to a meaningless tit-for-tat exchage (see,
> it's far easier to insult someone when you are not face-to-face).
>
> Besides, even if you DID want to have a prolonged discussion on this
> topic in a newsgroup, this ain't the right one for it. I'm sure
> there's an Alt.Politics.the.UN.Sucks or Alt.Politics.Bush.is.Great or
> some such newsgroups that would welcome this discussion...but it
> doesn't really belong here.
>
> So...we can continue this thread....which will likely mean seeing more
> and more links to URLS promoting or insulting one 'side' or the
> other... and more personal insults being flung in the directions of
> the posters who support one position or the other...
>
> Or we can just stop.
>
> I vote for the 'stop' option.
>
>
>

Chef Juke,

Thank you for saying alot of what I wanted to say. It takes me quite a
bit of time to put alot of thoughts into a post to make undertandable
and to the point. You have saved me some time in getting to the writing
of it.

I think I knew early on that this thread was going to cause a rucos and
chose to not participate. I did however, follow the thread a bit
because of the folks participating and my appreciation of their
contributions to this group as a whole.

I don't even mind a tiny bit of these kinds of discussions on this
group. But once I conclude that it has become a ****ing match, then
whatever I have to say makes no difference. People have their
opinions/positions and they are not going to change them. And that is
OK too. Most of us are over 40 and we have spent the 40 plus years
developing our opinions/positions. That makes it very difficult, but
not impossible, to have them changed in a NG discussion.

In case anyone cares and can't figure out, I vote 'stop'.

BBQ

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:44:13 -0800, Chef Juke >
wrote:

>Okay, I recall hearing once upon a time that there was some golden
>rule of newsgroup threads that says that once someone invokes the name
>of Hitler the friggn thread has to stop, right?

Not quite. Godwin's Law simply says, "As a Usenet discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one."

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

It's generally held that the person comparing others to Nazis or
Hitler has descended to the most vile of ad hominem attacks and
therefore has lost the debate. Thread over.

PS: You can't end a thread by intentionally invoking Godwin's Law.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Top Posting Here

Chef you are referring to Godwin's Law. He calculated that useless
discussions and flame wars inevitably degenerated down to a level
where one poster would call another one a Nazi. This inevitably
evoked a similar response and NET protocol; required that somebody
post the words 'Nazi, Nazi, Nazi.!!'[three times], which required the
thread to be terminated. The first person to have used that word was
declared the loser.

so .... Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! . . .

Harry

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:44:13 -0800, Chef Juke >
wrote:

>Okay, I recall hearing once upon a time that there was some golden
>rule of newsgroup threads that says that once someone invokes the name
>of Hitler the friggn thread has to stop, right?
>
>Then HITLER, already.
>
>As I implied before, I'm sorry I ever brought up the whole Jan Egelund
>thing in the first place.
>
>When I was up in Wenatchee, one of the things I commented on was what
>I liked about this newsgroup and the majority of the regular posters
>to it:
>
>That while we all come from very different backgrounds, political and
>otherwise, we can all come together and get along great when we talk
>about our common interest in BBQ.
>
>Can we get back to that?
>
>As for discussion and debate about the topics touched on in this
>thread...
>
>I love to discuss and debate such issues. I love to explore and learn
>new facts about issues and thus expand my understanding of them as
>well as adjust my position on them when I get new information that
>contradicts my earlier position. That kind of discourse I love...
>
>BUT...
>
>You just can't effectively have that kind of discourse in this type of
>forum. Both the delays in the communication method and the lack of
>the personal interaction hinders the exchange of the ideas...you can't
>hear someone's tone of voice or see the expressions on their face in a
>newsgroup posting....so what inevitably happens is that the discourse
>eventually gets reduced to a meaningless tit-for-tat exchage (see,
>it's far easier to insult someone when you are not face-to-face).
>
>Besides, even if you DID want to have a prolonged discussion on this
>topic in a newsgroup, this ain't the right one for it. I'm sure
>there's an Alt.Politics.the.UN.Sucks or Alt.Politics.Bush.is.Great or
>some such newsgroups that would welcome this discussion...but it
>doesn't really belong here.
>
>So...we can continue this thread....which will likely mean seeing more
>and more links to URLS promoting or insulting one 'side' or the
>other... and more personal insults being flung in the directions of
>the posters who support one position or the other...
>
>Or we can just stop.
>
>I vote for the 'stop' option.
>
>
>
>-Chef Juke
>"EVERYbody Eats When They Come To MY House!"
>www.chefjuke.com

wrote:
> "F.G. Whitfurrows" 'El Factotem della cita'
> > wrote:
>> []
>> <sigh> I once read where someone said something to the effect
>> of....If it bothers you just killfile the poster or ignore the
>> thread, some of us find it mildly entertaining.
>>
>> Those were the days.
>
> "Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto,
> ridi del duol che t'avvelena il cor!"
>
> Giovanne, ridi del duol che t'avvelena il cor!


Huh? Wuzzat?

--
Fosco Gamgee Whitfurrows
and his 6" boner

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> Since you have decided to use private definitions of commonly used
> words, I'm done with you.

So, as I stated, there are no audit trails that show missing funds from the
Oil-for-food program? Since you have choosen to snip my posts and dismiss
the relevant content, I guess you have much less of a leg to stand on than I
even thought you had, rhetorically speaking of course. BTW, the common
dictionary definition is irrelevant, since the word "allegation" is also a
legal term

allegation
n. a statement of claimed fact contained in a complaint (a written pleading
filed to begin a lawsuit), a criminal charge, or an affirmative defense
(part of the written answer to a complaint).
Until each statement is proved it is only an allegation. Some allegations
are made "on information and belief" if the person making the statement is
not sure of a fact.

Note that although the claim, or "allegation" must be proved in court, in
legal terms an "allegation" IS based on facts or evidence which will be
submitted during such a trial or hearing.

As to "being done with me", such is life. I really have little in common
with anyone who belongs to the "blame-Amerca-first" crowd anyway. Thanks
for you wishes. My best to you as well.


--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> How typical. People who don't agree with you _must_ be crazy.

And on YOUR side of the aisle, those who don't agree with YOU are trying to
starve the poor, poison the environment, turn government over to BIG
INDUSTRY, and -- in 1972 - were baby killers, rapists and war criminals.

--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

Harry Demidavicius > wrote:
> Top Posting Here
>
> Chef you are referring to Godwin's Law.[]
>
> so .... Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! . . .
>[]
"Remember Emily Landau, 17. First to fight, first to die, Warsaw Ghetto,
1/18/1943"

--
Nick. To find out more about helping with tsunami relief, go to the web
site of the Center for International Disaster Information
http://www.cidi.org/
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops! You are not forgotten. Thanks.

"F.G. Whitfurrows" > wrote:
> wrote:
> > "F.G. Whitfurrows" 'El Factotem della cita'
> > > wrote:
> >> []
> >> <sigh> I once read where someone said something to the effect
> >> of....If it bothers you just killfile the poster or ignore the
> >> thread, some of us find it mildly entertaining.
> >>
> >> Those were the days.
> >
> > "Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto,
> > ridi del duol che t'avvelena il cor!"
> >
> > Giovanne, ridi del duol che t'avvelena il cor!
>
> Huh? Wuzzat?

Jeezuz, Fos. Me? The dumb Sichy from da Bronx? I hafta teach you, the
cosmopolitan Hobbit, about Opera Buffa? Managa la mens! OK, here goes: See,
this guy, Leoncavalla (or something like that), wrote this opera called
Pagliacci. One of the songs in it is affectionately called Vesti la giubba,
which means "Put on your tunic" (not to be confused with a pakhama). The
last verse of that,
"Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto,
ridi del duol che t'avvelena il cor!", means:
"Laugh, Pagliacci, over your shatterd love,
laugh at the pain that is poisoning your heart!"

My subsequent "Giovanne, ridi del duol che t'avvelena il cor!",
leads with Giovanne, which is Italian for John, or Jack,
and should be self explanatory and food for thought.

I will post a partial lead sheet OT on a.b.f
and a written test is in the mail!

Oh, when I called you 'El Factotem della cita',
that was another friendly jibe. I would translate it roughly as
'The village know-it-all'! °~D

--
Nick. To find out more about helping with tsunami relief, go to the web
site of the Center for International Disaster Information
http://www.cidi.org/
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops! You are not forgotten. Thanks.

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
> > How typical. People who don't agree with you _must_ be crazy.
>
> And on YOUR side of the aisle, those who don't agree with YOU are trying
to
> starve the poor, poison the environment, turn government over to BIG
> INDUSTRY, and -- in 1972 - were baby killers, rapists and war criminals.
>
> --
> Dave
> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
> http://davebbq.com/
>
>
Jesus Dave, you're just not gonna let this go, are you? Do you think this
is helping anything or anybody at all? Go back and read Juke's post.

Jack Curry
-1965-1969 war criminal-

Jack Curry wrote:

> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How typical. People who don't agree with you _must_ be crazy.
>>
>>And on YOUR side of the aisle, those who don't agree with YOU are trying
>
> to
>
>>starve the poor, poison the environment, turn government over to BIG
>>INDUSTRY, and -- in 1972 - were baby killers, rapists and war criminals.
>>
>>--
>>Dave
>>Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
>>http://davebbq.com/
>>
>>
>
> Jesus Dave, you're just not gonna let this go, are you? Do you think this
> is helping anything or anybody at all? Go back and read Juke's post.
>

I guess he doesn't understand what it means when someone says they are
done. Having the last word doesn't mean that you have won the argument.
It merely means that you have worn out the opposition.

Matthew (Silence is not acquiescence)

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

Jack Curry wrote:

> Jesus Dave, you're just not gonna let this go, are you? Do you think
> this is helping anything or anybody at all? Go back and read Juke's
> post.
>
> Jack Curry
> -1965-1969 war criminal-

No, I'm not, Jack, and look in the mirror if you want to know why. I am sick
to death of the innuendo, the sly smile, the telling wink (all rhetorical,
of course) and the outright stated hatred of my beliefs, those I favor as
politicians, my religious heritage, and my moral and conservative values. I
feel like I have to walk on eggshells around those of you with a liberal
bent, or an anti-Christian bent, or a moral bent. You guys don't like MY
not letting go? For all that is holy, it is YOUR cohort that fails to get a
grip on life and let things go.

Ol Hippie was venting his feelings --- which a lot of share. Did YOU guys
let it go? No. You picked up the "American Government sucks", and the "How
dare anyone think badly of the UN" mantle and ran with it. Where were you
when THAT was happening? That's right, you were right in it up to your
armpits. BTW, my last posts were made yesterday evening, PRIOR to Chef's
posting. So DONT DARE PRETEND TO LECTURE ME.

--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> I guess he doesn't understand what it means when someone says they are
> done. Having the last word doesn't mean that you have won the
> argument. It merely means that you have worn out the opposition.

Hit and run is a tactic that doesn't work, Matthew. To shovel a plate-load
of drivel, then say you are done, is the sign of a back-stabbing coward.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>
>>I guess he doesn't understand what it means when someone says they are
>>done. Having the last word doesn't mean that you have won the
>>argument. It merely means that you have worn out the opposition.
>
>
> Hit and run is a tactic that doesn't work, Matthew. To shovel a plate-load
> of drivel, then say you are done, is the sign of a back-stabbing coward.

Look, I've tried to end this, you seem to have taken it to a new level
of personal attack.

HANL.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Jack Curry wrote:
>
>
>>Jesus Dave, you're just not gonna let this go, are you? Do you think
>>this is helping anything or anybody at all? Go back and read Juke's
>>post.
>>
>>Jack Curry
>>-1965-1969 war criminal-
>
>
> No, I'm not, Jack, and look in the mirror if you want to know why. I am sick
> to death of the innuendo, the sly smile, the telling wink (all rhetorical,
> of course) and the outright stated hatred of my beliefs, those I favor as
> politicians, my religious heritage, and my moral and conservative values. I
> feel like I have to walk on eggshells around those of you with a liberal
> bent, or an anti-Christian bent, or a moral bent. You guys don't like MY
> not letting go? For all that is holy, it is YOUR cohort that fails to get a
> grip on life and let things go.

Your mirror must be broken. You are acting exactly as you claim Jack.

> Ol Hippie was venting his feelings --- which a lot of share. Did YOU guys
> let it go? No. You picked up the "American Government sucks", and the "How
> dare anyone think badly of the UN" mantle and ran with it. Where were you
> when THAT was happening? That's right, you were right in it up to your
> armpits. BTW, my last posts were made yesterday evening, PRIOR to Chef's
> posting. So DONT DARE PRETEND TO LECTURE ME.
>

At this point I hope no one pretends to lecture you. I hope anyone who
believes in civil discourse would lecture you in an attempt (probably
futile) to get you to engage in one.

If you hate what I believe in, perhaps you should try to understand why
I think as I do. I don't hate what you believe in. I respect that others
can sincerely differ with me on issues of importance. What I object to
is being told that I'm a sniviling, whiny, relgion hating, slave of the
UN who is actively trying to destroy the US instead of being challenged
on the substance of the issues.

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 16:35:47 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
> wrote:

>What I object to
>is being told that I'm a sniviling, whiny, relgion hating, slave of the
>UN who is actively trying to destroy the US instead of being challenged
>on the substance of the issues.

That's what happens when you try to engage in civil discourse with
people who believe that debate consists of tossing around
bumper-sticker slogans and AM talk-radio labels. You won't find a
reasoned argument informed by fact. All you will continue to find is
more bumper-sticker slogans and labels.

You have given Dave and the others ample opportunity to support their
argument with facts and with references to other arguments that favor
their assertions. Instead, they have implied that you are crazy and
have labeled you as everything from a coward to a U.S.-basher. Worst
of all <snicker> they called you a "liberal." Heaven forfend!

(When are the cons going to realize that "liberal" isn't an insult to
those of us who consider ourselves liberals?)

Name-calling. Bumper-sticker philosophy. Schoolyard taunts. To say
that arguing with such people is beating a dead horse is to make too
much of the vaguely equine-shaped greasespot that used to be civil
discourse.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 16:35:47 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
> wrote:

>What I object to
>is being told that I'm a sniviling, whiny, relgion hating, slave of the
>UN who is actively trying to destroy the US instead of being challenged
>on the substance of the issues.

That's what happens when you try to engage in civil discourse with
people who believe that debate consists of tossing around
bumper-sticker slogans and AM talk-radio labels. You won't find a
reasoned argument informed by fact. All you will continue to find is
more bumper-sticker slogans and labels.

You have given Dave and the others ample opportunity to support their
argument with facts and with references to other arguments that favor
their assertions. Instead, they have implied that you are crazy and
have labeled you as everything from a coward to a U.S.-basher. Worst
of all <snicker> they called you a "liberal." Heaven forfend!

(When are the cons going to realize that "liberal" isn't an insult to
those of us who consider ourselves liberals?)

Name-calling. Bumper-sticker philosophy. Schoolyard taunts. To say
that arguing with such people is beating a dead horse is to make too
much of the vaguely equine-shaped greasespot that used to be civil
discourse.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

"Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> []You guys don't like MY not letting go?

What I find interesting, in a pathetic sort of way, is that those who
berate you for not letting go and 'always trying to have the last word',
won't let go and always try to have the last word. I have named no names in
a feeble attempt to avoid recriminations. °~/

Ob food: How didja like my 'Slow Smoked Beef Short Ribs' recipe?

--
Nick. To find out more about helping with tsunami relief, go to the web
site of the Center for International Disaster Information
http://www.cidi.org/
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops! You are not forgotten. Thanks.

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
> > Our defense of Muslims in Yugoslavia was delayed until the genocide
> > was too obvious to ignore. That was hardly our finest hour.
>
> It wasn't SUPPOSED to be our finest hour; it was supposed to be EUROPES
> finest hour. We went in becasue the Europeans refused to deal with the
mess
> in their own back yards. So YES, it was a demonstration that America and
> Americans do what is necessary and right when the UN and the rest of the
> world cut-n-run.
>
> --
> Dave
> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
> http://davebbq.com/
>
>

Dave,

I've bitten my lip in this thread, but is this a lure for a European to take
up the bait? Your comment is, well, misguided!

I could lay down a map of the EU and defy you to put a pin within 100 miles
of Bucharest, Istanbul, or any other Southern European nations or cities.

Do not tar us all with the same brush, please.

If you want to reply, take this to e-mail. I ****in' hate politics!

Graeme...and a Happy New Year.

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 13:10:44 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> I guess he doesn't understand what it means when someone says they are
>> done. Having the last word doesn't mean that you have won the
>> argument. It merely means that you have worn out the opposition.
>
>Hit and run is a tactic that doesn't work, Matthew. To shovel a plate-load
>of drivel, then say you are done, is the sign of a back-stabbing coward.

Bullshit. When civil discourse is met with name-calling,
bumper-sticker philosophy, and parotted talk-radio vitriol, there's
little to be gained in continuing the discussion. It's like wrestling
in the mud with a pig; after a while, you begin to suspect that the
pig enjoys it.

BTW, Dave, repeatedly referring to U.N. Secretary-General Kafi Annan
as "Kookie" doesn't exactly earn you any credibility. Instead, it
speaks volumes about the usefulness of your contribution to the
discussion.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Jack Curry wrote:
>
>> Jesus Dave, you're just not gonna let this go, are you? Do you think
>> this is helping anything or anybody at all? Go back and read Juke's
>> post.
>>
>> Jack Curry
>> -1965-1969 war criminal-
>
> No, I'm not, Jack, and look in the mirror if you want to know why. I
> am sick to death of the innuendo, the sly smile, the telling wink
> (all rhetorical, of course) and the outright stated hatred of my
> beliefs, those I favor as politicians, my religious heritage, and my
> moral and conservative values.

Your beliefs don't belong here and frankly, I don't care what you believe.
This as a barbecue ng. Except of course that you and your friends want to
make it into a politcial/religious ng by posting your beliefs here. Not
interested, Dave.

I feel like I have to walk on
> eggshells around those of you with a liberal bent, or an
> anti-Christian bent, or a moral bent. You guys don't like MY not
> letting go? For all that is holy, it is YOUR cohort that fails to
> get a grip on life and let things go.

You, Matthew, all of us need to quit, but I obviously can't control what
happens on Usenet.

>
> Ol Hippie was venting his feelings --- which a lot of share.

Bruce's political opinions don't belong here and he apologized.

Did YOU
> guys let it go? No. You picked up the "American Government sucks",
> and the "How dare anyone think badly of the UN" mantle and ran with
> it.

So, you think it's OK for "Your side" to say whatever, but it's not OK for
"My side" to respond. You somehow fail to understand that objecting to the
actions or inactions of our government dosen't make us Anti-American or
unpatriotic. That's the American way, *even if it doesn't belong on this
ng.*

Where were you when THAT was happening? That's right, you were
> right in it up to your armpits.

I was right here. Still am.

BTW, my last posts were made
> yesterday evening, PRIOR to Chef's posting. So DONT DARE PRETEND TO
> LECTURE ME.

I wasn't pretending. You need to quit this shit or we all just need to
plonk each other. It's either going to come to that or we just argue
politics and forget about barbecue.

I'd prefer barbecue.

Jack Curry

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 22:10:08 GMT, Bob in socal >
wrote:

>Don't let the grumps get to you Dave. Ignore them as they'll pile on
>like a tag-team match. Post Election Stress Trauma afflicts many.

Why do you post with X-No-Archive set to yes? Why do you not wish to
have your words attributable to you?

PS: Your post is archived now.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

All,

Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.

I respect everyone's right to their opinion. I think everyone is
usually both right and wrong to varying degrees, depending on the day,
the wind direction and the alignment of the stars. Everyone has their
own high horse that they get on from time to time.

Can we PLEASE just stop. If we can all just let it drop, no matter
how annoyed we are at one or more folks, then at least it won't get
any worse.

I DO NOT BELIEVE ANYONE IS GOING TO RESOLVE THESE ARGUMENTS IN THIS
FORUM.

Therefore continuing this thread will serve little POSITIVE purpose.

So, please just stop.

Okay?

-Chef Juke
"EVERYbody Eats When They Come To MY House!"
www.chefjuke.com

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> Your mirror must be broken. You are acting exactly as you claim Jack.

I'm defending what I believe

> At this point I hope no one pretends to lecture you. I hope anyone who
> believes in civil discourse would lecture you in an attempt (probably
> futile) to get you to engage in one.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

> If you hate what I believe in,

I don't. I find you and your beliefs insignificant. But I won't be bullied.



> I don't hate what you believe in.

Sure you do. You've proven it with your own words.

> What I
> object to is being told that I'm a sniviling, whiny, relgion hating,
> slave of the UN who is actively trying to destroy the US

If the shoe fits...

>instead of
> being challenged on the substance of the issues.

You wouldn't know substance if it slapped you upside the head.

--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 15:37:30 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
> > What I
>> object to is being told that I'm a sniviling, whiny, relgion hating,
>> slave of the UN who is actively trying to destroy the US
>
>If the shoe fits...
>
> >instead of
>> being challenged on the substance of the issues.
>
>You wouldn't know substance if it slapped you upside the head.

Geez, Matthew, it's as if you wrote him a script and he read from it
verbatim.

Object to being labeled "a sniviling, whiny, relgion hating,
slave of the UN who is actively trying to destroy the US"?

Dave will just do it again.

Object to not being challenged on the substance of the issues?

Dave will just ignore the substance while lashing out with a personal
attack.

Classic.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Jack Curry wrote:

>
> Your beliefs don't belong here and frankly, I don't care what you
> believe.

Wow, and your beliefs do? You are the uttermost hypocrite.


> This as a barbecue ng.

Duh

> Except of course that you and your
> friends want to make it into a politcial/religious ng by posting your
> beliefs here. Not interested, Dave.

You've done more than your share, hypocrite.

> So, you think it's OK for "Your side" to say whatever, but it's not
> OK for "My side" to respond.


Jeez, you can't even be objective in that regard, can you? YOU DID NOT HAVE
TO RESPOND.... you could have just as well said "knock it off". But nooooo,
you have to bring YOUR politics in as well. And then you dare have the gall
to lecture anyone else?

> You somehow fail to understand that
> objecting to the actions or inactions of our government dosen't make
> us Anti-American or unpatriotic.

And my objecting to your points of view and beliefs is not an example of
failing to understand your rights.


> I was right here. Still am.

And this shows how hypocritical Martin, you, Kevin, etc. are. You can't
have it both ways.


> I wasn't pretending. You need to quit this shit or we all just need
> to plonk each other.

You quit first. And I could care less if you, Kevin, Martin or whoever want
to engage in plonking.

>It's either going to come to that or we just
> argue politics and forget about barbecue.

Fine by me.

> I'd prefer barbecue.

Right.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

Kevin, just so's ya know, you can blather on all you want. No one cares. I
sure don't.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Jack Curry wrote:
> >>
>> Your beliefs don't belong here and frankly, I don't care what you
>> believe.
>
> Wow, and your beliefs do? You are the uttermost hypocrite.

My beliefs, other than about barbecue don't belong here either and I've said
so repeatedly. You've missed that, have you?
>
>> This as a barbecue ng.
>
> Duh

Apparently you will not allow it to be a barbecue ng, so "Duh" is an
appropriate thing for you to say.

>
>> Except of course that you and your
>> friends want to make it into a political/religious ng by posting your
>> beliefs here. Not interested, Dave.
>
> You've done more than your share, hypocrite.

And I have repeatedly suggested that it end, while you refuse to agree. So
you have called me a hypocrite (twice) and now I call you a troglodyte.
There. We've called each other names and the degeneration of the ng
continues.

(As an aside to the audience, such as it may be, I see a bit of humor here
and hope you do too. Pathos, but humor.)

>
>> So, you think it's OK for "Your side" to say whatever, but it's not
>> OK for "My side" to respond.
>
>
> Jeez, you can't even be objective in that regard, can you? YOU DID
> NOT HAVE TO RESPOND.... you could have just as well said "knock it
> off". But nooooo, you have to bring YOUR politics in as well. And
> then you dare have the gall to lecture anyone else?

I have never been the first to bring politics here. I have plenty of gall.
It is you who refuses to agree to quit. It's you who is insistent on
perpetuating this hairball.

>
>> You somehow fail to understand that
>> objecting to the actions or inactions of our government doesn't make
>> us Anti-American or unpatriotic.
>
> And my objecting to your points of view and beliefs is not an example
> of failing to understand your rights.
>

But you won't agree that politics and religion don't belong here and say
"peace," will you?

>> I was right here. Still am.
>
> And this shows how hypocritical Martin, you, Kevin, etc. are. You
> can't have it both ways.
>
Whatever you are trying to say here makes no sense whatever.
>
>> I wasn't pretending. You need to quit this shit or we all just need
>> to plonk each other.
>
> You quit first. And I could care less if you, Kevin, Martin or
> whoever want to engage in plonking.

Sure. I agree to no more politics, no religion, just barbecue and grilling
and cooking-related stuff. Now all you need do is post, "OK, I agree." You
get the last word, everybody's happy.

>
>> It's either going to come to that or we just
>> argue politics and forget about barbecue.
>
> Fine by me.

Sad, Dave. Can't you understand that you can have opinions and beliefs, but
it isn't right to foist them on others who don't share them? Or don't want
to hear them? See my offer, made above. Post, "OK, I agree, no more
politics, no more religion," and it's a done deal.

>
>> I'd prefer barbecue.
>
> Right.

The offer's on the table, Dave. No more politics, no more religion. Up to
you.

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
> > Since you have decided to use private definitions of commonly used
> > words, I'm done with you.
>
> So, as I stated, there are no audit trails that show missing funds from
the
> Oil-for-food program? Since you have choosen to snip my posts and dismiss
> the relevant content, I guess you have much less of a leg to stand on than
I
> even thought you had, rhetorically speaking of course. BTW, the common
> dictionary definition is irrelevant, since the word "allegation" is also a
> legal term
>
> allegation
> n. a statement of claimed fact contained in a complaint (a written
pleading
> filed to begin a lawsuit), a criminal charge, or an affirmative defense
> (part of the written answer to a complaint).
> Until each statement is proved it is only an allegation. Some allegations
> are made "on information and belief" if the person making the statement is
> not sure of a fact.
>
> Note that although the claim, or "allegation" must be proved in court, in
> legal terms an "allegation" IS based on facts or evidence which will be
> submitted during such a trial or hearing.

Dave, not going to argue the politics, but the above is sloppy thinking.
Please, read it again in a few days. Or hell, read your own damn post for
god's sake: "a statement of claimed fact". Allegations are easy to make and
have become a cheap and easy way to disgrace/dissmiss/smear political
opponents, surely you've noticed the trend?

BTW, have you stopped beating your dog/wife/children? Yes or no answers only
please!


> As to "being done with me", such is life. I really have little in common
> with anyone who belongs to the "blame-Amerca-first" crowd anyway. Thanks
> for you wishes. My best to you as well.

Eh, I suspect MM isnt one of those, certainly your allegation (stated as
fact) based on the current evidence isnt enough to brand him that. I'm
saddened at your quick use of such dissmissive labels as well. And I'm sorry
that your visit here didnt include updates on your business rather than this
boolshit.

I could swamp you with how you've been manipulated and the hypocrisy of the
anger at UN corruption vis a vis the ignored corruption here at home, but
this is a FOOD and BBQ forum. If you're interested in learning some facts
and opinions about this, lets take it to a better NG.

Happy New Year

in article , Duwop at wrote
on 1/2/05 4:40 PM:

> but
> this is a FOOD and BBQ forum. If you're interested in learning some facts
> and opinions about this, lets take it to a better NG.
>
> Happy New Year

Wow, you all went OFF on this one. A little pent up anger from the
bleachers I see.

Get back to the concession stand (NG) and comfort in some good old BBQ.

I hope you all can calm down now, your passion is growing old...........

Mtbchip

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message

> I'm defending what I believe

>
> But I won't be bullied.

OK, so you have strong beliefs. That's a good thing.

You won't be bullied. That's a good thing.

OTOH, after we all agree to stop the off topic thread you insist on going
on. At what point to you cease to be a gentleman of great respect and
become, well, something much less?

Only one or two are still listening. NO ONE has ever changed their mind on
a newsgroup discussion of politics, cell phone use, bombing the enemy,
religous beliefs and a myriad of other subjects.

For me, it is off to bed. Tomorrow I start year 16 at work. That's a good
thing too; I love my job!
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 13:07:20 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Jack Curry wrote:
>
>> Jesus Dave, you're just not gonna let this go, are you? Do you think
>> this is helping anything or anybody at all? Go back and read Juke's
>> post.
>>
>> Jack Curry
>> -1965-1969 war criminal-
>
>No, I'm not, Jack, and look in the mirror if you want to know why. I am sick
>to death of the innuendo, the sly smile, the telling wink (all rhetorical,
>of course) and the outright stated hatred of my beliefs, those I favor as
>politicians, my religious heritage, and my moral and conservative values. I
>feel like I have to walk on eggshells around those of you with a liberal
>bent, or an anti-Christian bent, or a moral bent. You guys don't like MY
>not letting go? For all that is holy, it is YOUR cohort that fails to get a
>grip on life and let things go.
>
>Ol Hippie was venting his feelings --- which a lot of share. Did YOU guys
>let it go? No. You picked up the "American Government sucks", and the "How
>dare anyone think badly of the UN" mantle and ran with it. Where were you
>when THAT was happening? That's right, you were right in it up to your
>armpits. BTW, my last posts were made yesterday evening, PRIOR to Chef's
>posting. So DONT DARE PRETEND TO LECTURE ME.

Dave - please go back to your Doctor and review your meds. This is
getting far too heated for comfort level. This *IS* a newsgroup,
preferably dedicated to BBQ and such - and you're about to leap over
the barroom table broken beer bottle in hand. I didn't spend a bunch
of my time on the 911 line and work my police contacts some time ago
to watch you descend into this level of vehemence on a NG.

I'm outa here before I step on something on the floor . . . . .Geeze!

The rest of you guys - what Juke said. GIVE IT UP FERPETESSAKES!

Harry

"Graeme...in London" wrote:
>
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> >
> > > Our defense of Muslims in Yugoslavia was delayed until the genocide
> > > was too obvious to ignore. That was hardly our finest hour.
> >
> > It wasn't SUPPOSED to be our finest hour; it was supposed to be EUROPES
> > finest hour. We went in becasue the Europeans refused to deal with the
> mess
> > in their own back yards. So YES, it was a demonstration that America and
> > Americans do what is necessary and right when the UN and the rest of the
> > world cut-n-run.


> I've bitten my lip in this thread, but is this a lure for a European to take...
> up the bait? Your comment is, well, misguided!

As a brit, your 'Euro-pean' viewpoint can be questioned anyhow. It would
be pretty hard to argue that the UK and the rest of Europe are looking
through the same specs.

> If you want to reply, take this to e-mail. I ****in' hate politics!

If you don't wish to contribute then don't post with expectations of a
reply of email only.



Do you want reality? The world hates America until it comes time to
handing out checks or bailing them out of a mess. The EU only acts as an
antagonist in an effort to recoup the inability of the UN to provide a
Eurocentrict world. The UN failed because of the US,China, and Russia
and hopefully exclusion of possible vetos will give the EU the power in
the world they long for.



-CAL

Jack Curry wrote:
>
> Dave Bugg wrote:
> > Jack Curry wrote:
> > >>
> >> Your beliefs don't belong here and frankly, I don't care what you
> >> believe.
> >
> > Wow, and your beliefs do? You are the uttermost hypocrite.
>
> My beliefs, other than about barbecue don't belong here either and I've said
> so repeatedly. You've missed that, have you?
> >
> >> This as a barbecue ng.
> >
> > Duh
>
> Apparently you will not allow it to be a barbecue ng, so "Duh" is an
> appropriate thing for you to say.
>
> >
> >> Except of course that you and your
> >> friends want to make it into a political/religious ng by posting your
> >> beliefs here. Not interested, Dave.
> >
> > You've done more than your share, hypocrite.
>
> And I have repeatedly suggested that it end, while you refuse to agree. So
> you have called me a hypocrite (twice) and now I call you a troglodyte.
> There. We've called each other names and the degeneration of the ng
> continues.


I thought it was my job to call you twits hypocrits. You love to talk
but never listen.

-CAL

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 15:52:24 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

<something Dave didn't like, so he snippped it rather than respond to
it>

>Kevin, just so's ya know, you can blather on all you want. No one cares. I
>sure don't.

"Hit and run is a tactic that doesn't work, Matthew. To shovel a
plate-load of drivel, then say you are done, is the sign of a
back-stabbing coward." -- Dave Bugg, in alt.food.barbecue

You were saying?

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 15:52:24 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>
> <something Dave didn't like, so he snippped it rather than respond to
> it>
>
>> Kevin, just so's ya know, you can blather on all you want. No one
>> cares. I sure don't.
>
> "Hit and run is a tactic that doesn't work, Matthew. To shovel a
> plate-load of drivel, then say you are done, is the sign of a
> back-stabbing coward." -- Dave Bugg, in alt.food.barbecue
>
> You were saying?

Matthew and I were talking, and my comment applied only to that
conversation. Sorry your ego was hurt, and your troll was less than
successful, but I could care less what you have to say. I am not talking
with you, but I thought you would like to know, because you are my friend.

--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:52:13 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 15:52:24 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>
>> <something Dave didn't like, so he snippped it rather than respond to
>> it>
>>
>>> Kevin, just so's ya know, you can blather on all you want. No one
>>> cares. I sure don't.
>>
>> "Hit and run is a tactic that doesn't work, Matthew. To shovel a
>> plate-load of drivel, then say you are done, is the sign of a
>> back-stabbing coward." -- Dave Bugg, in alt.food.barbecue
>>
>> You were saying?
>
>Matthew and I were talking, and my comment applied only to that
>conversation.

Careful you don't hurt yourself backpedalling like that. So it's only
in one particular case that "hit-and-run is a tactic that doesn't
work," specifically, when Matthew says he's no longer going to wrestle
with a pig. But when you cut and run, snipping everything that you
prefer to ignore, then that's somehow different.

Got it.

>Sorry your ego was hurt,

Son, you give yourself far too much credit.

> and your troll was less than successful,

You don't really know what that word means, do you? Telling you you're
full of shit isn't trolling. Calling you on your lack of logic and
consistency isn't trolling. Suggesting that your "politics" consists
of bumper-sticker aphorisms and name-calling isn't trolling, and
neither is pointing out that you have failed UTTERLY to support your
arguments with fact.

That isn't trolling. That's calling an ass an ass.

> but I could care less what you have to say. I am not talking
>with you,

You're posting to a worldwide discussion forum, putz. What makes you
think you can dictate who your audience might be?

>but I thought you would like to know, because you are my friend.

How original.

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

--- Nothing substantial, as usual --

ANNOUNCING KEVVIE KONDOMS.

Protect yourself and your loved ones with KEVVIE KONDOMS. As you know,
USENET kevvie herpes can affect anyone on a newsgroup. It can become an
irritating affliction that only the best in barrier protection can prevent.

So, if you find yourself the subject of a kevvie herpe attack, use KEVVIE
KONDOMS. This will prevent the irritation and affliction of a kevvie herpe
infection and leave you free to make fun of it, ignore it or kill-file it
effectively.

So don't go unprepared, use KEVVIE KONDOMS whenever scanning AFB.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:08:21 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>
>--- Nothing substantial, as usual --

You snip what you cannot refute, yet you call Matthew a coward?

Come back when you're ready to actually respond to the replies to your
rants. Until then, STFU; the adults are talking here.

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> Come back when you're ready to actually respond to the replies to your
> rants. Until then, STFU; the adults are talking here.

Oh my, we now have a terminal kevvie herpetic outbreak. Be careful y'all,
this thread may cause severe laughter.

--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/