Michel Boucher, , outspoken and often mistaken critic of
American government is deeply (to say the least ) interested in Marxism. Check
his posts under "michel boucher " in the Search box for :
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&q=rec.food.co
oking&btnG=Search.

There are such titles as "Why Make Profit An Objective".
"Cuba, Communism's Great Success"
"Why Marxism"
"Dangerous 'World of International Capitlism".
-----=======
Just keep it in mind when he rants on about American Government, and naturally,
Ronald Reagan. Keep it in mind when he totally twists the facts, such as
ranting that Reagan was responsible for keeping the hostages in Iran, when, in
fact, he was the one who was responsible for their release on his first day in
office. Well, Michel, was that an honest mistake, or a clever Marxian twist?

Nancree

"Nancree" > wrote in message
...
> Michel Boucher, , outspoken and often mistaken critic
of
> American government is deeply (to say the least ) interested in Marxism.
Check
> his posts under "michel boucher " in the Search box for :
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&q=rec.food.co
> oking&btnG=Search.
>
> There are such titles as "Why Make Profit An Objective".
> "Cuba, Communism's Great Success"
> "Why Marxism"
> "Dangerous 'World of International Capitlism".
> -----=======
> Just keep it in mind when he rants on about American Government, and
naturally,
> Ronald Reagan. Keep it in mind when he totally twists the facts, such as
> ranting that Reagan was responsible for keeping the hostages in Iran,
when, in
> fact, he was the one who was responsible for their release on his first
day in
> office. Well, Michel, was that an honest mistake, or a clever Marxian
twist?
>
> Nancree
>
I think most folks on the Usenet have MB killfiled Nan.
Don't let his ilk get under your skin.

onono (Nancree) wrote in
:

> Michel Boucher, , outspoken and often
> mistaken critic of American government is deeply (to say the least
> ) interested in Marxism. Check his posts under "michel boucher "
> in the Search box for :
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...O-8859-1&q=rec.
> food.co
> oking&btnG=Search.
>
> There are such titles as "Why Make Profit An Objective".
> "Cuba, Communism's Great Success"
> "Why Marxism"
> "Dangerous 'World of International Capitlism".
> -----=======
> Just keep it in mind when he rants on about American Government,
> and naturally, Ronald Reagan. Keep it in mind when he totally
> twists the facts, such as ranting that Reagan was responsible for
> keeping the hostages in Iran, when, in fact, he was the one who
> was responsible for their release on his first day in office.
> Well, Michel, was that an honest mistake, or a clever Marxian
> twist?

Actually it was a mistake, but only in the timing part of it. I
maintained that the accusation was about the hostage situation and
until the original poster corrects me, I'll maintain I'm correct but
not right, if you get my drift.

You, on the other hand, need to get a sense of humour.

--

Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?

Gimli, son of Gloín

"Nancree" > wrote in message
...
> Michel Boucher, , outspoken and often mistaken critic
of
> American government is deeply (to say the least ) interested in Marxism.
Check
> his posts under "michel boucher " in the Search box for :
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&q=rec.food.co
> oking&btnG=Search.
>
<snip>

WTF? Why bring up someone's posts from another newsgroup unless you have
nothing substantial to say? You must have very limited skills (and perhaps
intelligence) if you have to resort to searching for "damning" information
elsewhere. And what are you going to dig up on others who have blasted
Reagan and the American government (Michel is not the only one who has done
so)? Childhood stories? Did someone pee his pants when he was 10?

Grow up already.

rona

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:09:00 +0900, "Rona Yuthasastrakosol"
> wrote:

>
>"Nancree" > wrote in message
...
>> Michel Boucher, , outspoken and often mistaken critic
>of
>> American government is deeply (to say the least ) interested in Marxism.
>Check
>> his posts under "michel boucher " in the Search box for :
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&q=rec.food.co
>> oking&btnG=Search.
>>
><snip>
>
>WTF? Why bring up someone's posts from another newsgroup unless you have
>nothing substantial to say? You must have very limited skills (and perhaps
>intelligence) if you have to resort to searching for "damning" information
>elsewhere. And what are you going to dig up on others who have blasted
>Reagan and the American government (Michel is not the only one who has done
>so)? Childhood stories? Did someone pee his pants when he was 10?
>
>Grow up already.
>
>rona

Whereas I wish she hadn't have done that (start a new topic here with
his name in the subject line and bring a discussion from another
newsgroup here), I think one has to view it in the context of Michel's
relentless anti-American badgering on rfc over the years. It's sort
of like a neighbor I had years ago, who was very loud and not so
bright. She liked her steak well-done. Every time someone mentioned
"steak" she went into her canned speech about how she wanted HER steak
well-done, she didn't want the cow to moo when she cut the steak, blah
blah blah... On cue, whenever steak was served ("how do you want your
steak?") we knew she'd start the same idiot and boring dissertation;
people's eyes would glaze over as she blathered on (of course, she did
the same for other topics). Being loud, stupid, and incessant didn't
make her right; it just set some people daydreaming about various
(violent) ways to stop her.

Anyway, that's what Michel is like and it's not surprizing that
someone snapped. Plus, he is a ceaseless source of misinformation
that he pulls out of his hat to bolster his points. When caught, he
offers a lame excuse along the lines of he was right in spirit if not
facts. Debating with him is useless because he draws from a grab bag
of fact and fantasy which he uses to wear down his opponent. It costs
him nothing to make up something and throw it out as fact; but the
others then have to know or do research to refute the point. Soon
enough this gets irritating or boring to the second party and they
wander off. The bottom line is that his purpose is not to have an
intellectual debate on a topic, but to annoy people, especially
Americans. It's a great source of satisfaction to him, like an
addiction.

I didn't write the above to chastise Michel, but I think you were too
harsh on one of his victims who snapped.

I wish we didn't discuss politics and religion on rfc, but that's
never going to change.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

(Curly Sue) wrote in
:

> Anyway, that's what Michel is like and it's not surprizing that
> someone snapped.

Actually, that's not at all what I'm like but you seem to be
fascinated by me so I'll let it pass as long as you promise to get
help...and soon from what I read below.

> Plus, he is a ceaseless source of misinformation
> that he pulls out of his hat to bolster his points. When caught,
> he offers a lame excuse along the lines of he was right in spirit
> if not facts.

Actually, it happened once. You can't say it's a rule. I am
prepared to admit when I am wrong and I always do so with good grace
but I insist on at least being correct when I am correct. Sue me.
Is this what you mean by an anti-USAian trait?

> The bottom line is that
> his purpose is not to have an intellectual debate on a topic, but
> to annoy people, especially Americans. It's a great source of
> satisfaction to him, like an addiction.

Actually I find it tedious, but suit yourself. And you Curly, find
it necessary to be the buttinsky every time someone gets their
knickers in a twist. Many others, USAIans included, have voiced
similar opinions to mine about the "quality" of care under Reagan.
You are obviously deaf to their entreaties but mine, for some reason,
you find fascinationg...again, seek help.

> I didn't write the above to chastise Michel, but I think you were
> too harsh on one of his victims who snapped.

Ok, but your assumption is wrong. She was not a victim and I never
victimize people. They are free to retort intelligently but the
problem is that too many confuse their emotions regarding
flag'mom'naplepah with intellectual debate just as you are doing now.

> I wish we didn't discuss politics and religion on rfc, but that's
> never going to change.

I wish you would get over yourself, but that's not going to change
either. By the way, that was NOT an anti-US statement. I have made
no anti-US statements in this post. Do you think I'm cured? :-)

--

Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?

Gimli, son of Gloín

On 8 Jun 2004 21:54:34 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

(Curly Sue) wrote in
:
>
>> Anyway, that's what Michel is like and it's not surprizing that
>> someone snapped.
>
>Actually, that's not at all what I'm like but you seem to be
>fascinated by me so I'll let it pass as long as you promise to get
>help...and soon from what I read below.
>
I'm no more fascinated by you than I was by my former neighbor.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

(Curly Sue) wrote in news:40c65d71.1199499
@news-server.nyc.rr.com:

> On 8 Jun 2004 21:54:34 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
(Curly Sue) wrote in
:
>>
>>> Anyway, that's what Michel is like and it's not surprizing that
>>> someone snapped.
>>
>>Actually, that's not at all what I'm like but you seem to be
>>fascinated by me so I'll let it pass as long as you promise to get
>>help...and soon from what I read below.
>>
> I'm no more fascinated by you than I was by my former neighbor.

So, you ARE fascinated by me. Admit it, you are drawn to read my
posts, which you claim to contain ideas that you find offensive, much
as a moth to a flame. If you were truly offended, nothing could stop
you from ignoring them, and yet you eschew this noble institution in
favour of the low retort and argumentum ad hominem. How do you
explain that if not by fascination?

--

Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?

Gimli, son of Gloín

Curly Sue wrote:

> I'm no more fascinated by you than I was by my former neighbor.


That doesn't really say much, because we don't know how fascinated you
were by this neighbor. You could have been stalking him for all we know.




Brian Rodenborn

"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
...

>
> Whereas I wish she hadn't have done that (start a new topic here with
> his name in the subject line and bring a discussion from another
> newsgroup here), I think one has to view it in the context of Michel's
> relentless anti-American badgering on rfc over the years.

No, one doesn't. Not only does one not *have* to view it in that context,
this particular "one" does not at all. The two are independent of one
another. Michel's comments on Reagan are on Reagan, specifically. They
have nothing to do with anti-American sentiment.

>Being loud, stupid, and incessant didn't
> make her right; it just set some people daydreaming about various
> (violent) ways to stop her.
>

Only you can disturb your own peace--if someone bother's you, it's because
you let them. You decide how you're going to react to them.

> Anyway, that's what Michel is like and it's not surprizing that
> someone snapped. Plus, he is a ceaseless source of misinformation
> that he pulls out of his hat to bolster his points. When caught, he
> offers a lame excuse along the lines of he was right in spirit if not
> facts. Debating with him is useless because he draws from a grab bag
> of fact and fantasy which he uses to wear down his opponent.

A "grab bag of fact and fantasy"? I assume, then, that you've researched
which of his comments are "fact" and which are "fantasy"? I certainly have
not and I would never be so presumptuous as to make such a comment without
having done so.

>
> I didn't write the above to chastise Michel, but I think you were too
> harsh on one of his victims who snapped.
>

Ah, so it was to chastise me? In my world of fact/fantasy, what Nancree did
was wrong. Period. You can't control what other people do, but you can
control what you do. To research someone's posting history (and then post
about it) in an attempt to reduce that person's credibility is wrong.

rona
--
***For e-mail, replace .com with .ca Sorry for the inconvenience!***

On 08 Jun 2004 08:56:52 GMT, onono (Nancree) wrote:

>Michel Boucher, , outspoken and often mistaken critic of
>American government is deeply (to say the least ) interested in Marxism. Check
>his posts under "michel boucher " in the Search box for :
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&q=rec.food.co
>oking&btnG=Search.
>
>There are such titles as "Why Make Profit An Objective".
>"Cuba, Communism's Great Success"
>"Why Marxism"
>"Dangerous 'World of International Capitlism".
>-----=======
>Just keep it in mind when he rants on about American Government, and naturally,
>Ronald Reagan. Keep it in mind when he totally twists the facts, such as
>ranting that Reagan was responsible for keeping the hostages in Iran, when, in
>fact, he was the one who was responsible for their release on his first day in
>office. Well, Michel, was that an honest mistake, or a clever Marxian twist?
>
>Nancree

Most of us know Michel's opinions on the US, English, and other topics
and applaud his finding a new audience in a topical newsgroup. He's
happy, we're happy, and so forth. Please don't undermine his efforts
by bringing the discussion to rfc. :< Another option, as mentioned
by someone else, is to not read his non-cooking posts, whether you
killfile him or just ignore them.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

(Curly Sue) wrote in
:

> Most of us know Michel's opinions on the US, English, and other
> topics and applaud his finding a new audience in a topical
> newsgroup. He's happy, we're happy, and so forth. Please don't
> undermine his efforts by bringing the discussion to rfc. :<
> Another option, as mentioned by someone else, is to not read his
> non-cooking posts, whether you killfile him or just ignore them.

A sensible post. What was the point of the other one?

--

Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?

Gimli, son of Gloín

On 8 Jun 2004 22:20:32 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

(Curly Sue) wrote in
:
>
>> Most of us know Michel's opinions on the US, English, and other
>> topics and applaud his finding a new audience in a topical
>> newsgroup. He's happy, we're happy, and so forth. Please don't
>> undermine his efforts by bringing the discussion to rfc. :<
>> Another option, as mentioned by someone else, is to not read his
>> non-cooking posts, whether you killfile him or just ignore them.
>
>A sensible post. What was the point of the other one?
>

To put Nancree's post in context.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

onono (Nancree) wrote in message >...
> Michel Boucher, , outspoken and often mistaken critic of
> American government is deeply (to say the least ) interested in Marxism.

Yeah, well, the sky is blue, too. No need to point out the obvious.

Michel is pretty knowledgeable about maple syrup, so you have to give
him credit for that. I suspect he likes good coffee too. So, while I
wouldn't want him as a voting US citizen, he'd be a fine breakfast
companion.

Be of good cheer. Don't spend anytime in the anti-Reagan echo chamber
threads. If you need some salve, check out a Weblog like Lilek's, or
hogonice, or something like that.

Greg Zywicki

On 8 Jun 2004 07:05:08 -0700, Greg Zywicki wrote:

> If you need some salve, check out a Weblog like Lilek's

Bill Whittle. His latest ("Strength" - long though it is) should be
required reading for all Americans: <http://www.ejectejecteject.com/>

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

Nancree > wrote:
>Just keep it in mind when he rants on about American Government,

It's a logical fallacy to assume that his "rants" about
the transgressions of the government are incorrect just
because he believes in a fallacious economic and political
philosophy.

The reason Marxism becomes the government is because
people know their government is totally screwed anyway,
and Marxism is just complicated enough that they can't
understand its flaws until it's tried.

The solution is to fix the government we have, because
when it's not being abused by liars and criminals (i.e.,
the real power of the Republican Party) it's the best form
of government people can create.

--Blair
"When you reply, keep the Fallacy of
the Excluded Middle in mind. I'm
tired of having to teach that lesson
over and over again."

Blair P. Houghton > wrote in news:BLrxc.17079691$Id.2823525
@news.easynews.com:

> Nancree > wrote:
>>Just keep it in mind when he rants on about American Government,
>
> It's a logical fallacy to assume that his "rants" about
> the transgressions of the government are incorrect just
> because he believes in a fallacious economic and political
> philosophy.

Hey, them's fightin' woids...:-) In fact, I do not support the
systemization by anyone or any country of Marx's ideas. But nobody
ever bothered to ask ME that, did they.

I am opposed to the existence of nations, governments ruled by narrow
ideologies and rallying round flags or place of "worship" to validate
one's own existence. As John Lennon put it succinctly:

Imagine there's no countries, It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for, No religion too...

Then I could have peace and quiet and spend my time cooking and
playing wargames ;-)

--

Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?

Gimli, son of Gloín

Michel Boucher > wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton > wrote in news:BLrxc.17079691$Id.2823525
:
>
>> Nancree > wrote:
>>>Just keep it in mind when he rants on about American Government,
>>
>> It's a logical fallacy to assume that his "rants" about
>> the transgressions of the government are incorrect just
>> because he believes in a fallacious economic and political
>> philosophy.
>
>Hey, them's fightin' woids...:-) In fact, I do not support the
>systemization by anyone or any country of Marx's ideas. But nobody
>ever bothered to ask ME that, did they.
>
>I am opposed to the existence of nations, governments ruled by narrow
>ideologies and rallying round flags or place of "worship" to validate
>one's own existence.

I actually agree with all of those things.

>As John Lennon put it succinctly:
>
>Imagine there's no countries, It isnt hard to do,
>Nothing to kill or die for, No religion too...
>
>Then I could have peace and quiet and spend my time cooking and
>playing wargames ;-)

Kinda like on the Internet.

--Blair
"Aieeeee! Marxist hoodooooooooo!"

Blair P. Houghton > wrote in
:

>>I am opposed to the existence of nations, governments ruled by
>>narrow ideologies and rallying round flags or place of "worship"
>>to validate one's own existence.
>
> I actually agree with all of those things.

And those are notions that are fundamental to Marx's view of the best
future for mankind (this from the mid 19th century). The rest is
details and those can be different from time to time and place to
place. The fact that no group has never implemented a system based
on what Marx actually wrote is significant. There is still hope that
it can be done someday, and done right.

> "Aieeeee! Marxist hoodooooooooo!"

Good one...I suppose I could adapt it:

> "Aieeeee! Kap'talist voodooooooooo!"

Sound good? :-)

--
Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?

Gimli, son of Gloín

"Blair P. Houghton" wrote in message
> Nancree wrote:
> >Just keep it in mind when he rants on about American Government,
>
Blair's treatise has been snipped so I can avoid repeating it. Blair,
please direct all your political ramblings to an appropriate political
newsgroup.
You're boring. Thank you.

Dora

limey > wrote:
>
>"Blair P. Houghton" wrote in message
>> Nancree wrote:
>> >Just keep it in mind when he rants on about American Government,
>>
>Blair's treatise has been snipped so I can avoid repeating it. Blair,
>please direct all your political ramblings to an appropriate political
>newsgroup.
>You're boring. Thank you.

Life can't all be Watermelon, Chili, and Strawberries, honeypie.

--Blair
"You know you don't have to eat
it if you don't want any. There's
plenty all else on this buffet line."

Blair P. Houghton > wrote in message > ...
> The solution is to fix the government we have, because
> when it's not being abused by liars and criminals (i.e.,
> the real power of the Republican Party) it's the best form
> of government people can create.
>
> --Blair

Any reason why you single out the GOP?

Greg Zywicki
-cause, well, you know...

Greg Zywicki > wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton > wrote in message
>...
>> The solution is to fix the government we have, because
>> when it's not being abused by liars and criminals (i.e.,
>> the real power of the Republican Party) it's the best form
>> of government people can create.
>
>Any reason why you single out the GOP?

Because the DNC isn't the party of liars and criminals.

As the number of officials convicted in the two parties'
administrations in the past 30 years can attest.

--Blair
"Who's stealing from whom?"

Blair P. Houghton > wrote in message > ...
> Greg Zywicki > wrote:
> >Blair P. Houghton > wrote in message
> >...
> >> The solution is to fix the government we have, because
> >> when it's not being abused by liars and criminals (i.e.,
> >> the real power of the Republican Party) it's the best form
> >> of government people can create.
> >
> >Any reason why you single out the GOP?
>
> Because the DNC isn't the party of liars and criminals.
>
> As the number of officials convicted in the two parties'
> administrations in the past 30 years can attest.
>
> --Blair
> "Who's stealing from whom?"

Contrary to popular belief, they've even infiltarted academia, to the
point that most dictionaries published in the US leave out key words
like guillable.

Greg Zywicki
"I did not type this post on that computer...Monica Dellwinsky."

I fail to see the point of this posting. Michel is anti-capitalist, and
also anti-Republican. That seems fairly consistent, and also consistent
with the fact that he shares a different political philosophy to yours.
That also is often the basis of political debate (which I apologise for
propagating on a food newsgroup.) I would be more surprised were he posting
support to a neo-nazi group, and then supporting Marxism elsewhere.

Or am I mistaken in thinking that Marxism is just a different political
philosophy? Is it, in fact, considered a criminal activity in the USA?

Colin
"Nancree" > wrote in message
...
> Michel Boucher, , outspoken and often mistaken critic
of
> American government is deeply (to say the least ) interested in Marxism.
Check
> his posts under "michel boucher " in the Search box for :
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&q=rec.food.co
> oking&btnG=Search.
>
> There are such titles as "Why Make Profit An Objective".
> "Cuba, Communism's Great Success"
> "Why Marxism"
> "Dangerous 'World of International Capitlism".
> -----=======
> Just keep it in mind when he rants on about American Government, and
naturally,
> Ronald Reagan. Keep it in mind when he totally twists the facts, such as
> ranting that Reagan was responsible for keeping the hostages in Iran,
when, in
> fact, he was the one who was responsible for their release on his first
day in
> office. Well, Michel, was that an honest mistake, or a clever Marxian
twist?
>
> Nancree