Re: Earthquake hits Mexico this morning

Sure he would. His spell checker probably works.

...

He left out the part: "It caused nearly $4.00 in property damage."

Cheers! Rich

No, that 400 million in improvements.

Q) Why doesn't Mexico win any gold medals in the Olympics? A) Because any Mexican that can run, jump, or swim is in the US.

=A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

Only an idiot with a thoroughly defective sense of humour would find that particular punch-line funny. Only an idiot with thoroughly defective moral sense would find it appropriate to fabricate a joke around the death of a couple of million human beings.

Such an idiot is obviously willing to pontificate about other people's sense of humour, but if they were just slightly less stupid, they wouldn't bother - who's going to pay any attention to their opinion?

Unexpected evidence of insight.

Back to completely wrong. There was nothing funny about 9/11, and none of the people killed had done anything to deserve it. There are people in the American heirachy who should go before the International Court of Justice for crimes against humanity (which is persumably why Dubbya claims that that court has no jurisdiction over US citizens), but even that wouldn't justify a perfectly selective terrorist attack that only took them out - I don't believe in the death penaly when it is imposed by a properly constituted judicial system, and I'm even less enthusiastic about free-lance murder.

As a Texan you presumably approved of Dubbya's habit of approving the execution of the intellectually challenged in the pursuit of political popularity with the morally challeged right wing voter - people like you, in other words.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ave

Michael Terrell is US-government-certified-useless and so lacking in sense that he thinks that he can usefully call me a cuckold when he doesn't even know who my wife is.

I may not have the sense of humour that finds his traditional jokes funny - jokes tend to lose their cutting edge after the first few hundred years of repetition - but I can still laugh at his absurd pretensions.

Keep up the good work Michael - you may yet provoke me into laughing myself to death.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Oh, hell, Sloman - there are billions of death jokes. If you can't laugh at death, then all you can do is cry.

For Example:

On little Johnny's first day of school, the teacher says, "Let's all go around the room and introduce themselves, and tell us a little about yourself." So, the kids are primarily talking about what Daddy does for a living, and it's little Johnny's turn.

He says, "My Daddy doesn't do NOTHING!" "Oh, why's that?" "'Cause he's DEAD!" "Oh, I'm so sorry to hear that., What did he do before he died?" "KKKHHHHHKKKXXXXXX!"

Cheers! Rich

Now that is funny - and it is fabricated around the death of just one human being. The sex of the victim is identified, but it isn't material to the joke (it would be just as funny if, if slightly less plausible, if little Johnny had lost his mother), and there aren't any ethnic slurs, so I can't imagine that even the most politically correct of commentators would find it anything worse than sick.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Your all piss and vinegar lately. Your becoming a miserable old git!

--- For their purposes, perhaps.

However, he's found joy in bringing old computers to life and giving them away in order to try to make this world a better place.

And you?

It seems to me that all you want to do is to try to set yourself up as an end authority and, with that authority, dictate the difference between right and wrong, how people should live their lives, and how things should be done. Not much different from any of the other dictators on the planet, with the exception that you don't have the power to make your will be done.

---

--- I think he was saying you were being cuckolded, not because of who your wife is, but because of who _you_ are.

---

--- There _is_ humor in absurdity, which is what makes the 2 million Mexican joke funny. That is, the initial feeling of pathos being swept away by the sudden realization that it wasn't true and that you were being had.

Since you can't stand the idea of not being in control 100% of the time, that's probably why you find no humor in it.

---

--- Not a bad way to go, since it'll make all of us happy!

Here, to help you your way:

BILL SLOMAN ONLY

JF

JF

Well, some people - apparently acting under your orders and in your interest - have committed some rather nasty crimes. It may take a couple of trials to nail down exactly which bits of your adminstration were responsible, and convict the guilty parties, but it does seem to be high time that the process got underway.

Do read a little Chomsky for the details of the crimes, which don't get publicised in main-stream US media for some reason or another

Either you believe in justice or you don't. You guys don't believe in justice, which does suggest that you've got quite a lot to fear from it.

Whereas your adminstration has a god-given right to ride rough-shod over the inhabitants of Irak, Iran, Chile, Guatamala and a long list of other countries?

Not until you run out of oil. We can wait.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

If that is the case, your representatives in Chile must have prepared quite long lists

Wikipedia's article does seem to have been got at.

Naomi Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine", documents are rather more rabid coup.

You could - of course - elect a slightly less criminal administration and clean up your own act.

Australians are aware that this can happen. Joh Bjelke-Petersen was premier of the state governemnt in Queensland (one of the six states that together form the Australian federation) from 1968 to 1987. Six months after his cabinet was finally overthrown, every last one of them had been charged with corruption (except the one who had died in the menatime). Joh himself wasn't convicted - one of his supporters was foreman of the jury at his trial and managed to engineer a hung jury - but he was thoroughly discredited.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

e:

That certainly doesn't follow from even Wikipedia's ultra-careful approach.

Actually, it appealed to me precisely because it tied up with other information I'd had from very different sources.

Your glib comment about it's "accuracy" isn't exactly backed up by alternative sources, and - judging from you past perfornance, it is never going to be. Typical right-wing non-thinking - "I don't like the conclusion so the data has to be flawed".

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--- Of course, but only because you considered the "very different sources" to be in your camp. Have you ever quoted material which disagreed with your position and defeated it, and which you acknowledged as causing you to rethink your position?

I don't think so.

From what you've posted, so far, you seem to think that you're God and that, no matter what, any arguments sent your way are inconsequential.

They aren't

---

--- Your "It's" should be "its", idiot.

You pretend to be an authority about just about everything and, yet, you can't even punctuate the English language properly.

JF

So, you're saying that one death is OK, but two million aren't? (in jokes, of course. In real life one is too many.).

Where do you draw the line? How many is too many? (remember, we're talking about fiction here.)

Thanks, Rich

How's this one: "If the Jews had secured their right to keep and bear arms, the Holocaust would never have happened."

Cheers! Rich