Most species function much better in some sort of a society, so
anti-social behavior is counter-productive to survival. Religion seems
to be invented to address many social needs human society has. But
modern society has much more complex needs than can be addressed by
current religion, even though some people think their religion has all
the answers. We must find a new way to deal with our social problems.

Playing "devil's advocate"...many religious types would consider this a cart
before the horse situation....people pulling away from older ideals is what
causes the problems we are trying to fix. I for one don't think people have
changed all that much in the short time of recordable history. Our societies
have changed but we are stuck with ourselves as ourselves.




John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

When religion is used
to deter the spread of common knowledge to all men I personally believe
religion is really going back to basics of control through fear and
ignorance. It is most evident in the concept that our religious leaders
actually know more than the common man, when, in fact, the stifling pursuit
of religion for established religion's sake places these "leaders" in
positions where they really don't know, nor evidently care, about the common
man.

This is old testament stuff....not modern Christianity..it that is of what you
are speaking...exactly the opposite really.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Blind Joni wrote:
Point being that it didn't take until modern man came upon the scene before
these "concepts" took hold.


However, these observed facts don't necessarily discount that some "god"
indeed incorporated such activities and gained knowledge in man via some
divine plan. It does, however, make very clear that only man could codify
such concepts into guidelines and laws attributable to some greater being
whether that being's existence is real or not.



I agree..my point was that until language developed the concept of "concepts"
couldn't exist. I'm just exploring the premise of language as the ultimate
context for human beings and observing how everything fits inside this
context...the only time I've found this to hold.


My wife tells me it is nearly impossible to mislead in Cherokee due to
the way things are phrased. Large differences between "I saw" and "I
know someone who saw" and such.

When religion is used
to deter the spread of common knowledge to all men I personally believe
religion is really going back to basics of control through fear and
ignorance. It is most evident in the concept that our religious leaders
actually know more than the common man, when, in fact, the stifling pursuit
of religion for established religion's sake places these "leaders" in
positions where they really don't know, nor evidently care, about the common
man.

This is old testament stuff....not modern Christianity..it that is of what you
are speaking...exactly the opposite really.

Really? Fear, ignorance and oppression seem to me to be the hallmarks of
Christianity for most of its' fetid history.



(Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
And that statement just shows a tremendous amount of stupidity my friend.

No, laughing at Jerry Lewis shows a tremendous amount of stupidity.

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your
accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage." - Norman
Schwartzkopf

The Complete Military History of France:

- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French
history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently
creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious
only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.

- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when
fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded
anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants
started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

- The Dutch War
- Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded
Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French
military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough,
which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France
claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is
later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French
Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of
a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl
home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States.
Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a
winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of
condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French
bloodline.

- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as
they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim
force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We
can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of
the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and
Esquimaux.

- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and
Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail
after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

ryanm

"ryanm" wrote in message ...

- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and
Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail
after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.


there are french troops in afghanistan, in response to the 9/11
attacks on american soil. they also contributed troops during the
first gulf war, in a coalition led by americans.






ryanm

"ryanm" wrote in message ...

- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and
Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail
after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.


there are french troops in afghanistan, in response to the 9/11
attacks on american soil. they also contributed troops during the
first gulf war, in a coalition led by americans.






ryanm

This is old testament stuff....not modern Christianity..it that is of what
you
are speaking...exactly the opposite really.

Really? Fear, ignorance and oppression seem to me to be the hallmarks of
Christianity for most of its' fetid history.

Slavery, lynching and segregation seem to be the hallmarks of US
history..what's your point? Any system..belief or otherwise can be abused and
twisted..hopefully we get better at it as time goes on.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

This is old testament stuff....not modern Christianity..it that is of what
you
are speaking...exactly the opposite really.

Really? Fear, ignorance and oppression seem to me to be the hallmarks of
Christianity for most of its' fetid history.

Slavery, lynching and segregation seem to be the hallmarks of US
history..what's your point? Any system..belief or otherwise can be abused and
twisted..hopefully we get better at it as time goes on.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

I for one don't think people have
changed all that much in the short time of recordable history. Our
societies
have changed but we are stuck with ourselves as ourselves.


We've come a long way in the last century alone, we don't own slaves,
women can vote, people of color can use use the same facilities as
everybody else.

"We" meaning the society. I was speaking of "we" as individuals. My point is
that put into a life threatening situation..however that is peceived.."we"
reacts pretty much the same as "we" did many,many generations ago. We can train
lions but they are still lions. I get confused as sometimes it seems that these
discussions deal with a "we" that will for some reason do what others decide
they should.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

I for one don't think people have
changed all that much in the short time of recordable history. Our
societies
have changed but we are stuck with ourselves as ourselves.


We've come a long way in the last century alone, we don't own slaves,
women can vote, people of color can use use the same facilities as
everybody else.

"We" meaning the society. I was speaking of "we" as individuals. My point is
that put into a life threatening situation..however that is peceived.."we"
reacts pretty much the same as "we" did many,many generations ago. We can train
lions but they are still lions. I get confused as sometimes it seems that these
discussions deal with a "we" that will for some reason do what others decide
they should.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Missed my point Roger..I'm speaking of our interpretation of what we see and
the words we hear.

Why it's funny is that the bird happens to be saying "go away" in
English, and truthfully it does sound like "go away". But what is really
curious is we are talking about a simplistic form of communications that is
trans-species, and it has the exact same meaning to all.

Can we ask the bird?



While the goal of language is perhaps a clarity in
communications, the price is an abundance of definitions of terms that
separately, and in conjuction with others, convolutes meanings. It's the
convolution of meanings that leaves the question of god's existence up to
ridicule, not the development of language that proves god exists.

REALLY missing my point...Without "language" as I defined it..you can't write
the sentence explaining what you think...BECAUSE you can't think it without
language....
try it sometime.

Sorry, John, but man is not alone on this world, nor anything but a very
recent development. To bolster one argument by discounting millions more
years of animal existence simply cuts the argument into pieces. When a
piece of information fits a theory, then one needs to expand the test to see
if the information continues to fit the theory.

Again, there was no arguement..in a legal or philosophical sense.. until
language...and the only wasy everything fits is within the context of language.

I'm just playing with the concept here so please play along.





John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Missed my point Roger..I'm speaking of our interpretation of what we see and
the words we hear.

Why it's funny is that the bird happens to be saying "go away" in
English, and truthfully it does sound like "go away". But what is really
curious is we are talking about a simplistic form of communications that is
trans-species, and it has the exact same meaning to all.

Can we ask the bird?



While the goal of language is perhaps a clarity in
communications, the price is an abundance of definitions of terms that
separately, and in conjuction with others, convolutes meanings. It's the
convolution of meanings that leaves the question of god's existence up to
ridicule, not the development of language that proves god exists.

REALLY missing my point...Without "language" as I defined it..you can't write
the sentence explaining what you think...BECAUSE you can't think it without
language....
try it sometime.

Sorry, John, but man is not alone on this world, nor anything but a very
recent development. To bolster one argument by discounting millions more
years of animal existence simply cuts the argument into pieces. When a
piece of information fits a theory, then one needs to expand the test to see
if the information continues to fit the theory.

Again, there was no arguement..in a legal or philosophical sense.. until
language...and the only wasy everything fits is within the context of language.

I'm just playing with the concept here so please play along.





John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

ryanm wrote:


I just wish you people would get this upset about the... war on drugs.
snip
right here at home each year with the war on drugs, but no one is upset
about that. Why not?

Pay attention! We've been discussing this very thing in another thread
here. The people you're arguing with agree with you 100%. And I
enjoyed the suggestions you have for how better to spend the money. We
could easily fund all the social progams we've ever dreamed of if we
weren't throwing money down the toilet on the WOD and other disasters,
or making even bigger problems for ourselves with Missile Defense and
these dubious foreign invasions. We could have a launch pad on the
moon by now if we weren't wasting all our resources on this crap.

ulysses

ryanm wrote:


I just wish you people would get this upset about the... war on drugs.
snip
right here at home each year with the war on drugs, but no one is upset
about that. Why not?

Pay attention! We've been discussing this very thing in another thread
here. The people you're arguing with agree with you 100%. And I
enjoyed the suggestions you have for how better to spend the money. We
could easily fund all the social progams we've ever dreamed of if we
weren't throwing money down the toilet on the WOD and other disasters,
or making even bigger problems for ourselves with Missile Defense and
these dubious foreign invasions. We could have a launch pad on the
moon by now if we weren't wasting all our resources on this crap.

ulysses

Roger W. Norman wrote:

That was my point, George. It's a matter of developing language, not so
much to communicate, but control communication. The more precise a language
gets the more convoluted it can become, but the more generalized it is used,
the more it can be made to work to one's advantage. Obviously there are
those in power right now that understand this and apply it very well. By
not including some serious facts, France can easily be made to look very
evil indeed to the unwashed masses. It's a matter of context.

You mean like how a fella can give 70% of the population the distinct
impression that Saddam Hussein personally planned and executed the
terror attacks of 9/11, but somehow was able to later say, "Oh, of
course not" without technically contradicting himself? To their
credit, "those in power" do seem to be very adept at "deception without
lying."


ulysses

Roger W. Norman wrote:

That was my point, George. It's a matter of developing language, not so
much to communicate, but control communication. The more precise a language
gets the more convoluted it can become, but the more generalized it is used,
the more it can be made to work to one's advantage. Obviously there are
those in power right now that understand this and apply it very well. By
not including some serious facts, France can easily be made to look very
evil indeed to the unwashed masses. It's a matter of context.

You mean like how a fella can give 70% of the population the distinct
impression that Saddam Hussein personally planned and executed the
terror attacks of 9/11, but somehow was able to later say, "Oh, of
course not" without technically contradicting himself? To their
credit, "those in power" do seem to be very adept at "deception without
lying."


ulysses

Roger W. Norman wrote:

You misunderstood. The dollars I'm talking about ARE the ones that come out
of the American taxpayer's pockets, so the dollars have everything to do
with it. Remember, matching funds in Presidential elections, and most
states have the same thing for state elections. In effect, the way the law
is written, the person that raises the most money is getting the most money
from the people, who may or may not actually believe in the platform of the
most monied participant.


You forget that Bush didn't accept matching funds in the 2000 election.
He broke the record for fundraising (by a very wide margin), and by
rejecting the matching funds, he was not subject to campaign spending
limits. It cost hime more of his "own" money, but bought him the
presidency. Of course he's never really made any of his own money, but
you get the idea.

ulysses

Roger W. Norman wrote:

You misunderstood. The dollars I'm talking about ARE the ones that come out
of the American taxpayer's pockets, so the dollars have everything to do
with it. Remember, matching funds in Presidential elections, and most
states have the same thing for state elections. In effect, the way the law
is written, the person that raises the most money is getting the most money
from the people, who may or may not actually believe in the platform of the
most monied participant.


You forget that Bush didn't accept matching funds in the 2000 election.
He broke the record for fundraising (by a very wide margin), and by
rejecting the matching funds, he was not subject to campaign spending
limits. It cost hime more of his "own" money, but bought him the
presidency. Of course he's never really made any of his own money, but
you get the idea.

ulysses

Rob Adelman wrote:

Roger W. Norman wrote:

Perhaps having something to say ABOUT something rather than about someone's
writing causes me to go beyond your limit of endurance. Plonk me in your
filter and don't worry about it. Believe me, I actually go through the
posts line by line before I send them.

It isn't that I mind your long posts so much, sometimes I have a little
time on my hands. But often I don't have a clue who or what you are
responding to. I like to know that before I start reading your post, it
makes a bit more sense that way.

Yeah. I generally like reading your thoughts, Roger, because they're
often a rather enlightened version of some of my own ideas. But when
your reply begins with, "That was my point" or "You misunderstood," and
I have to scroll down three screens to find out what you're referring
to, it gets hard to follow, and of course sometimes I just want to
catch up with the thread and go do some work. But I wasn't trying to
pick on you. Just giving you a little bit of a hard time for having a
lot to say. You don't want to come off sounding like this guy:

http://www.angelfire.com/wa/fatfreddy/secret3.html


ulysses

Rob Adelman wrote:

Roger W. Norman wrote:

Perhaps having something to say ABOUT something rather than about someone's
writing causes me to go beyond your limit of endurance. Plonk me in your
filter and don't worry about it. Believe me, I actually go through the
posts line by line before I send them.

It isn't that I mind your long posts so much, sometimes I have a little
time on my hands. But often I don't have a clue who or what you are
responding to. I like to know that before I start reading your post, it
makes a bit more sense that way.

Yeah. I generally like reading your thoughts, Roger, because they're
often a rather enlightened version of some of my own ideas. But when
your reply begins with, "That was my point" or "You misunderstood," and
I have to scroll down three screens to find out what you're referring
to, it gets hard to follow, and of course sometimes I just want to
catch up with the thread and go do some work. But I wasn't trying to
pick on you. Just giving you a little bit of a hard time for having a
lot to say. You don't want to come off sounding like this guy:

http://www.angelfire.com/wa/fatfreddy/secret3.html


ulysses

Blind Joni wrote:


Playing "devil's advocate"...many religious types would consider this a cart
before the horse situation....people pulling away from older ideals is what
causes the problems we are trying to fix. I for one don't think people have
changed all that much in the short time of recordable history. Our societies
have changed but we are stuck with ourselves as ourselves.


What are these "older ideals" people are pulling away from? Did people
tell the truth and engage solely in marital relations and only keep
their own belongings and help their fellow man at some point in the
past that was left out of the bible and the history books? So far as I
can tell, people are in general about as "moral" and "good" as they've
ever been. Which, in some cases, is very; and in some cases not at
all.

ulysses

Blind Joni wrote:


Playing "devil's advocate"...many religious types would consider this a cart
before the horse situation....people pulling away from older ideals is what
causes the problems we are trying to fix. I for one don't think people have
changed all that much in the short time of recordable history. Our societies
have changed but we are stuck with ourselves as ourselves.


What are these "older ideals" people are pulling away from? Did people
tell the truth and engage solely in marital relations and only keep
their own belongings and help their fellow man at some point in the
past that was left out of the bible and the history books? So far as I
can tell, people are in general about as "moral" and "good" as they've
ever been. Which, in some cases, is very; and in some cases not at
all.

ulysses

REALLY missing my point...Without "language" as I defined it..you can't write
the sentence explaining what you think...BECAUSE you can't think it without
language....
try it sometime.

Are you saying that we can't think without language? Or just that we can't
think about *certain* things without language? Because I think about things
without language all the time. Musical things, visual things, sound things.
Sometimes there's language going with them, sometimes there is not.

Peace,
Paul

REALLY missing my point...Without "language" as I defined it..you can't write
the sentence explaining what you think...BECAUSE you can't think it without
language....
try it sometime.

Are you saying that we can't think without language? Or just that we can't
think about *certain* things without language? Because I think about things
without language all the time. Musical things, visual things, sound things.
Sometimes there's language going with them, sometimes there is not.

Peace,
Paul

Are you saying that we can't think without language? Or just that we can't
think about *certain* things without language? Because I think about things
without language all the time. Musical things, visual things, sound things.
Sometimes there's language going with them, sometimes there is not.

Which was my point. And yes, my answer was outside of John's declared
inclusives, but hey, my point was that communications go on all the time
without language, or perhaps there are some communications that are
established languages but we don't know about them. In John asking "Can we
ask the bird?" it raises the point. No need to. Apparently any animal
taking the time to stop and ask has probably been eaten by the predator, so
those that understand the communication don't need to ask and in fact, know
better than to take the time.

My more detailed point, which was in reference to the concepts that George
had brought up about compassion, etc., is that communications doesn't
require language anymore than the concepts of compassion, et. al., requires
a belief in God. They are disparate things. Communications perform a
function that is immediate and generally of some benefit to the one being
communicated with or it's not communications. Language is a strict set of
rules that allows verbal communications to take place, but it's not always
immediately beneficial, and language is not necessary to communicate a
belief system, but that belief system can get communicated just the same.

I just find the subject interesting, particularly in the aspect of
establishing religion rather than perpetuating a belief system, or
dignifying a set of concepts such as compassion only when one may verbally
teach it with an established language.


--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"P Stamler" wrote in message
...
REALLY missing my point...Without "language" as I defined it..you can't
write
the sentence explaining what you think...BECAUSE you can't think it
without
language....
try it sometime.

Are you saying that we can't think without language? Or just that we can't
think about *certain* things without language? Because I think about
things
without language all the time. Musical things, visual things, sound
things.
Sometimes there's language going with them, sometimes there is not.

Peace,
Paul

Are you saying that we can't think without language? Or just that we can't
think about *certain* things without language? Because I think about things
without language all the time. Musical things, visual things, sound things.
Sometimes there's language going with them, sometimes there is not.

Which was my point. And yes, my answer was outside of John's declared
inclusives, but hey, my point was that communications go on all the time
without language, or perhaps there are some communications that are
established languages but we don't know about them. In John asking "Can we
ask the bird?" it raises the point. No need to. Apparently any animal
taking the time to stop and ask has probably been eaten by the predator, so
those that understand the communication don't need to ask and in fact, know
better than to take the time.

My more detailed point, which was in reference to the concepts that George
had brought up about compassion, etc., is that communications doesn't
require language anymore than the concepts of compassion, et. al., requires
a belief in God. They are disparate things. Communications perform a
function that is immediate and generally of some benefit to the one being
communicated with or it's not communications. Language is a strict set of
rules that allows verbal communications to take place, but it's not always
immediately beneficial, and language is not necessary to communicate a
belief system, but that belief system can get communicated just the same.

I just find the subject interesting, particularly in the aspect of
establishing religion rather than perpetuating a belief system, or
dignifying a set of concepts such as compassion only when one may verbally
teach it with an established language.


--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"P Stamler" wrote in message
...
REALLY missing my point...Without "language" as I defined it..you can't
write
the sentence explaining what you think...BECAUSE you can't think it
without
language....
try it sometime.

Are you saying that we can't think without language? Or just that we can't
think about *certain* things without language? Because I think about
things
without language all the time. Musical things, visual things, sound
things.
Sometimes there's language going with them, sometimes there is not.

Peace,
Paul

Complete my ass, dude! g

Gaul was conquered not by an Italian, but by the Roman that conquered more
territory than anybody in the world up to that time, including Alexander the
Great. Gaul was composed of three parts, and they were tribes, not a
country. Let's make statements that make sense.

You forgot Charlemagne (not directly a Frenchman, but the founder of France
as we know it) and you forgot William the Conqueror.

France did not lose WWII, they were subjugated but the French people didn't
give up. There are one hell of a lot of French graves because of their
untiring resistence to a military invasion that has yet to be equalled in
the world. They also held one hell of a line for the entire time during
WWI.

Revisionist history Ryan, not complete nor accurate on your part. The rest
of your "history" isn't worth mentioning except to say that it took America
a lot longer to figure out that we got our asses whooped in Viet Nam. Don't
believe me? Ask any Viet Nam Veteran.

And, here's how ****ing smart our guys are. One of General Myer's sub
commanding generals went to Afghanistan to check on the progess of our
troops and was absolutely dumbfounded that there were FRENCH troops there
(Germans too, btw), teaching special ops techniques, and actually PAYING the
Afghani their wages since we couldn't even decide on what type of money they
should be using.

Beside, my friend, we should be a lot smarter by now and not have some
talking head mumble his way through some diatribe designed to give us
Freedom Fries and castagate another country for making their own ****ing
decisions about what war they will fight and when. They were with us in
Bush vs Saddam I where we had UN approval to liberate Kuwait, not invade
another sovereign country pre-emptively. I mean, the "He was going to hit
me so I hit him first" excuse didn't even work in first grade, but somehow
Bush made being the Bully popular. And found a way to make everyone that
dissented with HIS desires a traitor or unpatriotic or cast off our allies
as if they were worthless, as your history of France's wars illustrates.

And might I mention that America wouldn't be America without France's
assistance. It wasn't their war and they shouldn't have had to bolster
American troops against the redcoats, but they supplied us when no one else
would and militarily they were the deciding factor. How about taking a shot
at revisionist history on America's Revolutionary War? I'd like a good
laugh today.



--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"ryanm" wrote in message
...
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
And that statement just shows a tremendous amount of stupidity my
friend.

No, laughing at Jerry Lewis shows a tremendous amount of stupidity.

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your
accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage." - Norman
Schwartzkopf

The Complete Military History of France:

- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French
history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently
creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious
only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.

- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars
when
fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded
anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants
started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

- The Dutch War
- Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded
Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French
military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough,
which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France
claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This
is
later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of
French
Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership
of
a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly
girl
home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States.
Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a
winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of
condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French
bloodline.

- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just
as
they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic
Muslim
force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare;
"We
can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of
the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and
Esquimaux.

- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and
Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador
fail
after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

ryanm

Complete my ass, dude! g

Gaul was conquered not by an Italian, but by the Roman that conquered more
territory than anybody in the world up to that time, including Alexander the
Great. Gaul was composed of three parts, and they were tribes, not a
country. Let's make statements that make sense.

You forgot Charlemagne (not directly a Frenchman, but the founder of France
as we know it) and you forgot William the Conqueror.

France did not lose WWII, they were subjugated but the French people didn't
give up. There are one hell of a lot of French graves because of their
untiring resistence to a military invasion that has yet to be equalled in
the world. They also held one hell of a line for the entire time during
WWI.

Revisionist history Ryan, not complete nor accurate on your part. The rest
of your "history" isn't worth mentioning except to say that it took America
a lot longer to figure out that we got our asses whooped in Viet Nam. Don't
believe me? Ask any Viet Nam Veteran.

And, here's how ****ing smart our guys are. One of General Myer's sub
commanding generals went to Afghanistan to check on the progess of our
troops and was absolutely dumbfounded that there were FRENCH troops there
(Germans too, btw), teaching special ops techniques, and actually PAYING the
Afghani their wages since we couldn't even decide on what type of money they
should be using.

Beside, my friend, we should be a lot smarter by now and not have some
talking head mumble his way through some diatribe designed to give us
Freedom Fries and castagate another country for making their own ****ing
decisions about what war they will fight and when. They were with us in
Bush vs Saddam I where we had UN approval to liberate Kuwait, not invade
another sovereign country pre-emptively. I mean, the "He was going to hit
me so I hit him first" excuse didn't even work in first grade, but somehow
Bush made being the Bully popular. And found a way to make everyone that
dissented with HIS desires a traitor or unpatriotic or cast off our allies
as if they were worthless, as your history of France's wars illustrates.

And might I mention that America wouldn't be America without France's
assistance. It wasn't their war and they shouldn't have had to bolster
American troops against the redcoats, but they supplied us when no one else
would and militarily they were the deciding factor. How about taking a shot
at revisionist history on America's Revolutionary War? I'd like a good
laugh today.



--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"ryanm" wrote in message
...
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
And that statement just shows a tremendous amount of stupidity my
friend.

No, laughing at Jerry Lewis shows a tremendous amount of stupidity.

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your
accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage." - Norman
Schwartzkopf

The Complete Military History of France:

- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French
history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently
creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious
only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.

- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars
when
fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded
anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants
started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

- The Dutch War
- Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded
Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French
military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough,
which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France
claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This
is
later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of
French
Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership
of
a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly
girl
home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States.
Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a
winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of
condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French
bloodline.

- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just
as
they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic
Muslim
force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare;
"We
can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of
the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and
Esquimaux.

- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and
Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador
fail
after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

ryanm

Good point. By virtue of accepting his billionaire friend's advice he
wasn't subject to any of the constraints placed on other candidates who
accept matching funds. I guess it does mean that one can buy the
Presidency. Hopefully only ONCE.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
...
Roger W. Norman wrote:

You misunderstood. The dollars I'm talking about ARE the ones that come
out
of the American taxpayer's pockets, so the dollars have everything to do
with it. Remember, matching funds in Presidential elections, and most
states have the same thing for state elections. In effect, the way the
law
is written, the person that raises the most money is getting the most
money
from the people, who may or may not actually believe in the platform of
the
most monied participant.


You forget that Bush didn't accept matching funds in the 2000 election.
He broke the record for fundraising (by a very wide margin), and by
rejecting the matching funds, he was not subject to campaign spending
limits. It cost hime more of his "own" money, but bought him the
presidency. Of course he's never really made any of his own money, but
you get the idea.

ulysses

Good point. By virtue of accepting his billionaire friend's advice he
wasn't subject to any of the constraints placed on other candidates who
accept matching funds. I guess it does mean that one can buy the
Presidency. Hopefully only ONCE.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
...
Roger W. Norman wrote:

You misunderstood. The dollars I'm talking about ARE the ones that come
out
of the American taxpayer's pockets, so the dollars have everything to do
with it. Remember, matching funds in Presidential elections, and most
states have the same thing for state elections. In effect, the way the
law
is written, the person that raises the most money is getting the most
money
from the people, who may or may not actually believe in the platform of
the
most monied participant.


You forget that Bush didn't accept matching funds in the 2000 election.
He broke the record for fundraising (by a very wide margin), and by
rejecting the matching funds, he was not subject to campaign spending
limits. It cost hime more of his "own" money, but bought him the
presidency. Of course he's never really made any of his own money, but
you get the idea.

ulysses

Ulysses said:

But when your reply begins with, "That was my point" or "You
misunderstood," and
I have to scroll down three screens to find out what you're referring
to, it gets hard to follow, and of course sometimes I just want to
catch up with the thread and go do some work.


OK, OK. I'm trying to change my habits on top posting. Not easy to do, and
truthfully I'm tired of scrolling down on a post I'm looking foward to
reading to see "you da man" or some such.

Most of my posts today have been bottom posting. Maybe you guys have found
a way to keep me from posting. What luck for you all! g
--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.

Ulysses said:

But when your reply begins with, "That was my point" or "You
misunderstood," and
I have to scroll down three screens to find out what you're referring
to, it gets hard to follow, and of course sometimes I just want to
catch up with the thread and go do some work.


OK, OK. I'm trying to change my habits on top posting. Not easy to do, and
truthfully I'm tired of scrolling down on a post I'm looking foward to
reading to see "you da man" or some such.

Most of my posts today have been bottom posting. Maybe you guys have found
a way to keep me from posting. What luck for you all! g
--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.

In article "ryanm"
writes:
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
And that statement just shows a tremendous amount of stupidity my friend.

No, laughing at Jerry Lewis shows a tremendous amount of stupidity.

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your
accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage." - Norman
Schwartzkopf

The Complete Military History of France:

[snip]

ryanm


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing... I agree with a lot of your
thoughts, but this time you're off the charts. Have you ever been to France?
You obviously do not understand French history.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

In article "ryanm"
writes:
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
And that statement just shows a tremendous amount of stupidity my friend.

No, laughing at Jerry Lewis shows a tremendous amount of stupidity.

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your
accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage." - Norman
Schwartzkopf

The Complete Military History of France:

[snip]

ryanm


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing... I agree with a lot of your
thoughts, but this time you're off the charts. Have you ever been to France?
You obviously do not understand French history.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

"ryanm" wrote in message ...

No, laughing at Jerry Lewis shows a tremendous amount of stupidity.

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your
accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage." - Norman
Schwartzkopf

The Complete Military History of France:

- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French
history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Snip a bunch of tired BS

So is that supposed to be funny or are you merely regurgitating anti
French nonsense from Karl Rove and the rest of the Bush spin machine?


bob

"ryanm" wrote in message ...

No, laughing at Jerry Lewis shows a tremendous amount of stupidity.

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your
accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage." - Norman
Schwartzkopf

The Complete Military History of France:

- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French
history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Snip a bunch of tired BS

So is that supposed to be funny or are you merely regurgitating anti
French nonsense from Karl Rove and the rest of the Bush spin machine?


bob

The Complete Military History of France:

This revisionist & laughably ill-informed attempt to slander France is nothing
short of pathetic & certainly has no merits to debate.

Scott Fraser

The Complete Military History of France:

This revisionist & laughably ill-informed attempt to slander France is nothing
short of pathetic & certainly has no merits to debate.

Scott Fraser

And might I mention that America wouldn't be America without France's
assistance. It wasn't their war and they shouldn't have had to bolster
American troops against the redcoats, but they supplied us when no one else
would and militarily they were the deciding factor. How about taking a shot
at revisionist history on America's Revolutionary War?

Totally true..but to be fair wouldn't you say they did it out of self interest?
They felt that what was bad for the British was good for them. I seem to think
that our best interest was not the motivation.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637