Re: Pro-gun ‘soccer mom’ Meleanie Hain shot dead by husband during video chat
Posted by: jellymoulds on 10/10/09 at 01:28 PM
I think what Rthur is trying to say is that if someone straps concealed explosives to themselves and then goes to a theme park, they are simply exercising their right to self-protection, a mode of self protection the US and Russia championed throughout the late 50's and early 60's - mutually assured destruction. After all the queen has an entire air force, army and navy protecting her, therefore it can't be wrong for a US individual.
Re: Pro-gun ‘soccer mom’ Meleanie Hain shot dead by husband during video chat
Posted by: judge_d on 10/10/09 at 02:04 PM
> as a commoner i want and have the same ability as a queen
Quote of the week folks!!!
You go rthur! I reckon a wig, sparkly dress and high heels and you're sorted!
Altogether now...
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! - It's Raining Men! Amen!
I'm gonna go out to run and let myself get
Absolutely soaking wet!
Not as funny, but makes the point well a bit further down:
Re: Pro-gun ‘soccer mom’ Meleanie Hain shot dead by husband during video chat
Posted by: jellymoulds on 11/10/09 at 01:09 AM
Guns are too entrenched in American culture to be 'banned' . For this reason American guns will carry on killing and killing and killing and killing innocent victims for decades to come.
Thanks to diehards like Rthur, we are reminded that every US citizen has the right to be killed by a fellow, gun-carrying American. There is no number of innocent deaths sufficient to make gun nuts question their 'rights'.
Showing posts with label quotes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label quotes. Show all posts
12 October 2009
31 July 2009
"It's all cut and paste"
A lovely critique, in a way, but I have another quote:
"Copying from one person is plagiarism, two research".
Both quotes simplify the issue. What is lacking from them is that mere parroting without understanding shows ignorance. One can quote and then come up with a point, well, that's research. It's showing understanding and backing up your point that takes it from mere "cut and paste".
And as they say "There's nothing new under the sun." So, why should I "reinvent the wheel". Christ, I don't have that much spare time (despite how this may seem).
Commonplace books (or commonplaces) were a way to compile knowledge, usually by writing information into books. They became significant in Early Modern Europe.
"Commonplace" is a translation of the Latin term locus communis which means "a theme or argument of general application", such as a statement of proverbial wisdom. In this original sense, commonplace books were collections of such sayings, such as John Milton's commonplace book. Scholars have expanded this usage to include any manuscript that collects material along a common theme by an individual. Thomas Jefferson had a common place book where he would jot down ideas he thought were important
Such books were essentially scrapbooks filled with items of every kind: medical recipes, quotes, letters, poems, tables of weights and measures, proverbs, prayers, legal formulas. Commonplaces were used by readers, writers, students, and humanists as an aid for remembering useful concepts or facts they had learned. Each commonplace book was unique to its creator's particular interests.
A funny aside, there was this young woman who kept a common place book during the 18th Century (or therabouts), she died and everyone thought she was a genius. Until someone pointed out that was her common place book that she copied the thoughts of others. Never mind her tomb shows her as this literary genius. I'll put up the info when I locate it. Until then, this will remain an anecdote.
Interestingly enough, Commonplaces are likened to blogs (another good post here). Which is exactly where I am going with this.
I will be the first to admit that law isn't the most intellectual of professions (which gets me into another quote I want from C.G. Jung about the medical profession not being very intelectural either--I think it's in dreams). In fact, one could easily set up a computer program that could make legal decisions thus eliminating judges.
Anyway, I hope that my rantings prove useful. They are a way for me to vent. I am feeling particularly frustrated by the Heller decision as my many posts show. It is flawed in its logic, which some people see. Yet for reasons I will get into in future posts, we mostly see praise for this piece of trash called Heller.
"Copying from one person is plagiarism, two research".
Both quotes simplify the issue. What is lacking from them is that mere parroting without understanding shows ignorance. One can quote and then come up with a point, well, that's research. It's showing understanding and backing up your point that takes it from mere "cut and paste".
And as they say "There's nothing new under the sun." So, why should I "reinvent the wheel". Christ, I don't have that much spare time (despite how this may seem).
Commonplace books (or commonplaces) were a way to compile knowledge, usually by writing information into books. They became significant in Early Modern Europe.
"Commonplace" is a translation of the Latin term locus communis which means "a theme or argument of general application", such as a statement of proverbial wisdom. In this original sense, commonplace books were collections of such sayings, such as John Milton's commonplace book. Scholars have expanded this usage to include any manuscript that collects material along a common theme by an individual. Thomas Jefferson had a common place book where he would jot down ideas he thought were important
Such books were essentially scrapbooks filled with items of every kind: medical recipes, quotes, letters, poems, tables of weights and measures, proverbs, prayers, legal formulas. Commonplaces were used by readers, writers, students, and humanists as an aid for remembering useful concepts or facts they had learned. Each commonplace book was unique to its creator's particular interests.
A funny aside, there was this young woman who kept a common place book during the 18th Century (or therabouts), she died and everyone thought she was a genius. Until someone pointed out that was her common place book that she copied the thoughts of others. Never mind her tomb shows her as this literary genius. I'll put up the info when I locate it. Until then, this will remain an anecdote.
Interestingly enough, Commonplaces are likened to blogs (another good post here). Which is exactly where I am going with this.
I will be the first to admit that law isn't the most intellectual of professions (which gets me into another quote I want from C.G. Jung about the medical profession not being very intelectural either--I think it's in dreams). In fact, one could easily set up a computer program that could make legal decisions thus eliminating judges.
Anyway, I hope that my rantings prove useful. They are a way for me to vent. I am feeling particularly frustrated by the Heller decision as my many posts show. It is flawed in its logic, which some people see. Yet for reasons I will get into in future posts, we mostly see praise for this piece of trash called Heller.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
