article by Woody Harrelson; his take on Iraq & war.

[Dozer]

Jake,

While not an end-all source of public opinion, the site below does give some interesting information about public response to the Iraq situation, President Bush's job approval ratings, etc.

http://www.pollingreport.com


Mercutio,

You're absolutely correct. While I would tend to side with Cliptin on the issue of referring to our country's leadership in a derogatory manner, it is clear that not everyone in our membership will agree (and they are entitled to their opinion). We will be much more effective by debating valid points rather than getting caught up in petty arguments. Besides, I know that the intent in the hearts of all involved was not to harm, offend, or tick off each other.

Having said that, here's my take on the whole situation:

If there is overwhelming evidence that Iraq under Saddam Hussein's leadership poses a significant threat, then by all means there needs to be action to prevent that threat. Much of the information that we have available to us is delayed and more-than-likely obsolete intelligence. Anything highly sensitive to a military operation is (for obvious reasons) classified. If there is a threat, by all means I support dealing with the threat. If there are no grounds for an incursion, then we are and will be viewed as nothing more than a bully.

I have a great respect for our President. That does not mean that I agree with every single decision he makes. It seems that many people, including some of our own people, have made him out to look like the bumbling idiot, but I contend that from what I've seen, he is a capable President, possessing "character, leadership skills and determination," as The Giver stated. I also trust that if he is acting on good intelligence, he will make the appropriate decision as far as Iraq is concerned. By all means, I hope we can avoid a war. But I also hope that we can trust our leadership to make the appropriate decisions in order to protect our country and freedoms.

I wouldn't give anything to be in President Bush's shoes, and I don't even care to try being the proverbial armchair quarterback. The decisions we make on a day-to-day basis pale in magnitude to the one's he makes. If I order a part wrong, I send it back and get a new one. If President Bush stutters in a press conference or offends a foreign power, it's all over the news, it's criticized all over the world, and in forums like this one, at best. At worst, it can cause a rift in an international relations, can start a war, or can cost the country billions of dollars. That is precisely why we have a President, a person willing to take the risk, willing to put his life on hold, willing to be under the public spotlight. It is very easy for us to second-guess a man that is hundreds of miles away from us, judging his actions from what we see and hear from the media, other people, and from our own opinions.

 

[Jake the Dog]

thanks Dozer. that's the soprt of stuff i was asking for! the information is certainly interesting. i had a good look around (and laughed at the fact that in one poll, 4% of the participants noted France as an enemy of the US.)

 

[Tea]

Bloody idiots. What's wrong with the other 96%???

 

[Tannin]

Excellent post, Dozer. Change the emphasis here and there (merely matters of degree, not of substance) and add a dash of the obligitory colourful language, and I could have written it myself. In particular, I agree with your criteria for substantive action.

James: I am delighted to see that you maintain some faith in patriotic icons, and therefore withdraw my "chardonay intellectual" charge. Or at least I will provided only that you can correctly answer one key question:

What is our real national anthem?

 

[Mercutio]

You mean it's not "Waltzing Matilda"!?!

 

[James]

As for the question about the members of SF, I don't respect them because they are members of SF, I respect certain ones individually because of different qualities. I respect the person, not the office, as I believe I have mentioned before. :roll:

Ouch, That stings me a little bit. [/quote]
Not intended to, you read too much into it. Don't put yourself onto the exclusion list! All I meant is I don't automatically respect the people here just because they are members of SF, in the same way that I don't automatically respect world leaders because of the position to which they were elected (or took power, whatever).

 

[James]

Errr, I seem to have stuffed up the formatting above. The intent of the post was to reassure Cliptin that I hold him in high esteem.

 

[James]

What is our real national anthem?

Ah yes. Well, I can certainly tell you what it is not - that uninspired dirge "Advance Australia Fair."

I'm partial to "For Australia" which you may or may not be familiar with - written by an extremely bright man and his late wife, who happens to be a neighbour of my parents' - Michael Thwaites. You may know some of his poetry ("Jarvis Bay," about his experiences in the navy is one of the most famous) or perhaps his book about ASIO (Truth Will Out: ASIO and the Petrovs"). However it's really a hymn and as such perhaps not entirely suitable.


What do you think?

 

[Tannin]

Damn it, Mercutio!

You were not supposed to help! Of course it's Waltzing Matilda.

Always was, always will be, and they can play that appalling low-brow monument to bad taste and cultural cringe othewise known as "Advance Australia Fair" at as many Olympiads as they like, and it won't change a thing.

"Advance Australia Fair" is to national anthems as the lyrics of "Silvia's Mother Says" are to great dramatic literature, as salt and vinegar flavoured Twinkies are to haute cuisine, and as a Quantum Bigfoot CY with five bad sectors is to large-scale mission-critical enterprise Storage.

This was to be the much-travelled James' final test: had he been able to answer it correctly without your help, I should have been able to finally lay to rest any lingering doubts about his fitness to represent the Land of the Long Weekend, the Golden Wattle, the Kangaroo, the Emu, and the Demarcation Dispute.

Some years ago, when the Soup Nazi was about 14 or 15, we went to the traditional Anzac Day Essendon-Collingwood football match at the MCG. Being classified as an "important" game, it is the practice to play the national anthem before the ball is bounced. (This is quite common at major sporting events.) Being played on Anzac Day, it is also the practice to observe a minute's silence in respect of the soldiers, sailors and airmen who gave their lives in the Great War and in World War Two.

So, as usual, they started playing the national anthem over the PA. 89,998 people stood up. Seeing as they were playing that asinine non-tune "Advance Australia Fair" instead of the real national anthem, I remained seated. The Soup Nazi hovered half-way in-between in indecision: sit down with me, his mentor and nominal guardian? Or stand up with the other 89,998? Eventually, he decided to stand up until the non-music had finished and then, with a sigh of relief, sat down again. No sooner had he done that than the bugler blew the Last Post to mark the start of the minute's silence. This being a once-a-year ceremony, most of the crowd were slow to work out what that unfamiliar tune meant. Not a few were sitting down again, looking round, flicking through the Football Record. Of course, I stood up right away, and doffed my cap to show respect for the fallen. "Take your hat off" I muttered to him out of the corner of my mouth. The Soup Nazi was just looking at me, open mouthed: "First you sit down, then you stand up, how am I supposed to know what to do next?"

 

[Tannin]

"That uninspired dirge". Close enough for me. James, your renewed citizenship papers are in the mail. All your foreign jaunts have not hurt you in the least, I see.

Mercutio: I hereby dub you a Fair-Dinkum Honourary Australian, qualified to mock, joke, laugh, take the piss, and bludge along with the best of us. Naturally, you are also obliged to pitch in with all you've got when the chips are down, but we try not to talk about that too much.

James again: I'm not familiar with "For Australia" or with Michael Thwaites. Do you have a link handy? I'd like to listen to it.

What do I think? I think I'd rather have God Save the Queen or I've got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts than AAF, so you are on pretty safe ground with For Australia. Or, if it comes to that, just not bother having an anthem at all. Or a flag. What do we need them for anyway?

 

[The Giver]

.. I don't respect them because they are members of SF.., I respect certain ones individually because of different qualities. I respect the person, not the office, as I believe I have mentioned before. :roll:

Yes well the SF rules require that you and the others treat all of your fellow members with resepct aside from whether or not you truly respect them as individuals. One would think The Giver should not have to remind the chairman of the admins of the forum rules. :roll:

 

[The Giver]

thanks Dozer. that's the soprt of stuff i was asking for! the information is certainly interesting. i had a good look around (and laughed at the fact that in one poll, 4% of the participants noted France as an enemy of the US.)

Well again Jake none of what is covered in those polls addressed those views of Woody's which The Giver descibed as extremist. Thank you for remaining respectful and civil throughout the discussion.

 

[The Giver]

The point is not that the terms you mention above are insulting or offensive to the persons they refer to, or offensive to those in America who may admire these individuals. After all, they are not members here and so could not possibly be offended by anything you say about G.W. Bush or the others you mention above. But Clipton and The Giver are members here and as such it would seem that those who do offend us by using such derogatory terms to refer to President Bush would want to know they were doing so.

So is your argument that we should never discuss a topic that may offend an SF member? Or is it that having been informed of that offence, the protagonists should immediately bow to the offended parties' views without question? (And obviously the implication is then that any failure to do so underlines their boorishness and rudeness.)

Not at all James, The Giver's argument is that you should follow the forum rules which require all to treat their fellow members with respect. Why does The Giver find himself having to remind our chairman of this? :roll:

This does seem to be in direct contravention with your stirring words on the subject of free speech when this board started up - would you like me to quote from it? I think I see a particularly apt paragraph or two.

Go right ahead but do please bear in mind that entire thread was authored prior to the adoption of any forum rules whatsoever. Again, the rules which were subsequently adopted require you and everyone else to treat one another with respect.

Ah, poor Giver, your lot is truly a miserable one. Constantly, cruelly and indeed unjustly set upon by others, you have given up on their better sides ever showing through towards your poor self. However, you still harbour a strong enough belief in basic humanity to launch a plea from your much abused position for the bullies to spare Cliptin from their unkind words. Such bravery! Such self-sacrifice! Such pathos!

Perhaps I'm being unkind (as usual, it must be said!), but it did strike me as amusing.

While it gives The Giver no small pleasure to know he has amused you, please remember that membership rules here at SF require you to treat all of your fellow members with respect. As chairman of the Admins it essential one would think that you set a good example for all James. If you wish to modify the rules to allow the mocking of The Giver or to require only those you actually do respect to be treated respectfully, then by all means propose that the rules be so modified. Until such time, please follow the rules we currently have.

 

[Jake the Dog]

none of what is covered in those polls addressed those views of Woody's which The Giver descibed as extremist.

you are indeed correct. none of the questions asked relate directly to any of Woody's comments although it was an intersteing read. however, this leaves me still wondering on what you base your commnts on, those in which you speak on behalf of so many of you fellow countrypeople.

Thank you for remaining respectful and civil throughout the discussion.

ditto!

 

[The Giver]

none of what is covered in those polls addressed those views of Woody's which The Giver descibed as extremist.

you are indeed correct. none of the questions asked relate directly to any of Woody's comments although it was an intersteing read. however, this leaves me still wondering on what you base your commnts on, those in which you speak on behalf of so many of you fellow countrypeople.

It is simply based on The Giver's perception of American public opinion. For an opinion to be "extremist" in nature does not mean it is contrary to others who hold a similar point of view. "Extremist" refers to the degree with which one's opinion is held in comparison to others who are of the same general viewpoint. Thus as Tannin touches on way back in this thread, he finds Woody's views to be left of center but not so far left as to be characterized as extreme. As an example consider that there are many American's who are pro-war. Most of these, although pro-war, would not go so far as to support the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq. On the other hand there are those who are pro-war and who would favor "nuking the Bastards". These types would be considered the "extremists" of the pro-war crowd. Similarly there are those who are anti-war and then there are those who are not only anti-war but would also go so far as to call any action against Iraq "racist and imperialist". The later group being the extremists of the anti-war crowd. Woody, imo, falls into the later group.

 

[Tannin]

No-one is suggesting that James or any other member is breaking forum rules, Mr Giver, and it is mischevious of you to imply as much. You've made a ridiculous case, been duly and properly embarrassed when it came to light that you yourself frequently break your own suddenly invented "rule", and are now finding yourself, unable to make a rational argument stand up, attacking James for no good reason whatever.

May I suggest that, instead, you attack me. I have more time to spare; am not now constrained by holding an official position here (off the leash! Yes!); am long since used to absorbing The Giver's barbs and replying in kind; and, best of all, have a yen for the long bow and am thus am much more likely to provide you with good, juicy ammunition for your one-man campaign of ... er ... whatever it is a one man campaign campaign of. And, in my sillier phases, I am frequently bored enough to enjoy it.

(I've told you to see a doctor about that.)

(Shut up, Tea.)

(The Giver is a very nice man. You didn't give me any bananas for my poem.)

(Turncoat!)

 

[Tannin]

In the end, of course, the precise point at which one draws a line in the sand and says "beyond that line is extreme, this side of the line is not extreme" is less a matter for debate than it is a matter for the individual's judgement. Nevertheless, I found your last post persuasive. ("Pro-war is pro-war, but nuke the bastards is extreme, and on the other side, anti-war is anti-war, but calling it imperalist and racist is extreme.")

Then I thought a little harder about it, and realised that it rests on a false premise. Consider the full spectrum of views, regard those that fall at the extreme ends of the spectrum as just that: "extreme".

1: Nuke the bastards!
2: Bomb them back into the stone-age, send in the Marines, but no nukes unless Saddam uses WMD first.
3: Use the minimum necessary force, but make damn sure that the job gets done. (This is, in my view, where Bush fits.)
4: Force, in the last resort, is acceptable, but only if a number of nations support it.
5: Force, in the last resort, is acceptable, but only if it is to comply with specific United Nations resolution.
6: Force is acceptable, but only if it is applied by an international United Nations armed force under direct UN command.
7: All means short of force are acceptable.
8: We do not have the moral right to risk Iraqi women's and children's lives with economic sanctions. We must negotiate with Saddam, not murder his people.
9: What Iraq does on its own territory is not the concern of other nations. We have no right to interfere.
10: Iraq, like the rest of the Arab world, has long been the victim of foreign occupation and agression. Saddam himself was trained by and supported by the USA. We must take this sad history into account before we rush to judge.
11: Westerners feel uncomfortable with prominent and powerful Islamic nations that are not under their control, or at least influence. When a white, European-origin nation called South Africa developed forbidden weapons and persecuted its own people, that was OK. The West only actually goes to war when the "enemy" is black, Asian, or Islamic.
12: The West hates and fears Islam and will do anything to humiliate and destroy a successful Islamic nation.
13: The lies about Iraq perpetrated by George Warmonger Bush and his weakling foreign cronies are absurd! We Iraqis are a peaceloving, Godfearing people and only ask to be left alone.
14: In the legitimate defence of our nation and our faith, the only tool we have is our courage. We salute the heros of September 11th!
15: The American people and their evil leader do not know God. Death to them all! Nuke the bastards!

My own view is that stances #1, #14, and #15 are clearly extreme. Stances #2 and #12 are bordering on the extreme. Stance #13 is too ridicuous to be classified - but don't make the mistake of thinking that there are not many, many millions of people who ascribe to it. I myself have sympathy for views #5, #8, #10 and #11, which places me squarely in the middle of the mainstream. (Which, for me, is a rather unusual thing!)

 

[Tannin]

Whoops: stance #3 (unilaterial action) is also borderline extreme.

 

[The Giver]

No-one is suggesting that James or any other member is breaking forum rules, Mr Giver, and it is mischevious of you to imply as much. You've made a ridiculous case, been duly and properly embarrassed when it came to light that you yourself frequently break your own suddenly invented "rule", and are now finding yourself, unable to make a rational argument stand up, attacking James for no good reason whatever.

Nonsense Tannin on all accounts. Our motto here at SF is "show respect at all times." Further The Giver takes exception to your characterization of his remarks to James as being an "attack". How silly and boring of you to have done so. They were nothing of the sort. Where has The Giver ever been less than respectful here at SF subsequent to the rules having been adopted?

James on the other hand was quite bellicose in his last remarks direct toward The Giver. The Giver was merely reminding James that although he does not respect The Giver he is required to live up to the SF forum's motto.

May I suggest that, instead, you attack me. I have more time to spare; am not now constrained by holding an official position here (off the leash! Yes!); am long since used to absorbing The Giver's barbs and replying in kind; and, best of all, have a yen for the long bow and am thus am much more likely to provide you with good, juicy ammunition for your one-man campaign of ... er ... whatever it is a one man campaign campaign of. And, in my sillier phases, I am frequently bored enough to enjoy it.

Let loose your arrows if you are so inclined. The Giver is always game for a bit of fun but does insist in this case that the first shot be fired by you who are feeling so marvelously macho this morning.

 

[Cliptin]

comments?[/quote] "So much of lef... don’t even know fire is hot.” -George Orwell

 

[The Giver]

How true Cliptin.

It is interesting to go back through the thread and see just who the reactionary and belligerent participants were. Be wary of these one's for they are just the sort Mr. Orwell refers to above.

Please don't let the sorry reaction you received by some here to your having said how felt about President Bush being referred to in a derogatory fashion stop you from expressing your true feelings in the future.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Nonsense Tannin on all accounts. Our motto here at SF is "show respect at all times." Further The Giver takes exception to your characterization of his remarks to James as being an "attack". How silly and boring of you to have done so. They were nothing of the sort. Where has The Giver ever been less than respectful here at SF subsequent to the rules having been adopted?

James on the other hand was quite bellicose in his last remarks direct toward The Giver. The Giver was merely reminding James that although he does not respect The Giver he is required to live up to the SF forum's motto

:lol: :lol: Once again, The Giver has managed to make me laugh quite a lot.

Here we have a fine example from SR of The Giver keeping to his rules about respect for others:

No your hatred of Jews makes you an anti-Semite. It comes through loud and clear when you discuss the issue. You are incapable of talking about Israel without your bitterness and hatred for the Jews oozing out between the lines. And spare us from the claims of innocence because your grandfather was half Jewish or whatever Vlad. You are a Jew hating anti-Semite just like a majority of the Arab and Islamic world.

And making things up....

Then we have HMTK again with his usual anti-US and anti-Israeli crap all of which we've heard time and time again from him. It was he, as you may recall, who said he it was too bad the Nazis didn't do a better job taking care of the Jews in WWII. But he's not a anti-Semite right? Nawww....

And now suddenly The Giver thinks he is being insulted. I know, I think I can find another quote from him that sums up an appropriate reaction to someone who has just been insulted.

Oh lighten up Vlad. It is a bit much to think you've truly been insulted by any of this. But if you insist you've been gravely insulted then by all means take your ball and go home. The Giver will find someone more worthy to play with which should not be hard to do at all.

And

Oh dear! Has The Giver offended you somehow? Tisk... tisk..! Now why not go change your diapers as they seem to be making you a bit irritable. And take care you do not bite off more than you can chew in the future.

What a laugh!

 

[Cliptin]

Vlad, be aware that the rules regarding what is allowable in posts is different between SR and SF. It is conceivable that one might complain about a posts content on one site where the same post would be OK on the other site. It would be called following the rules, not hypocrisy.

 

[The Giver]

Thank you Cliptin for pointing that out. Vlad and James apparently haven't figured that out yet.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

It would be called following the rules, not hypocrisy.

I know exactly which one of those two it is with The Giver! :roll:

 

[The Giver]

Apology accepted Vlad.

 

[Tannin]

Conceivable, yes. Rational, fair, or reasonable in the context of this particular example, most certainly not. A classic bit of self-serving humbug. Oh, and a note for the Thought Police: if I wanted to be derogatory about Shrub, give me credit for having the imagination to think up something a great deal stronger and more colorful.

 

[The Giver]

Conceivable, yes. Rational, fair, or reasonable in the context of this particular example, most certainly not. A classic bit of self-serving humbug. Oh, and a note for the Thought Police: if I wanted to be derogatory about Shrub, give me credit for having the imagination to think up something a great deal stronger and more colorful.

Self serving? The Giver? Why the very idea! The Giver is affronted Sir!

P.S. Thank you for capitalizing the S in "Shrub" as it shows you are slowly, but surely, moving in the right direction.

 

[Tea]

Tanin is a great fan of Big Bush, because of his magnificent achievement in drawing together the Gulf War coalition to begin with, and holding it together all the way through. If Little Bush can do likewise (and we must remember that the bar is higher now) then Tannin will become an unabashed fan of his too, I suspect. We will have to wait and see. Me, I'm only interested in flora if it's high enough to climb in, especially if it has nice nuts.

 

[slo crostic]

I personally think Shrub is a much less demeaning name than Dubya. The name Dubya is clearly taking the piss out of all Americans for their mispronounciation of the letter W (pronounced double-you) and should be seen as offensive to all Americans, not just the fans of George W Bush.

As for being offended, I was quite shocked at some of the remarks made by ekaf ami and mustafa, and found both of them to be nothing more than shit stirrers. Luckily their rantings and dribble have ceased on these forums.

 

[Tea]

I don't actually recall anything Ekaf has said here that was anything other than simple, light-hearted fun. Perhaps my memory is faulty. Nor do I remember seeing Mustafa say anything outrageous. Just out of curiosity, Slo, could you link to something horrible they said for me?

 

[Tea]

Just looked back at a few posts, maybe 20 or so. Can't find anything in the slightest offensive. What was it that Ekaf said that offended you, Slo? Did I miss something? Darn it, I Like Ekaf. He has style.

 

[slo crostic]

He wasn't really offensive as such, but he did come across as being rather stupid in general and it is this that I took offense to. I merely saw it as a generalisation of Arab mentality.

 

[Tea]

I think you under estimate Ekaf, Slo. He is stupenously naive, yes, often credulous, and his crimes against the English Lanuage are manifold: but he is no fool. Many of his posts are much more subtle than they look. Ekaf almost never comes right out and makes his point: perhaps in keeping with his cultural background, he prefers indirection, prefers to highlight something and then leave the reader to draw his own conclusions.

Ekaf became an Arab quite by accident. He, like me, is a product of Tannin's fertile (some would say fevered) imagination. (Though of course, I am a real imaginary person, where poor Ekaf is just made up.)

Some months ago, a particularly obnoxious person over at Storage Review started making a series of violent personal attacks on Jason, accusing him of outright fraud. Now Jason had been a member of SR for several years, and although there have been some serious questions raised over the conduct of the business he used to part-own, in his time at SR he had always been courteous and gentlemanly. It is one thing to join SR so as to post a genuine, honest warning to other members: "This man ripped me off, take care". It was another thing altogether to relentlessly dog every thread that Jason posted in, spewing filth and abuse. We were seeing people post a perfectly legitimate on-topic query in the Computers section: "Sould I buy a Seagate or a Maxtor?", perhaps - and if Jason happened to reply with "If you want good seek time, buy the Maxtor" then this moron would jump in and spew out page after page of abuse. (He may or may not have had a legitimate beef. Not having seen any evidence for myself, I am not qualified to have an opinion. But he most certainly had no business hounding Jason through thread after thread, and in the process ruining the board for all the thousands of other uses as well. Eventually, Eugene stteped in and locked a thread or two, probably took some other, behind-the-scenes action too.)

After a while, someone noticed that this moron was the only one complaining about Jason in this particular way, and posted to say so. And - Hey Presto! - suddenly there were two, three, five new members posting with exactly the same sort of complaint. What a coincidence! Even more surprising was the fact that they all seemed to start off by saying "This is my first post here, but I've been lurking for quite a while", and then they would go off into yet another rip-off that they had suffered.

You didn't have to be Albert Einstein to work out what was going on. Our original moron had got hold of some disposable email addresses and was carrying on his spamming under lots of different names now.

This was the point at which Tannin lost paitence with this jerk. It was his intial intention to wade in and say "How stupid do you think we are? Stop making up aliases." But then I suggested a better idea, a "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" theory, if you like. Having plenty of email addresses to spare, why could Tannin not make up some of his own "long-time lurkers, first-time posters" and redress the balance? Better yet, rather than have the "counter-fakes" disagree with the moron, why not have them agree with him? Have several counter-fakes join the chorus, each one slightly more ridiculous than the last, until no-one could possibly be in any doubt that there was a lot of BS going down? Could this not be a more effective way of countering the moron, and more fun to boot?

So we got this:

SteveJudd Joined: 06 May 2002 Posts: 2 Location: Dallas, TX Posted: Mon May 06, 2002 9:38 am

Jeezz... You guys too? This thief is more of an operator than I thought. He took me for $630. Bought a Pentium from him on E-Bay, turned out to be a
Pentium-II. And it was the wrong colour. I specifically told him that I wanted a yellow one.

(First post - been lurking for a long time.)

will Joined: 19 Feb 2002 Posts: 330 Location: Rowland Heights, CA Posted: Mon May 06, 2002 9:52 am

(Quoted SteveJudd's post, then ...)
LMAO AGAIN!!! MY GAWD, this thread is the funniest! How many times have we seen a "oh, you too!!! I got ripped! I have been lurking here for a while..."

Darn, you got a yellow Pentium II instead of a Pentium. Sucks to be you! You sure got ripped.

<-- that doesn't truly express my feeling of roflmfao....

Alan_Jones Joined: 06 May 2002 Posts: 1 Location: Moosehead, Canada Posted: Mon May 06, 2002 9:55 am

It's only the difficulty of crossing state lines that makes it possible for jumped-up corporate executives to escape their just deserts like this. My business bought stuff from Night Tecnology and we have never seen such terrible service. Ever. The guy was rude, arrogant, and didn't know the first thing about computers. I said as much to my supervisor - I mean, would you buy a computer part from a guy who looked like that? Well, we did, and it never arrived, but it wasn't worth chasing across the state line.

My advice to you, Bill and Tony, is to call the FBI.

That's what I did.

SteveJudd Joined: 06 May 2002 Posts: 2 Location: Dallas, TX Posted: Mon May 06, 2002 10:07 am

LISTEN YOU CLUELESS NEWBIE I specially wanted a yellow one. That's what I was promised and it isn't what I got.

I suppose you think it is a joke, well you just don't understand anything about business in the Free World. We have new drapes in the study and my wife is very sensitive about decor and because of that idiot at Night Computers I still haven't heard the end of it. AND he won't give me my money back.

Next time I'm going to go straight to the best and get a Presario like I should have done in the first place. I guess you live and you learn.

(And finally ...)

Ekaf-ami Joined: 06 May 2002 Posts: 38 Location: Madrid Posted: Mon May 06, 2002 10:42 am

Please excuse for my bad english. I too am long time excellent reader of Storagereview.com website, and victim of practices sharp by on-line retailer the many-names Mr Jasaon Hegel.

November 4th I place order, take money from Mastercard credit card OK, never ship any nothing even despite me sending emails every day. Mr Hegel say why I change address, I say because I Islamic student studying computer in Madrid now not in Bagdad anymore is why I move address to new place but he never ship nothing. I email 50 times, call my mother every day but he put money in pocket not ship Microsoft Office 2000 software package like I order to my mother and not ship it to me by exress or any other way.

Honest man not has so many names and move around all the time. Please, my American friends, send this fraud maker to JAIL.

(Sorry for my english.)

Ekaf had to be an Arab, because spelling "I am a fake" backwards produces a name that just could be Arab, and couldn't possibly be anything else much. The intention was to let that stuff simmer for a few hours, and then carry on the ridiculousness just a little bit further, in case the point wasn't clear enough already. But by the time we looked at the thread again, Eugene had finally, at long last, taken action and the fun was over.

SteveJudd and Alan Jones dissappeared right away, of course, but Ekaf refused to die. In his softly-spoken, mangled English way, Ekaf is a staunch supporter of human rights, and campaigns tirelessly to point out the ridiculous, the evil, and the downright stupid. Ekaf despises the way that mass communications and cultural imperialism are fast wiping out the wonderous varieties of individual culture around the world and replacing this richness and diversity with bland and worthless Hollywood values. To that end, he persistently finds himself unable to distinguish between the United States and the Client States: he thinks John Howard is the State Governer of Australia, that New Zealand sends representatives to Congress in Washington, and that Montreal is the capital of Montana.

When someone started a thread about one of those interminable Shock! Horror! Fox News items about a schoolteacher being suspended for something that was really nothing out of the ordinary and deserved a reprimand, if that, Ekaf gently poked fun at the knee-jerk regulators, saying:

Is not institution of Capital Punishment designed by wise Fathers of Nation for just such circumstance? When have good law why not use same for designful purpose? Why cannot Mr George W Bush be more actful on this shameful lewdness? Where is gallows in State of Canada?

Ekaf is devoutly apolitical. He values the idea of freedom and of citizens having a vote, but (if he should ever be given that unimaginable right in his own country), would quite likely waste it, as, given his background and what little he knows of the West, he seems unable to conceive of the idea of an honest politician:

Who is this Mr None Above? Is good man? What party he belong to? No matter. When get Green Card, I vote for him anyway. (Pity he not be standing in my country. No-one stand for election in my country, in case he get shorter all-sudden. Head of Government one question. Head on shoulders still, that be different question.)

As you can see, Ekaf, for all his naivety, also has a clear sense of the practical: he is a survivor. He can display a surprising depth of knowledge on some subjects, and grow quite passionate on them:

Forgive teremerity of myself make posting regards this topic, but mine is some knowledge of this subject. When looking for position in excellent foreign university, I consider beautiful USA as well as excellent Europe.

Wonderful United States have very best in universities such as Harvard and Princeton and other Ivy League type which be absolutely equal best with Sorbourne and Oxford and other great university of world.

This be why I study here in Madrid. I apply for Cambridge and Sorbourne, LSE, Harvard, Stanford and other famous #1 Top University but not be-time smart person enough, so all say to me "no dice", and "we not want you, Ekaf-Ami".

Now make no mistake because my English be bad. I am nobody dumbkopf! I be #3 smartest student im my home city of Bagdad! But University of Cambridge say to me, "only take number 1 smartest student", and Harvard and all other Ivy League say to me the same.

But not-so-famous university in Europe still be very smart places. I learn almost as much here in Madrid as at Oxford or Stanford. Would be mostly similar in all other European university, even no-name one.

But no-name American university - ha! They take my dog and give him Master's Degree. If be smart dog, they make him Dr. Rover with PHD!

Short of my story is European University be uniform high standard, except absolute top like Sorbourne (which say to me in letter "not smart enough, Ekaf-Ami", same as Harvard say).

American university be mixture: very best is very very best. But not-so-best is joke.

Always, with Ekaf, you must look for what lies behind the post. As often as not, it is just some harmless fun, a modern-day Peter Sellers Indian or Inspector Closeau (without the phenomenal talent that Sellers had, of course), but equally often, Ekaf intends to draw out a deeper point. In the ECS reliability thread here recently, for example, it began to look as though it would degenerate into a rather pointless "I can link to more posts supporting my point of view than you can link to posts supporting your point of view" argument. So Ekaf posted to say:

Excuse me for speaking in this thread, gentlemen and ape, but is of noticable to me that typing "ECS very reliable" into Google Search Engine yields a total of 543 links, wheras typing "ECS crap" into same Google Search Engine as previously mentioned yields 2870 links.

As he so often does, he was cloaking his initial point - that ECS has a well-known, well-publicised and problematic history - inside a joke, and inside that, cloaking his real point: that searching for product reliability information on the web is a process that requires a great deal of careful thought beforehand. Did you think his choice of a two word "ECS crap" phrase and a three word "ECS very reliable" phrase was accidental? Right from the start it was intended to make a point - that statistically biasing surveys of this kind is child's play, and the results to be obtained from these methods are very, very suspect. Just in case the point was not clear already, he followed up with an even more absurd demonstration of statistical imcompetence:

Ahh, is obvious that is sharply divide of opinion. Every person believe ECS is good, or ECS bad. No-one believe ECS is in-between. I have proof of the type statistical for this: when search on Google Search Engine for phrases "ECS" and "only a little bit crap" is no results at all!

He loves to spot that particular type of flawed reasoning which builds a grand edifice of perfectly rational logic upon a spurious or unexamined assumption. For example, over at SR, there was a debate going on about the (great performance improvement)/(useless, worthless, too small a performance improvement) that a newly released video driver had brought about. In amongst the heat and light, no-one seemed to have thought about the underlying question: why had the previous drivers not been able to deliver more than a fraction of the performance that the hardware was capable of?

Excuse my ignorance, gentlemen of Storage Review Forum, but is always two questions to be asked when camel runs faster in second race than he runs in first race.

Many people say "why good camel run so much faster now?" and clap hands in delight at extra speed. But I say "why bad camel run so slow in first race?".

If new release of Detonator drivers 4.0 not faster than previous release 3.x, but 3.X and 4.0 both much faster than 2.x and very very much faster than Detonators drivers 1.X, then maybe real question is "why good people at Nvidia write such horrible drivers for so long and only make them all fix up now in last year or two?"

Sometimes I think there be only one First-Class-Number-One programmer writing video driver softwares in the whole world. First he work for 3DFX on Voodoo drivers, then take one year off go play golf or something, then he work for Nvidia writing new version of Detonator drivers, but now playing golf again. (Sadly.) Maybe he soon go work for ATI. I am muchly hoping so.

Or, to take another example, Ekaf doing his best to demonstrate the utter stupidity of saying that that most destructive of all things, war, is "good for the economy".

The period (first 5-10 years or so) after a successful war are always prosperous.

You speak plain truth Mr XYZ, sir. This is because of universal law of human nature. My happiest time of day is always beautiful first five minutes after I stop hitting humble self on head with hammer. People always ask "why you cause pain, hit self with hammer?" I tell them "is not pain, is beautiful relaxation when stop, here - you want borrow my hammer, feel good also?".

Sure, Ekaf is saying, in his eliptical way, go right ahead and have a war. Kill lots of people, waste an enormous amount of money and resources and highly-skilled labour to make bombs and shells and use them to destroy other, useful things which themselves took masive investments to build and perfect. Six months or so of war, and no matter what country you return to, no matter how poor it is, no matter how degraded your resources are, it will seem like heaven after the man-made hell of war.

Where Tannin is plain-spoken and does not suffer fools gladly, and even I can be blunt to the point of rudeness from time to time, Ekaf is unfailingly polite, and when he feels called upon to correct an error, he does so gently, with more tact than either of us. Consider this ... er ... rather juvenile post, and Ekaf's response (emphasis added and names changed to protect the innocent). A Tannin would have said "You idiot - seeiong as we only know you through your posts, how on earth can we be expected to say if they are "reflective of your personality"? (If any.) Not Ekaf. Ekaf likes to be nice to people, even when he is laughing at them:

Hi there...I've noticed that I'm close to the 350 post mark. And, just as a curious question for you people who read it: What do you think of my posts? Insightful? Stupid? Reflective of me/my personality? Useful? Helpful?
Curious for feedback from fellow forum members. Comments of any sort are welcomed. (including flaming, name calling, etc etc...)...just..be reading to be able to support it (since that's the only way that you can take somethign negative like flaming someone, and turn it into something that could be positive for the person.) Answer at will....

P.S. If you feel that you need to email me the comments, by all means, go right ahead - XYZ@hotmail.com.

Insofar members of excellent forum at here Storage Review Dot Com know only you from posts you make on forum, Mr Alpha754293, probably all members think posts made by you representative of person they know only because posts made by you.

Perhaps one day when humble self get long-wished-for Green Card and live Land of the Free voting in election and drink as much beautiful Coca-Cola as heart could desire, you and I will meet in real life personal flesh and be friendship.

Then humble self know if posts of good Mr XYZ be reflective of personality of said gentleman.

Please be nice to Ekaf-Ami, Slo. Of all Tannin's many aliases, he is my favourite one.

(Except for me, of course.)

 

[slo crostic]

Thanks for your informative post regarding Ekaf-Ami, Tea. I rarely visit SR nowadays so the whole issue regarding Jason escaped me. It was a good thing Tannin, and Ekaf, did to help get the hounds off Jason's heels and, might i add, seemingly fun too!

I am still learning the finer arts of this forum and perhaps should not take things on face value so much as i have been.

Please send Ekaf-Ami my deepest apologies if you happen to see him Tea :wink:

 

[Fushigi]

SteveJudd and Alan Jones dissappeared right away, of course, but Ekaf refused to die.

Tnanks for stopping the use of Alan Jones .. that's 2/3rds of my real name!

- Fushigi

 

[Tea]

Not at all, Slo. You merely triggered a post that has perhaps been in the back of my mind for a while now, I suspect. I am fond of Ami, and have for some time had the feeling that almost everyone seems to take him for a simple fool with nothing to say except some poor-taste jokes. You may be sure every time you see his handle that the real Tony (if there is one!) has crafted the post with some care, and smiled gently all the way through. Well, nearly every time, anyway. Posting as Ekaf-Ami is fun. Learning to write in broken English, however unconvincingly, was a challenge. It's extraordinary how firmly the habits of correct grammar become wired into you. It still takes a conscious effort to let go and be Ami.

And I must mention here my traditonal firm friend and deadly foe: that Master of the Multiple Alias, Flagreen. (Also known as, in various fora, The Giver, Dr Jeckel, Mr Hyde, and Mustafa Hussein.) He has an instinctive flair for the alias, and a child-like ability to slip into the fantasy world of another handle which I greatly admire. (Notice that I say "child-like", not "childish" - there is a great deal of difference.) Bill and I have had endless amounts of fun with our aliases now and then, mostly perfectly innocent and harmless, but once or twice with a little needle. There were several threads over on the SR Bar and Grille where Bill had me in fits of laughter, and I trust that I (as Ekaf) brought a smile or two to his face also. (Which is just as well, seeing as in our Tannin and The Giver personas we can argue long and bitterly!)

I have saved the best for last, though. Maybe it is not to everyone's taste, but I think this is the funniest thing I've ever seen on SR. (Or here, for that matter.) I laughed and laughed and laughed till I hurt. It started with Sivar posting a joke - not a bad one by the way. Ekaf posted a brief reply, thanking Sivar for the laugh and asking a couple of typically naive Ekaf questions. It didn't occur to me that Sivar didn't know who Ekaf-Ami was, but Sivar responded quite seriously, kindly and thoughtfully. If I had seen that at the time I should have immediately explained, but I was off-line at the time. Our Bill, however, was made of sterner stuff and .... well ... you better read it for yourself. http://forums.storagereview.net/viewtopic.php?t=5260

It was cruel, but it was beautiful.

PS: Fushigi, if by any chance you would like the Alan Jones handle for yourself, let me know and I'll email you the password. I shan't be wanting to use him again.

 

[Tea]

Hmmm. I just read that thread over. Still made me chuckle, but I'm not sure now why I thought it was so absolutely hilarious. Maybe it was one of those "you had to be there" sort of things. By the way, I did write a long, carefully-crafted post for that thread, by way of apology to Sivar - but just at the critical moment Mozilla crashed out on me and I said "to hell with it" and went home to bed. I think I did apologise to him a little later in some other thread somewhere.

 

[Dozer]

Tea,

Perhaps it's just a sick sense of humour (or at the very least, warped), but I thought it was quite funny, as well. Gave me a smile on a rainy day here in Chattanooga!

 

[blakerwry]

I just have to jump in here now that I saw this

The name Dubya is clearly taking the piss out of all Americans for their mispronounciation of the letter W (pronounced double-you) and should be seen as offensive to all Americans, not just the fans of George W Bush.

As you might already know, the USA is a very diverse coutry in terms of ethnic backgrounds. In my school alone I could probably spot people from Europe, the middle east, the far east, and south america on a day to day basis. Not just people who's parents, grandparents, or some distant reletive might have came from one of these places, but people who were actually born there and moved to the US.

I live in the middle of the US, which I consider, on average, one of the LEAST culturally diverse places in our country.

Living in the US, you are bound to encounter many different accents and dialects used in different areas of the country or even city in which you live. I personally don't know any person that says 'dubya', but if I were to hear it I would not give it a 2nd thought. I know what it means and as long as the communication process was successful I don't really care how someone prefers to pronounce a word, letter, phrase, etc.

Just as a matter of opinion, i believe that particular pronunciation of the letter W comes from the southern part of the united states (Texas, Florida). You are probably unlikely to encouter it unless you are talking to someone from this region.