I know it's in poor taste to mock the feeble-minded, but sometimes it's just irresistible. Compare these two statements of the blogger known as 'Hesiod' on the subject of the Chechen terrorist hostage crisis in Moscow:
Before the Russians stormed the theater (10/24, 6:55 PM):
This will not end pretty. They will almost certainly all die. Why?
The Russian Gvt. will never negotiate an end to the Chechen war. They will try to storm the theatre, and probably wind up getting everyone killed.
After the Russians stormed the theater (10/27, 11:39 PM):
It is plain to me that those who favor the war of civilizations have sold their souls. Period.
When they praise a scumbag, like Putin, and say the operation in Moscow went well, despite 117 DEAD hostages [almost all of whom were directly killed by the GOVERNMENT, not the hostage takers!], they have forfeited any moral authority to lecture opponents of the Iraq war.
So 'Hesiod' thought all the hostages would die, but the fact that one-eighth of them died shows that the rescue attempt was an utter failure. He can't even remember what he said three days before.
No one is calling the result a simple happy ending or an unalloyed triumph for the Russian special forces. Rather it is like one of those operations to separate Siamese twins, where we know the weaker twin will almost certainly die, and even the stronger twin will need dozens of operations: grim and unutterably sad, but probably the best that can reasonably be hoped for.
Of course 'Hesiod' offers no hint of how they could have done better. Is there a gas strong enough to incapacitate terrorists so quickly and thoroughly that none of them have time to set off their bombs, though some have their fingers on the triggers? I wouldn't have thought so, but apparently there is. Could such a gas be so gentle in its effects on the human body that no one in the room would die, even as all were instantaneously incapacitated? Only in science fiction, I imagine. Again, what were the Russians to do?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Why not ignore 'Hesiod'? Because he always insists on the last word, and his last word is always a lie. Among many other lies, his most recent comment on me (10/20, 9:54 AM) included a comparison to Leni Riefenstahl (spelled wrong, of course), since I am (he says) "cheerleading for Bush". Even if that were entirely true, a comparison to Karl Rove or Ari Fleischer would surely be more appropriate. Why Riefenstahl? I'm not German, not a woman, not nearly 100 years old, and have no connection to the film industry. The only 'connection' is that 'Hesiod' likes to think of his enemies as Nazis. It's just one of the nasty little habits of his filthy little mind.
Speaking of which, 'Hesiod' likes to accuse his enemies of "fellating" his other enemies. Isn't that awfully prudish? What does 'Hesiod' have against fellatio? I would say that he sounds a lot like John Ashcroft, except that John Ashcroft is too polite (or too prudish) to tell us what he thinks of fellatio and other non-Euclidean sexual acts. (Nothing good, I would guess, but the point is that I have to guess.) And isn't Hesiod's choice of insults also blatantly misogynistic or homophobic, as the case may be (depending on the gender of the person he is attacking)? There is an obvious double standard involved if he thinks that receiving fellatio is wonderful, or even unexceptionable, while giving it is contemptible. The ancient Greeks tended to think exactly that, but most moderns prefer a single standard. Some, like the Pope, disapprove of fellatio from both sides, as it were, while most enlightened westerners find it morally unobjectionable from both sides, even if they don't care to practice it themselves. What's Hesiod's problem?
Posted by Dr. Weevil at October 28, 2002 11:08 PMReally? In my experience, your ordinary all-American adolescent homophobic holds exactly this view. "Getting head? -- hey, dude, it's head. Giving head? -- what do you think I am, a fag?"
And I use the term 'homophobic' not to mean generic anti-gay prejudice, but the true sexual-identity panic that tortures hung-up college boys.
Amusing to see it exhibited here, though.
Posted by: Daniel Jacobson on October 29, 2002 12:13 AMI'd say Hezzer's main problem is lack of imagination. I mean, if I were attacking someone I'd use change the scurrilous terms every now and then, just for variety.
Posted by: Andrea Harris on October 29, 2002 01:08 AMWasn't he also the same guy who tried to claim that the Governor of New Jersey could appoint a new senator and then cancel the election? The more he was pointed out how wrong he was, the more hysterical he got.
Posted by: Jim Foley on October 29, 2002 09:14 AMObviously his problem is that he is has never been fellated. He is sexually frustrated and taking it out on the blogosphere.
Let's all by him a hooker for his birthday. Maybe he'll calm down once he gets laid.
Posted by: michel on October 29, 2002 09:28 AMA male hooker...then he'll be totally F&%KED UP...heh heh
Posted by: F Gaines on October 29, 2002 09:38 AMI wasted time reading this? This is just as boring as that episode of Matlock, Rubber vs. Glue.
Posted by: Robert T on October 29, 2002 09:45 AMSimilarly, I've always been annoyed by the term "cocksucker" as one of derision. What's so wrong with that?
Oh, wait, most people who employ the term are men who say it about or against other men. So it's, y'know, an anti-gay slur.
Just once, I'd like to see an attempt at name-calling devolve into the following:
Angry Guy: You're a cocksucker!
Object of Angry Guy's Wrath: Yep.
Kind of takes the sting out of the argument, huh?
Posted by: Asparagirl on October 29, 2002 10:27 AMUh, so can someone point me to a reference where the pope is against fellatio? I've never seen one, and would like to know the source.
Posted by: Girn Blanston on October 29, 2002 10:36 AMI've never thought of cocksucker as an anti-gay slur....More of a "you're a jerk", sort of thing. Kinda like calling someone an asshole, or a motherfucker. So, would motherfucker be an anti-oedipus-rex slur? Asswipe be an anti-toilet paper slur?
Sometimes people use strong language just to call each other jerks. It has nothing to do with "anti-whatever", unless you choose to put that spin on it.
Posted by: Girn Blanston on October 29, 2002 10:41 AMOn a similar note, Rachel Lucas had an interesting observation that she gets much more hate mail than her male co-rantologists. It's got to be a sexual frustration thing, hasn't it? Although no doubt Headjob Agonistes will counterclaim that he sees more action than a Bangkok brothel when the 7th fleet's in town. But we all know that wouldn't be true, don't we?
"What's Hesiod's problem?"
Have you ruled out stupidity?
Riyadh delenda est!
Posted by: Cato the Youngest on October 29, 2002 10:46 AMAshcroft is probably all for fellatio--several studies have shown that traditional, conservative couples have the highest levels of sexual satisfaction. (Studies showing that conservative women report the highest number of orgasms must drive Germaine Greer up the wall.) Further, oral sex is commonly recommended in sex manuals published by conservative religious groups.
The main thing with sex and religious conservatives is this: keep it inside marriage.
Posted by: Bob Kuscinski on October 29, 2002 11:01 AMI did a little thinking on your theory, Bob and sure enough, ever since I started sliding towards conservatism, the number of orgasms I experience has increased exponentially.
What an interesting campaign sticker this would make: Conservatives Do It Better - And More Often.
Posted by: michele on October 29, 2002 11:07 AMAsparagirl;
Something like this? http://www.spacemoose.com/strips/smash.gif
As for Hessie, I've been convinced for a while now that he's really George Bush. I mean, if you're running a war and you want to portray your domestic opponants as ineffectual nit-wits, what better way to do it than to set up the ultimate virtual straw man?
Besides, it would explain his problem with spelling and grammer.
Posted by: G. Bob on October 29, 2002 11:15 AMThe one thing your analysis missed, Dr., is the possibility that to people inclined towards relativism, "all die" and "1/8 die" do not contradict one another. Any death is just as bad as all death, apparently...unless you're talking abortion or Jesse Helms.
Makes no sense to me either.
Posted by: Steve Gigl on October 29, 2002 11:18 AMfor the record, "cocksucker" comes from old black slang for a MAN that performs cunnilingus--which in the pre-60's black community was considered a most unmanly act and was severely looked down upon. i am not sure how it changed to the exact opposite meaning, the only explanation i've heard is that through "folk-etymology" whites tried to make sense out of it by re-interpreting it through there own sexual lexicon.
Posted by: dana on October 29, 2002 11:23 AMYou gotta love it. Hesiod is now wondering why 'wrongwingers' are so obsessed with oral sex.
That's rich. He accuses right of center bloggers of 'fellating' people like Vladimir Putin but says we're the ones obsessed with it.
Hello McFly. Anybody home?
Posted by: Jay Caruso on October 29, 2002 11:48 AMI've never understood the distinction between pitchers & catchers...I've read other cultures also share the dislike for catchers, viewing them as homosexual or effiminate, while pitchers were evidently considered ok. Illogical.
One of those rare cases where it's not better to give than receive I suppose??
Posted by: Rita on October 29, 2002 11:48 AMWhat I find ironic is that Hesiod's politics seem based on what will get him head on campus. But then, maybe, it's just the seminal house slave argument..."double standard involved if he thinks that receiving fellatio is wonderful, or even unexceptionable, while giving it is contemptible. The ancient Greeks tended to think exactly that".
Posted by: dsaucer on October 29, 2002 11:52 AMWasn't it Nina Burleigh, who offered to fellate Bill Clinton for saving abortion rights?
Hesiod does what all evil liberals do, project their own actions and beliefs onto others.
I'm confused here. Are we discussing men giving and receiving fellatio? If so that's definitely a homophobic thing -- and I'd say, that makes sense. If you're a guy and you're not gay, the idea of fellating another guy is just not doing anything for you. (How you react to it is an entirely different story.)
But if we're talking about performing oral sex in general, as dana was above ("for the record, "cocksucker" comes from old black slang for a MAN that performs cunnilingus") ... then it goes, i think, more to selfishness than to any sort of fear.
Am I rambling here? I just want to say I like oral sex, I guess, and I don't see what's wrong with it. (I need to find a job!)
You need to find a job Paul? A blow-job presumably...
I'll get my coat....
Posted by: Jon on October 29, 2002 12:09 PMDr. Weevil, are you sure that the Pope disapproves of the aforesaid practice. I do not recall his having pontificated specifically on this question, but I would expect that he would hold to traditional Roman Catholic teaching on the subject. The act is not sinful in itself but may become so under certain circumstances. Oral intercourse short of emission is lawful for married couples, either as foreplay or as a pleasurable activity in and of itself. Fellatio to climax is illicit as a form of birth control. Homosexual acts, don't even ask. In sixteen years of Catholic school one hears it all.
Posted by: Lou Gots on October 29, 2002 12:14 PMThe first of two times I bothered posted about something Hesiod wrote, a commenter suggested we start using 'Hesiod' "as a term of derision for imbecilic, frothing vapid screed" (another refined 'Hesiodic' to "refer to posts that are incredibly insulting and unbelievably stupid." Personally, I think that neologism deserves wider acceptance.
But insofar as he is an idiot, I stopped bothering to read or mention his work. Since he's a virulent moron, does it matter that his last word is always a lie? So is his first, second, fifth, and nth. He's a fully conscious troll, we all give him what he wants when we try to engage his bilious nonsense.
Oh, and, michele, can I quote you on that?
Posted by: Dodd on October 29, 2002 12:15 PMOf course, Dodd. Even if you take it out of context.
Posted by: michele on October 29, 2002 12:32 PMI have bestowed upon Hesiod the title of:
'Hesiod The Addlepated'
Just sounds better than 'Hesiod The Stupid.'
Posted by: Jay Caruso on October 29, 2002 12:38 PMHow exactly does his original speculation about all the possible deaths detract from the Fact that 1/8th dead is deplorable? And how does that make him a hypocrit? In either case (all or 1/8ths) the outcome was tragic.
Do any of you who took the time to ramble on about what an idiot this or that person is (and bore the living fuck out of me in the process) have enough common sense to seperate speculation from fact? Apparantly not- let me explain.
Speculation is what you people confuse as fact when plotting how to invade a country.
Fact is what the rest of us are waiting for while you plot how to invade a country.
Posted by: cy k on October 29, 2002 12:51 PMHmmmm, a fake email that implies a sex act ... obviously Hesiod once again sharing his stupidity with us.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on October 29, 2002 12:56 PMAre you too stupid to use Email properly or too stupid to do anything besides call people stupid?
Posted by: cy k on October 29, 2002 01:02 PMfor the record, "cocksucker" comes from old black slang for a MAN that performs cunnilingus--which in the pre-60's black community was considered a most unmanly act and was severely looked down upon. i am not sure how it changed to the exact opposite meaning, the only explanation i've heard is that through "folk-etymology" whites tried to make sense out of it by re-interpreting it through there own sexual lexicon.I don't believe this at all. The word "cock" has referred to the male sexual organ since time immemorial. The notion that blacks or anybody else thought it referred to the female organ is ludicrous. Further, that anybody would wonder how the term could be "re-interpreted" doesn't understand that in interpreting the term to mean male-male fellatio isn't doing any re-interpretation at all. Posted by: Bill Quick on October 29, 2002 01:35 PM
The idiomatic asymmetry our good doctor has described is also at work in our pejorative use of the verb "suck." Given that this is really a shortened form of "suck dick", it's actually pretty amazing how mainstream the expression has become in recent years, as the impact of its vulgarity has been worn down by frequent use. But it always struck me as an odd thing to use as an insult, particularly when used by a guy. I mean, wouldn't you think that sucking would be something we'd want to, you know, encourage? Doesn't using it as a term of abuse send the wrong message to those (whether male or female) from whom one aspires to receive such a favor?
I therefore propose that we reclaim the verb "to suck" and turn it into a vehicle of praise rather than opprobrium. So next time your boss gives you a raise, look him in the eye with gratitude and say, "Wow. This really sucks. Thank you."
(Only in cases of extreme joy should one resort to the alternate phrase, "Man, this totally swallows!")
Posted by: Chris Newman on October 29, 2002 01:35 PMI've found that answering affirmatively to supposedly insulting fag remarks does indeed remove the wind from the inquisator's rhetorical sails. And my general response when told that something sucks is that it probably doesn't because if it did it would be useful.
Posted by: RR Ryan on October 29, 2002 01:56 PMBill: You're wrong, at least in part. "Cock" in old southern slang could be a synonym for "twat." That meaning has vanished now, but you still heard it occasionally when I was a kid. The transition seemed to occur in the early 1970s, with the wider availability of porn seeming to standardize meanings.
I never read "cocksucker" that way, though. But etymology has never been a particular interest of mine.
Posted by: Glenn Reynolds on October 29, 2002 02:15 PMSorry, Mr. Quick. Cock really did have more to do with females than males. I was amazed when I worked with some old-timers out in the oil field, the kind of guys who, in their youth, worked with six-guns strapped to their hips, and they would refer to the female sexual organ as her cock. Perhaps its derived from the rooster's comb?
Posted by: B. Tucker on October 29, 2002 02:17 PMOh, these guys were not black nor, as far as I know, had they ever been around blacks. Therefore, I conclude that it isn't necessarily "black slang."
Posted by: B. Tucker on October 29, 2002 02:19 PMI can't wait for Dr. Weevil to show us his referral logs next week after all this 'cocksucker' talk.
Posted by: Jay Caruso on October 29, 2002 02:21 PMfrom merriam webster online:
Main Entry: cock·suck·er
Pronunciation: -"s&-k&r
Function: noun
Date: circa 1891
usually obscene : one who performs fellatio -- often used as a generalized term of abuse
Wow. Cocksucker is in the dictionary? I suppose it won't be longed before they're banning it from school shelves.
As far as sucking, whenever someone says to me "you suck," I reply with "and swallow." Just girn and walk away and leave them speechless.
Posted by: michele on October 29, 2002 03:15 PMLong. Not longed.
Posted by: michele on October 29, 2002 03:16 PMInteresting. Growing up in small-town Louisiana in the late 50's "cock" meant (unambiguosly) female genitalia. We were all surprised to hear the term used in its more common meaning, and often confused (at first).
Posted by: Michael on October 29, 2002 03:20 PMRe. the Pope and oral sex. As a happily married Roman Catholic, let me assure you that we find nothing whatsoever wrong with oral sex, and a heck of lot to recommend it. And hey, what John Paul don't know won't hurt him.
Am I the only one who now has that silly Monty Python song stuck in their head?
Every sperm is sa-cred
Every sperm is great;
and when some get's wast-ed,
God gets quite irate
"I never read "cocksucker" that way, though. But etymology has never been a particular interest of mine."
Not a cunning linguist then, Glenn?
[ducks, runs, can't believe no one else made the joke yet]
Posted by: Asparagirl on October 29, 2002 04:31 PMTwo quickies:
Asparagirl, I think the conversation would actually go something like this (with apologies to the Pythons):
Angry Guy: You're a cocksucker!
Object of Angry Guy's Wrath: Yep.
Angry Guy: What's it like?
Bill Quick, I'm afraid you're off base with: "The notion that blacks or anybody else thought it referred to the female organ is ludicrous." Any decent dictionary of regional slang combined with the avid intellectual adolescent's willingness to research anything vagely sex-related would have told you by now that in the south especially, "cock" used to be slang for a women's pudenda.
Posted by: xian on October 29, 2002 04:39 PMAsparagirl and R.R. Ryans:
That reminds me of a cartoon I once saw: Two men are leaning against a bar. One is looking angry but also disconcerted. The other is saying "So, I'm a cocksucker? Would you like to step into the men's room and discuss that?"
Posted by: Dr. Weevil on October 29, 2002 04:51 PMpaul:
Of course, giving fellatio will only interest gay or bisexual men and straight or bisexual women, while receiving will only interest men of all orientations (there's no such thing as Lesbian fellatio). But anyone who likes to receive it is hardly in a position to despise those who give it, even if he only wants to receive it from women and doesn't care to do the same for other men. If he does (despise his partner, I mean), he's a total hypocrite.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil on October 29, 2002 04:54 PMmichele:
The revised unabridged Oxford English Dictionary (20 huge volumes) includes all the dirty words, which were omitted when the first edition came out in (I think) the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a copy. It is out on CD-Rom, and I hope to get one for Christmas (hint hint). My bookshelves don't have room for the hard-copy version.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil on October 29, 2002 04:56 PMGrin Blanston, Lou Gots, and Kieran Lyons:
I've never seen a catechism go into detail, but I certainly understood the Catholic prohibition on infertile sex to include not only the pill, condoms, IUDs, and gay sex, but also masturbation, oral, and anal sex. As far as I know, doggie style is OK, but it still has to be vaginal.
Kieran Lyons:
That sounds like one of the many things that those who consider themselves good Catholics do, though the Pope would prefer that they didn't.
Bob K:
Really? I had just assumed that conservative Protestants joined conservative Catholics in disapproving of other non-standard sexual acts, not just the homosexual ones.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil on October 29, 2002 04:59 PMDodd:
1. Please don't use "Hesiodic" as a synonym for "moronic". It is already in use among classicists to refer to the original Hesiod, who is quite an interesting poet.
2. I think it is important to rub in what an ass Hesiod is. Many people on the left continue to permalink him as if were an honest and useful commentator. For instance, Eric Alterman, Ted Barlow, and Max Sawicky all have permalinks to 'Hesiod', though none of them (I think) links to WarBloggerWatch.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil on October 29, 2002 05:15 PMShun him. Hesiod is a flamer. A troll. His own posts and comments on other blogs are almost exclusively designed to insult the messenger rather than address the message. Flaming. (in the usenet, bulletin board, chat room sense) What satisfies a flamer, and makes it all worth while in his intellectually fallow world, is notice. Hesiod has a mind seething with invective and he hasn't the coherance to debate a point. But he has discovered that he can say things online and twist the words of others that he would never dare say or do in a face to face conversation. Coming back with similar insults is playing in his sandbox. I have seen him contribute nothing of substance to any debate.
The way to silence a troll is to let him have the first, last, and only word. Without an audience, they fade. Moderate Hesiod out of forums where he steps over the line, and ignore his blog. Shun him.
Posted by: Bob Leahy on October 29, 2002 05:16 PMOf course he's a fool. But he is a source of amusement. It was his fellatio fixation that led me to coin the 'Headjob Agonistes' nickname. I don't know about the US, but where I come from 'headjob' is another word for a blowjob.
And 'dsaucer' - was the 'seminal house slave' line a Freudian slip? It ties into the previous post's angle on dominatrices etc, albeit in a faintly gooey way.
I forgot the cowardly and anonymous "cy k":
He insists that the result was "tragic", as if anyone had denied it. In this very post I said that it was not "a simple happy ending or an unalloyed triumph" and compared it to something "grim and unutterably sad". So what is "cy k" talking about? (We already know what he's talking out of.) Next time, read the post to the end before hitting 'post', troll.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil on October 29, 2002 07:52 PMI moved from Miami to Clewiston (a very small central Florida town) the summer before 11th grade. You can imagine my suprise when one of my new friends asked if I wanted to score some cock.
Being a guy, and straight, I replied...
"Uh... NO!"
"What, are you gay?"
"HUH!?"
After sorting out the confusion in terms, he introduced me to a nice, pliable young lady and she and I spent many moonlit nights meeting at pumphouses out in the sugarcane fields...
Thanks for reminding me... Southern Comfort and Sara... LOL...
I have to agree with Bob Leahy regarding the wisdom of ignoring Hesiod altogether, although I am about to violate this sage advice and talk about the guy. It's clear from reading Hesiod that he is a rather unintelligent person who, nevertheless and against all evidence to the contrary, fancies himself to be bright. He has arrogance in abundance and is constantly striving to denigrate any opinion not consonant with his own, usually in a most juvenile fashion. His writing indicates to me that he suffers from some sort of complex, possibly as a result of an inability to cope with the disconnect between his notion of self and the grim reality thereof. He's not a very good speller either.
We all saw his embarrassing attempts to play on the same field as Glenn Reynolds, Steven Den Beste, and the inestimable Dr. Weevil, only to see his efforts come a cropper as of course they would. To say he's not in the same league as the aforementioned is to miss a critical point...he doesn't even understand the fundamentals of the game being played which, last I heard, were slightly more complex than mere mockery of those whose ideas differ from one's own followed by a noisy declaration of victory. Or, did I miss a meeting?
Dr. W, Dodd - let's compromise and say "Hesidiotic".
Posted by: J Bowen on October 29, 2002 11:59 PMGiven that Hesiod has characterized those on the right as "wrongwongers" on at least one occasion, one must only conclude that we are...not the objects of his affection.
Posted by: David Perron on October 30, 2002 06:44 AMDr. Weevil,
Im not sure how I am cowardly or anonymous as I have printed both my name and made accessable my Email address, even for tools like you and the parasites that invest this place.
Regardless, you obviosly do not see my point as the point was not the "Tragedy" but the fact that shmucks like you cannot seperate SPECULATION from FACT, though I'm hardly suprised that you would miss that point as it is apparantly your nature to use simpleton ideology to disect every situation.
Frankly, I'm hardly concerned about your sympathy, I never even questioned it, though I can certainly SPECULATE that it's false.
Posted by: cy k on October 30, 2002 09:34 AMEric Lighter's masterful Historical Dictionary of American Slang lists the third definition of "cock" as "female sexual organs" & cites numerous sources from literature & popular culture. [p 444]
Posted by: jd on October 30, 2002 12:45 PMWhy are some of you interrupting a interesting discussion on fellatio with the boring subject of "Hesiod"?
Dr. Weevil: Your cartoon reminds me of a joke.
A young guy comes into a bar, and orders six martinis. The bartender, while pouring, says
"So, whatcha celebrating?" The young man, having drunk two as fast as possible, stops and says,
"My first blow job." As he chugs his third, the bartender says,
"CONGRATULATIONS! Here, let me you one." The young man pauses before drinking number five, and says,
"Nah, if six martinis don't kill the taste, I'm switching to scotch."
"cy k":
If your first name is Cyrus and everyone calls you Cy and your last name starts with a K, then you have given half a name at best. Even so, "Cy K." would have been a lot clearer than "cy k", which looks meaningless. If your e-mail is genuine, it sure looks fake, what with including a "69" as you comment on a post that is partly about fellatio.
In any case, your comments prove that you are a common (though unusually stupid) troll. The first one complains that I've "bore[d] the living fuck out of" you, but that doesn't stop you from typing in two more. And you insist that I've confused speculation with fact, which is false. I simply pointed out that Putin's actions had saved the lives of far more people than 'Hesiod' thought could possibly survive, but he still complains that the result was an utter disaster. Of course it was a tragedy, but it was also surprisingly successful in reducing the likely death toll, which would probably have been 95% or more if they had not acted.
As for my sympathy, speculate away, asshole. Your own speculations have nothing to do with the facts.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil on October 30, 2002 09:49 PMRegardless of who links to the anklebiters, you should probably ignore them.
Posted by: steevil (Dr Weevil's bro Steve) on October 30, 2002 11:35 PMI think we need to break your name down into the ungrammatical "we evil", Doc. Because of this post I was forced to go read up on non-Euclidean geometry, which I have not studied in some time, math being anathema to me. Not that I didn't get the point without it, you understand, but being a pedant I got into this, "but why would this angle vs that angle belong to Euclidean vs non-Euclidean"... Sigh. Yes, it scared me too that I did that.
And that would be definition (c) of pedant, thankyouverymuch.
Posted by: susanna on October 31, 2002 10:31 AMI'm not really stupid for continuing to post further, its just part of my liberal nature to educate the less fortunate, like you, who may be a little slow.
The point of your original post was that Hesiod was a hypocrit because he speculated that the event would end in tragedy. Then, once knowing the facts, said it was, in fact, a tragedy-something you agree with (as you said often in your confusion). So how is he a hypocrit? is it because his speculation was confirmed by fact?
The fact that you believe that it was also a success based on a SPECULATION that 95% COULD have died doesn't make Hesiod a hypocrit- it makes you an idiot who needs a dictionary.
Can you see how Hesiod uses the FACT to confirm his prediction of tragedy (which you concur), while you use SPECULATION as "evidence" of a success? Let me give you a hint- when you say the word PROBABLY, right there is a good hint that you are SPECULATING.
You seem to be getting a little more coherent in your last sentence-you say my speculation has nothing to do with fact-and I concur. Sorry that the humor was lost on you.
In the future it may be more productive to stop calling people hypocrits for no reason and just write maybe about why you think the operation was a success. Unless your whole purpose here is to be an ass, in which case, you are hugely successful.
Posted by: cy k on October 31, 2002 10:34 PMWow! Smarmiest comment yet. I'm so glad to have the benefit of this anonymous troll's "liberal nature" (the adjective is delightfully ambiguous) and willingness to "educate the less fortunate" such as myself!
Too bad he misses the point of my argument, which is really quite simple: Like me, 'Hesiod' thought that just about all the hostages would die, but in fact roughly 7/8ths of them were saved. No one has proposed a method that would have saved them all. Nevertheless, we are supposed to assume that Putin is criminally incompetent and those of us who expressed any sense of relief at an outcome much better (or rather considerably less horrible) than we expected are all fellators of Putin. Looks like blatant hypocrisy to me, and inane remarks about the difference between supposition and fact do not help.
Of course, poor 'cy k' doesn't see the irony in telling me that I need a dictionary when he can't even spell common words like "hypocrite" and "it's".
Hmmm . . . Inept spelling, grossly incompetent argumentation, foul language, insults that apply to the speaker far more than to his targets -- is there any reason to think that 'cy k' is not a sock puppet of the banned 'Hesiod'? None that I can see.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil on October 31, 2002 11:24 PMAs for me, I never said Hesiod was a "hypocrit." I did however say he was a bad speller, a condition which is apparently common in the noted "thinkers" of today's Left.
Posted by: charlie on October 31, 2002 11:39 PMDr. Weevil,
Since you asked nicely, I will eschew sullying the poet's good name. I am amenable to Mr. Bowen's compromise. Does that work for you?
Posted by: Dodd on November 1, 2002 12:55 AM