Re: Oracle and Donald Rumsfeld

hpuxrac wrote:
> Jonathan Lewis wrote:
> > I have let Don Burleson know that I passed
> > the forum link to this news group.
> >
> > I gather from his reply that he considers you
> > to be a profane bunch good only for anonymous
> > trashing. (That' you wanting to do the trashing
> > anonymously, not him wanting to trash you
> > anonymously).
> >
> > So, please, if you do decide to comment on his
> > forum thread, try really, really hard to avoid
> > profanity, being anonymous or trashing.
>
> I believe that you began this forum thread.
>
> Maybe it is hard for Americans to appreciate the British or
Australian
> humour or dry wit or sarcasm or irony that this whole discussion is
> intended to go toward.
>
> Certainly Mr. Rumsfeld is intelligent. Some people in this country
> believe he is honest, trustworthy, reliable, and possesses personal
and
> moral integrity. Other people in this country believe he is a liar,
a
> coward, a boar, a scoundrel, and will do anything to appear
otherwise.
> Some people believe him to be an excellent planner and tactician
others
> believe him to be clueless in providing details beyond setting a
> general direction.
>
> Are we your audience intended to take these kind of thoughts into
> consideration with your title "Oracle and Donald Rumsfeld"? Or not?
>
> Many of us in this US are aware of the deep distrust of the Europeans
> with regard to the Weapons Of Mass Distruction evidence or lack
thereof
> that Mr. Rumsfeld was deeply involved with.
>
> How are we your audience allowed to weigh these kinds of
considerations
> with your contributions?
>
> As a final set of questions to consider, it seems at least highly
> humorous to consider how the types of considerations noted above
might
> apply or not to Mr. Donald Burleson the world's leading oracle
> scientist . (Although it does seem somewhat peculiar for the creator
> of such a distinction to possess the ability to bestow it upon
> themselves).
>
> Were these types of thoughts potentially intended to be caused among
> your audience or were these just some kind of un-expected byproduct?
>
> Sorry it's just kind of hard for us poor unsophisticated Americans to
> deal with this type of high level convolutions. Perhaps we are just
> lacking in the vocabulary and mental gymnastics necessary for such
> advanced context switching???
>
> Or is this perhaps an extended case of "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say
> no more?".

Nice diatribe, but I believe you've misread what Jonathan subsequently posted regarding another thread possibly related to this. I would follow the link Jonathan provided and discover where you may have gone awry, as Don Burleson's post has nothing to do with Donald Rumsfeld.

David Fitzjarrell Received on Fri Mar 25 2005 - 13:48:33 CST