Discussion:
Freedom not to shun the French
(too old to reply)
Antoine J. Mechelynck
2003-03-15 22:02:29 UTC
Permalink
The "French Onion Soup" served in the neo-orleanese restaurant "La Maison de Napoléon" is not going
to change name. The restaurant's director, Mr. Salvatore Impastato, announced it to (IIUC) the
journalists of AFP and the photographer of AP.

(Anything to get one's name in the news.)

Tony.
Frog Prince
2003-03-15 22:42:27 UTC
Permalink
| The "French Onion Soup" served in the neo-orleanese restaurant "La Maison
de Napoléon" is not going
| to change name. The restaurant's director, Mr. Salvatore Impastato,
announced it to (IIUC) the
| journalists of AFP and the photographer of AP.
|
| (Anything to get one's name in the news.)
|
| Tony.

Restaurant is not even on my 'd' list (along with McDonalds) of places to
dine.

Can anyone spell 'micro-give-a-sh*t'?
Antoine J. Mechelynck
2003-03-15 23:15:50 UTC
Permalink
"Frog Prince" <***@privacy.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
b50bmj$f2f$***@news.spamcop.net
[...]
Post by Frog Prince
Can anyone spell 'micro-give-a-sh*t'?
micros... er; Eureka: *Bill Gates*

Tony.
Antoine J. Mechelynck
2003-03-15 23:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frog Prince
Post by Antoine J. Mechelynck
The "French Onion Soup" served in the neo-orleanese restaurant "La
Maison de Napoléon" is not going to change name. The restaurant's
director, Mr. Salvatore Impastato, announced it to (IIUC) the
journalists of AFP and the photographer of AP.
(Anything to get one's name in the news.)
Tony.
Restaurant is not even on my 'd' list (along with McDonalds) of
places to dine.
Can anyone spell 'micro-give-a-sh*t'?
You mean you know all restaurants at or above McDonalds' level of quality in New Orleans, and
Napoleon's House isn't among them? You should write a Michelin Red Guide for Louisiana. I wonder
what would be in it.

Tony.
Frog Prince
2003-03-16 02:54:08 UTC
Permalink
| > > The "French Onion Soup" served in the neo-orleanese restaurant "La
| > > Maison de Napoléon" is not going to change name. The restaurant's
| > > director, Mr. Salvatore Impastato, announced it to (IIUC) the
| > > journalists of AFP and the photographer of AP.
| > >
| > Restaurant is not even on my 'd' list (along with McDonalds) of
| > places to dine.
| >
| > Can anyone spell 'micro-give-a-sh*t'?
|
| You mean you know all restaurants at or above McDonalds' level of quality
in New Orleans, and
| Napoleon's House isn't among them? You should write a Michelin Red Guide
for Louisiana. I wonder
| what would be in it.

I grew up in New Orleans - my family goes back generations in that town and
up to a point I do know all the really good restaurants including the ones
that are not in the phone book and where you can;t get in without an
introduction and a back ground check.

Did you know that there are two 'Two Jacks' (not the correct spelling)
restaurants. One in the quarter the other up town? the same goes for
Martin's

And that Ralph & Kachoo's original restaurant is located in False River LA
and the first Laundry's was built over a marsh in the Atchaflia (spl?) basin
near Lafayette?

Or that one of the more famous restaurants in the French Quarter has an
underground wine cellar. This in an area where they pump water up hill (the
town is 3 feet below sea level on average)

Might interest you that Louis Armstrong often signed his letters as Red
Beans and Ricely Yours.

FWIW my wife did much of the menu graphics for many restaurants when she was
in school.

Also the original Maison de Napoléon was a whore house in Storyville
(18-1900 Red Light district closed by the US Army during the first world
war.)
Trent Creekmore
2003-03-17 21:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antoine J. Mechelynck
The "French Onion Soup" served in the neo-orleanese restaurant "La Maison
de Napoléon" is not going
Post by Antoine J. Mechelynck
to change name. The restaurant's director, Mr. Salvatore Impastato,
announced it to (IIUC) the
Post by Antoine J. Mechelynck
journalists of AFP and the photographer of AP.
(Anything to get one's name in the news.)
Let's Change it to Surrender Soup
Sylvesterthekat
2003-03-17 21:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trent Creekmore
Let's Change it to Surrender Soup
Ya know, I've seen tons of 'jokes' about the French lately which i mostly
don't find funny at all. I'm sick and tired of seeing the same old crap
about how France owes America yadda yadda... what some people seem to be
forgetting is that without the French, America today might very well still
be a British colony! So consider WW2 a payback for France helping the US
take the colony away from Britain and stop whining about how France owes
America.
Trent Creekmore
2003-03-17 22:05:17 UTC
Permalink
"> > Let's Change it to Surrender Soup
Ya know, I've seen tons of 'jokes' about the French lately which i mostly
don't find funny at all. I'm sick and tired of seeing the same old crap
about how France owes America yadda yadda... what some people seem to be
forgetting is that without the French, America today might very well still
be a British colony!
So consider WW2 a payback for France helping the US

Don't forget WW1 and Vietnam
take the colony away from Britain and stop whining about how France owes
America.
Actually people are saying it is the French who are whining because they are
not a powerful nation anymore. I was watching Fox news last night and some
"analysts" predicts at the current rate, a lot of African nations will be on
par with France in 10-20 years
Sylvesterthekat
2003-03-17 22:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trent Creekmore
Actually people are saying it is the French who are whining because they are
not a powerful nation anymore. I was watching Fox news last night and some
"analysts" predicts at the current rate, a lot of African nations will be on
par with France in 10-20 years
On a par in what way? GDP? Armies? Nuclear capability? Fox news is not a
balanced source of any information on its own. You have to watch/read news
from other sources or you're just being bombarded by right wing politics the
whole time.
Trent Creekmore
2003-03-17 22:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvesterthekat
Post by Trent Creekmore
are
not a powerful nation anymore. I was watching Fox news last night and some
"analysts" predicts at the current rate, a lot of African nations will
be
Post by Sylvesterthekat
on
Post by Trent Creekmore
par with France in 10-20 years
On a par in what way? GDP? Armies? Nuclear capability? Fox news is not a
balanced source of any information on its own. You have to watch/read news
from other sources or you're just being bombarded by right wing politics the
whole time.
I believe they meant on devlopment level. So I guess GDP would be imcluded
Charles
2003-03-17 22:17:03 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Sylvesterthekat!
Post by Sylvesterthekat
Post by Trent Creekmore
Let's Change it to Surrender Soup
Ya know, I've seen tons of 'jokes' about the French lately which i
mostly don't find funny at all. I'm sick and tired of seeing the
same old crap about how France owes America yadda yadda... what
some people seem to be forgetting is that without the French,
America today might very well still be a British colony! So
consider WW2 a payback for France helping the US take the colony
away from Britain and stop whining about how France owes America.
The us entered into ww2 in europe when the war was already over -
there's nothing at all to pay back, there. Sure, they'd have been
ruskies without us, but so? Anyway... Hey! SDK! Obviously it's not
really -my- place to say, since I fed that particular troll (ok, fine,
and many others) more than once, but how long are -you- gonna feed it?
What I find amazing in this particular case is that he just doesn't
stop... He's got a stupid comeback for every intelligent comment
anyone make...
--
A five percenter, of course...
Trent Creekmore
2003-03-17 22:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Post by Sylvesterthekat
Post by Trent Creekmore
Let's Change it to Surrender Soup
Ya know, I've seen tons of 'jokes' about the French lately which i
mostly don't find funny at all. I'm sick and tired of seeing the
same old crap about how France owes America yadda yadda... what
some people seem to be forgetting is that without the French,
America today might very well still be a British colony! So
consider WW2 a payback for France helping the US take the colony
away from Britain and stop whining about how France owes America.
The us entered into ww2 in europe when the war was already over -
there's nothing at all to pay back, there.
Where did the heck you get the information???
Comic books? It was the US that lead the beach heads onto France and Africa.
I guess you could say the war was over by the time the US entered the war.
As soon as the US landed on Normandy/North Africa all of Europe was taken
back in short time. Before that time Germany had almost all of Europe
occuipied.
England was barley hanging on to its own and would have fallen soon and so
was Russia. So in that sense you could say the war was almost over because
if the US had not inertveined as soon as it did, all of Euorpe would be
speaking German now.

Sure, they'd have been
Post by Charles
ruskies without us, but so? Anyway... Hey! SDK! Obviously it's not
really -my- place to say, since I fed that particular troll (ok, fine,
and many others) more than once, but how long are -you- gonna feed it?
What I find amazing in this particular case is that he just doesn't
stop... He's got a stupid comeback for every intelligent comment
anyone make...
--
A five percenter, of course...
indigo
2003-03-17 22:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
The us entered into ww2 in europe when the war was already over -
there's nothing at all to pay back, there.
Charles, I'm truly shocked! Surely you uttered this statement in jest?
Charles
2003-03-17 22:32:11 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
Post by Charles
The us entered into ww2 in europe when the war was already over -
there's nothing at all to pay back, there.
Charles, I'm truly shocked! Surely you uttered this statement in jest?
Me? Jest? Ever? But, hey, in this particular case, not really.
Frankly, I believe that the war was already lost (if not over) at that
point. The germans were way too extended... But, hey, it's one of
those things that is pretty hard to prove one way or another. Yes, you
can come up with a bazillion sites that say that us saved the day.
Those aren't facts. And since the us went in, you can't really know
how it would have turned out without the invasion. I can speculate. I
say that the invasion only hastened the inevitable.

But, I am glad to see that you're paying attention :) Hmm. And other
than the fact that I have thus far offered no proof whatsoever of my
assertion, I feel very strongly that I'm doing a better job of
defending it that some recent poster is of defending his preposterous
ideas. We are still being quite civil and, hey, the spelling and
grammar are pretty good, too... Let's see... I'm saying that it is
entirely my opinion, but, for you, I'll do at least some summary
research one of these days. Good enough?

cheers!
c
--
A five percenter, of course...
indigo
2003-03-17 22:43:13 UTC
Permalink
"Charles" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:***@216.154.195.60...
We are still being quite civil and, hey, the spelling and
Post by Charles
grammar are pretty good, too... Let's see... I'm saying that it is
entirely my opinion, but, for you, I'll do at least some summary
research one of these days. Good enough?
Why of course, Charles. Take your time ;-)
Charles
2003-03-17 23:21:44 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by Charles
We are still being quite civil and, hey, the spelling and
Post by Charles
grammar are pretty good, too... Let's see... I'm saying that it is
entirely my opinion, but, for you, I'll do at least some summary
research one of these days. Good enough?
Why of course, Charles. Take your time
You'll find many sites (sorry, I've only started looking) that say
things like, "Perhaps more importantly, if the British and Americans
were delayed in liberating western Europe, the Soviets would have
marched into Germany and maybe France, claiming it as theirs and all of
history would be re-written."

That says what I said, to start with. And, I'll just bet that you
can't find anything different... But, that doesn't mean that I'm not
still looking! But, it is still all just theory and it won't really
matter because neither of us can prove anything. Oh, but FP's quote
that the Nazi's were in the process of winning is easier to prove
wrong...

Some random WWII history site:
<http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/1944.html>

Yes, yes, it's random. Sheesh. I'm still looking! I'll find
something reputable! Honest!
--
A five percenter, of course...
indigo
2003-03-17 23:46:51 UTC
Permalink
"Charles" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:***@216.154.195.60...
But, it is still all just theory and it won't really
Post by Charles
matter because neither of us can prove anything. Oh, but FP's quote
that the Nazi's were in the process of winning is easier to prove
wrong...
<http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/1944.html>
Well, fer starters, we declared war on Germany on Dec 8, 1941.... and that
page is talking about stuff that happened after the German defeats at
Stalingrad and Kursk in 1944! (and on Anglefire of all places, tsk-tsk ;-)
They were already preparing for the D-day invasion (a 2 front war). If they
wouldn't have had to defend France against invasion they would have had a
lot more manpower to throw at Russia (don't know if that would have made a
difference since that was a botched invasion by that time). Do I even need
to mention the daylight air bombings and attrition of the Luftwaffe from our
fighters?

Your turn ;-)
Charles
2003-03-18 03:00:21 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
Post by Charles
<http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/1944.html>
Well, fer starters, we declared war on Germany on Dec 8, 1941....
and that page is talking about stuff that happened after the
German defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1944!
Well, silly, go back up one level and you can have the other years, eh?
Post by indigo
They were already preparing for the D-day invasion (a 2 front war).
If they wouldn't have had to defend France against invasion they
would have had a lot more manpower to throw at Russia (don't know if
that would have made a difference since that was a botched invasion
by that time). Do I even need to mention the daylight air bombings
and attrition of the Luftwaffe from our fighters?
Your turn
You're kidding, right? Too easy :)
The daylight bombing issue is irrelevant to the question (necessity of
dday).
And then, you wrote that russia was already botched... Well, you mean
botched for the germans, as in they were losing on that front. They
had already lost africa and they were in trouble on other fronts like
italy.

Your turn? No, no, I still need to find more good info...
--
A five percenter, of course...
indigo
2003-03-18 12:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
You're kidding, right? Too easy :)
The daylight bombing issue is irrelevant to the question (necessity of
dday).
Not irrelevant to your argument the "the war was already over when the US
joined"!! Who do you think was *doing* the daylight bombing?!
Post by Charles
And then, you wrote that russia was already botched... Well, you mean
botched for the germans, as in they were losing on that front. They
had already lost africa and they were in trouble on other fronts like
italy.
And who was doing the fighting in Italy? Africa was us and *spit* Monty....
Charles
2003-03-18 13:13:44 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
Post by Charles
You're kidding, right? Too easy :)
The daylight bombing issue is irrelevant to the question
(necessity of dday).
Not irrelevant to your argument the "the war was already over when
the US joined"!! Who do you think was *doing* the daylight
bombing?!
Er. I meant the war was over without dday - not without US
involvement.
Ah, but you're absolutely correct. I did write, "The us entered into
ww2 in europe when the war was already over - there's nothing at all to
pay back, there." Well, can we recenter that on just dday?
Post by indigo
Post by Charles
And then, you wrote that russia was already botched... Well, you
mean botched for the germans, as in they were losing on that
front. They had already lost africa and they were in trouble on
other fronts like italy.
And who was doing the fighting in Italy? Africa was us and *spit* Monty....
Fine - but you're proving my point (the one you didn't know I had)!
The germans were already losing when dday happened.
--
A five percenter, of course...
indigo
2003-03-18 13:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Er. I meant the war was over without dday - not without US
involvement.
Ah, but you're absolutely correct. I did write, "The us entered into
ww2 in europe when the war was already over - there's nothing at all to
pay back, there." Well, can we recenter that on just dday?
Fine - but you're proving my point (the one you didn't know I had)!
The germans were already losing when dday happened.
Hey hey hey! Stop the presses! You can't change your argument in the middle
of the debate!;-)
Charles
2003-03-18 13:27:41 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
Hey hey hey! Stop the presses! You can't change your argument in
the middle of the debate!
Dang! Oops! Sorry! Don't mind me! Move along! Sigh. And, there
you thought you'd have something interesting to do today and, poof!,
all you've got now is waiting for your manic boss to nail your pelt to
the wall...
--
A five percenter, of course...
indigo
2003-03-18 13:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
Hey hey hey! Stop the presses! You can't change your argument in
the middle of the debate!
Dang! Oops! Sorry! Don't mind me! Move along! Sigh. And, there
you thought you'd have something interesting to do today and, poof!,
all you've got now is waiting for your manic boss to nail your pelt to
the wall...
Actually, right now I wouldn't mind. My test is at a standstill (waiting for
a thermal balance, nothing really to do), the SC NG's are empty, our debate
is kaput, and my corporate email server is down......guess I'll just have to
read this People magazine sitting on the table......ick.
Charles
2003-03-18 14:12:21 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
Post by Charles
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
Hey hey hey! Stop the presses! You can't change your argument
in the middle of the debate!
Dang! Oops! Sorry! Don't mind me! Move along! Sigh. And,
there you thought you'd have something interesting to do today
and, poof!, all you've got now is waiting for your manic boss to
nail your pelt to the wall...
Actually, right now I wouldn't mind. My test is at a standstill
(waiting for a thermal balance, nothing really to do), the SC NG's
are empty, our debate is kaput, and my corporate email server is
down......guess I'll just have to read this People magazine
sitting on the table......ick.
Debate? Kaput? You mean, you agree or you mean that it wouldn't be as
interesting as the one we were having?

Anyway, people, huh. Well, uh, I found The Princess Bride in the
library 3 towns over... I could type it in here for you to read! Oh,
wait, I wanted to get stuff done... Nix that! Well... Happy wait!
--
A five percenter, of course...
indigo
2003-03-18 15:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Anyway, people, huh. Well, uh, I found The Princess Bride in the
library 3 towns over... I could type it in here for you to read! Oh,
wait, I wanted to get stuff done... Nix that! Well... Happy wait!
Never mind. Things are going to hellinahandbasket as I type.....dammit....
indigo
2003-03-18 15:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
Never mind. Things are going to hellinahandbasket as I
type.....dammit....
Yeah, well, People is that way, sometimes...
Never even opened it....darn, I was really looking forward to seeing what
the Olsen twins were up to these days....
Charles
2003-03-18 15:31:03 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
Post by Charles
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
Never mind. Things are going to hellinahandbasket as I
type.....dammit....
Yeah, well, People is that way, sometimes...
Never even opened it....darn, I was really looking forward to
seeing what the Olsen twins were up to these days....
Sorry, I don't get out much - I don't even know who they are...
--
A five percenter, of course...
indigo
2003-03-18 16:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Post by indigo
Never even opened it....darn, I was really looking forward to
seeing what the Olsen twins were up to these days....
Sorry, I don't get out much - I don't even know who they are...
The cover says "The Worlds's Richest Kids", they're two hot 16 yr old
blonds.....not my type.
Charles
2003-03-18 16:19:54 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
Post by Charles
Post by indigo
Never even opened it....darn, I was really looking forward to
seeing what the Olsen twins were up to these days....
Sorry, I don't get out much - I don't even know who they are...
The cover says "The Worlds's Richest Kids", they're two hot 16 yr old
blonds.....not my type.
sigh. I had to search for it... Yeah, er, no. Not my type either...
--
A five percenter, of course...
indigo
2003-03-19 13:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Ten years on (I'm guessing) from their big deal on Full House and they
still can't act. How in the world did they make such a huge empire.
Inherited money.
Heidi
2003-03-19 13:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by indigo
Ten years on (I'm guessing) from their big deal on Full House and they
still can't act. How in the world did they make such a huge empire.
Inherited money.
**I don't think so, their "empire" comes from self promotion, their own
movies, dolls, their own cosmetic line, clothes too, I think. You wouldn't
believe the market for this crap with young girls.....they are HUGE....
Charles
2003-03-20 01:22:43 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Heidi!
Post by Heidi
Post by indigo
Inherited money.
**I don't think so, their "empire" comes from self promotion,
their own movies, dolls, their own cosmetic line, clothes too, I
think. You wouldn't believe the market for this crap with young
girls.....they are HUGE....
Maybe. But they're trust-fund kids, I tell you... Only now I've lost
their names and don't feel like backing up the thread to find them so
that I can gargle it properly... It's just not worth the effort :)
Anyway, go to people magazine .com (whatever the site is) and search
for them. There aren't -that- many articles!
--
A five percenter, of course...
Charles
2003-03-20 01:14:08 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Mr K. Mean!
Ten years on (I'm guessing) from their big deal on Full House and
they still can't act. How in the world did they make such a huge
empire. It is stunning and just further proof that the
anti-christ is alive and well in the world.
They're trust-fund babies (it said so on the link I had to go to in
order to find pix, eh?). And then they're driven. $1b in sales (in
malwart) last year (and they're only worth $67m - or maybe that was a
few years ago)...

Anyway, how does their bad acting prove that asscraft is still around?
i don't get it...
--
A five percenter, of course...
Mr K. Mean
2003-03-20 01:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
It wasn't me! It was Mr K. Mean!
Ten years on (I'm guessing) from their big deal on Full House and
they still can't act. How in the world did they make such a huge
empire. It is stunning and just further proof that the
anti-christ is alive and well in the world.
They're trust-fund babies (it said so on the link I had to go to in
order to find pix, eh?). And then they're driven. $1b in sales (in
malwart) last year (and they're only worth $67m - or maybe that was a
few years ago)...
Anyway, how does their bad acting prove that asscraft is still around?
i don't get it...
The trust fund is because they were on Full House from 1987-1995, I
looked it up, http://us.imdb.com/Title?0092359. If they are 16 now,
they started on the show when they were like six months old. Then it
looks like they made a bazillion movies after that:
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Olsen,+Mary-Kate

So, it is all money that they earned, although I use the word earned
loosely and in the sense that somebody gave it to them rather than that
they really deserved it.
Charles
2003-03-20 01:42:09 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Mr K. Mean!
Post by Mr K. Mean
The trust fund is because they were on Full House from 1987-1995,
I looked it up, http://us.imdb.com/Title?0092359. If they are 16
now, they started on the show when they were like six months old.
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Olsen,+Mary-Kate
So, it is all money that they earned, although I use the word
earned loosely and in the sense that somebody gave it to them
rather than that they really deserved it.
Hey man! Don't bring me down! That makes them 'trust fund babies'!

Besides, you don't even think I'm remotely funny. Sigh. What about
asscraft? Inquiring minds want to know!
--
A five percenter, of course...
Charles
2003-03-20 01:49:02 UTC
Permalink
It was me! It was Charles!
Post by Charles
Besides, you don't even think I'm remotely funny.
Oops! I forgot the <pout> tags for that line...
--
A five percenter, of course...
Mr K. Mean
2003-03-20 01:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
It wasn't me! It was Mr K. Mean!
Post by Mr K. Mean
The trust fund is because they were on Full House from 1987-1995,
I looked it up, http://us.imdb.com/Title?0092359. If they are 16
now, they started on the show when they were like six months old.
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Olsen,+Mary-Kate
So, it is all money that they earned, although I use the word
earned loosely and in the sense that somebody gave it to them
rather than that they really deserved it.
Hey man! Don't bring me down! That makes them 'trust fund babies'!
Besides, you don't even think I'm remotely funny. Sigh. What about
asscraft? Inquiring minds want to know!
Ok, in a very literal sense then. I think I have been around too many
real trust fund babies who were really annoying to be around to have
much of a sense of humor about it. But ok, it was funny. Does that
make you feel better then? Sorry, I'm a bit slow today.

You know what else is sad, I can't even think of anything funny to say
about Ashcroft, the Olsen Twins, and the anti-christ. It has been that
sort of day. Maybe a joke can be inserted in here later on. So,
Winston Smith, if you are on the rewrite of this one, I want to have
said something really great and sidesplitting here. Because Pakistan
has always been our good buddy and ally. Or was it Syria, I've lost
track. I guess you guys can fix it in post.
Charles
2003-03-20 02:39:35 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Mr K. Mean!
Post by Mr K. Mean
Ok, in a very literal sense then.
Yes!
Post by Mr K. Mean
I think I have been around too many real trust fund babies who were
really annoying to be around to have much of a sense of humor about
it.
But ok, it was funny.
No! Wait! That wasn't the funny part!
Post by Mr K. Mean
Does that make you feel better then? Sorry, I'm a bit slow today.
Sigh. I'll get over it, I guess. Except that this stupid was probably
started 35 minutes ago... Man, this is dumb...
Post by Mr K. Mean
You know what else is sad, I can't even think of anything funny to
say about Ashcroft, the Olsen Twins, and the anti-christ.
That's where I came in! Only, if it wasn't funny... Oh, wait, I was
asking for you to say something funny about the whole thing. Right.
Not much seems funny right this second. Sigh. Sigh. What to do?
What to do?
--
A five percenter, of course...
Sylvesterthekat
2003-03-19 21:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by indigo
Post by Charles
Post by indigo
Never even opened it....darn, I was really looking forward to
seeing what the Olsen twins were up to these days....
Sorry, I don't get out much - I don't even know who they are...
The cover says "The Worlds's Richest Kids", they're two hot 16 yr old
blonds.....not my type.
because they're blond or because they're 16?
indigo
2003-03-19 23:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvesterthekat
Post by indigo
The cover says "The Worlds's Richest Kids", they're two hot 16 yr old
blonds.....not my type.
because they're blond or because they're 16?
Ah, I just don't think they're all that good-looking. Too old, to....(jk)
Sylvesterthekat
2003-03-20 00:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by indigo
Post by Sylvesterthekat
because they're blond or because they're 16?
Ah, I just don't think they're all that good-looking. Too old,
to....(jk)

Well if they're only 16 anyway, they'll likely change quite a bit in
appearance in the next 5 years or so. ***@too old.. you perv.
Heidi
2003-03-20 00:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvesterthekat
Well if they're only 16 anyway, they'll likely change quite a bit in
***PSST.... humor him, he's a little bit in denial.....the old birthday, you
know...
Sylvesterthekat
2003-03-20 00:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heidi
Post by Sylvesterthekat
Well if they're only 16 anyway, they'll likely change quite a bit in
***PSST.... humor him, he's a little bit in denial.....the old
birthday, you
Post by Heidi
know...
emphasis on 'old' LOL
Frog Prince
2003-03-20 01:54:18 UTC
Permalink
| > because they're blond or because they're 16?
| >
| Ah, I just don't think they're all that good-looking. Too old, to....(jk)

Yea a while back he was trolling for 3 year olds....
Charles
2003-03-18 15:26:31 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
Never mind. Things are going to hellinahandbasket as I
type.....dammit....
Yeah, well, People is that way, sometimes...
--
Ici le soleil brille pour tous, et on y crois.
Sylvesterthekat
2003-03-19 21:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Anyway, people, huh. Well, uh, I found The Princess Bride in the
library 3 towns over... I could type it in here for you to read! Oh,
wait, I wanted to get stuff done... Nix that! Well... Happy wait!
No luck renting it on DVD?
Charles
2003-03-20 01:35:27 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Sylvesterthekat!
Post by Sylvesterthekat
Post by Charles
Anyway, people, huh. Well, uh, I found The Princess Bride in the
library 3 towns over... I could type it in here for you to read!
Oh, wait, I wanted to get stuff done... Nix that! Well...
Happy wait!
No luck renting it on DVD?
Why? I might as well finish reading it first...
--
A five percenter, of course...
Sylvesterthekat
2003-03-20 23:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Post by Sylvesterthekat
No luck renting it on DVD?
Why? I might as well finish reading it first...
True. I forgot to get it out today when I went to the library. I've
probably missed my chance for a while as our main library is closing for
2 years to be rebuilt and the temporary location won't have all the
books. I could try to go there again before it closes on Monday.
Charles
2003-03-21 13:26:49 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Sylvesterthekat!
Post by Sylvesterthekat
Post by Charles
I might as well finish reading it first...
True. I forgot to get it out today when I went to the library.
I've probably missed my chance for a while as our main library is
closing for 2 years to be rebuilt and the temporary location won't
have all the books. I could try to go there again before it closes
on Monday.
Ok, maybe it's a frame-of-mind kind of thing, but I didn't really enjoy
it that much... At any rate, -for-me- it's not much of a memorable
read...
I -am- glad that I read it, it just isn't really for me...
--
A five percenter, of course...
Sylvesterthekat
2003-03-21 19:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Ok, maybe it's a frame-of-mind kind of thing, but I didn't really enjoy
it that much... At any rate, -for-me- it's not much of a memorable
read...
I -am- glad that I read it, it just isn't really for me...
In that case, definitely get the movie out, you'll laugh out loud. I'll
get it out of the library (hopefully) and tell you which is funnier.
Frog Prince
2003-03-18 13:59:52 UTC
Permalink
| Fine - but you're proving my point (the one you didn't know I had)!
| The Germans were already losing when dday happened.

If you move the time line forward enough Hitler is dead. Your review fails
to take into consideration what transpired between a declaration of war with
Germany (BTW Germany declared war on the US not the other way round) and
D-Day.

For one the decimation of the U-Boats. By D-Day US designed and manufacture
sub hunter aircraft had virtually eliminated the zone where U-boats could
operate effectively. Roughly half of these flights originated in the US.
With the result that Liberty Ships were being build (and loaded) faster than
the Germans could sink them.

Even Eisenhower conceded that had D-Day failed Germany might have won the
war. Even if they could not the war would have gone on much longer.

FWIW German was not that far behind on the atom bomb although the
destruction of the heavy water plant by allied bombers did put a signifiant
dent in their plans.
Charles
2003-03-18 14:23:38 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Frog Prince!
Post by Frog Prince
| Fine - but you're proving my point (the one you didn't know I
| had)! The Germans were already losing when dday happened.
If you move the time line forward enough Hitler is dead. Your
review fails to take into consideration what transpired between a
declaration of war with Germany (BTW Germany declared war on the
US not the other way round) and D-Day.
Declarations of war are two-way streets.
"The War Resolution
Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of
Germany and the government and the people of the United States and
making provision to prosecute the same. Whereas the Government of
Germany has formally declared war against the government and the
people of the United States of America:
Therefore, be it RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state
of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which
has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally
declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to
employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to
carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the
conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the
country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
December 11, 1941"

(fwiw)

But, the germans had already lost africa and were losing italy and
were well on their way to losing russia... Which other events do I
need to take into consideration? (Maybe your a-bomb comment, below,
but what else?)
Post by Frog Prince
For one the decimation of the U-Boats. By D-Day US designed and
manufacture sub hunter aircraft had virtually eliminated the zone
where U-boats could operate effectively. Roughly half of these
flights originated in the US. With the result that Liberty Ships
were being build (and loaded) faster than the Germans could sink
them.
Even Eisenhower conceded that had D-Day failed Germany might have
won the war. Even if they could not the war would have gone on
much longer.
LOL! I'm no Eisenhower... But, you wrote 'might'. And in that
'might' there's a lot of leeway... Things weren't looking so hot for
the germans at that point. I readily concede that the war could have
lasted longer, but I still think that the germans would have been
defeated.
Post by Frog Prince
FWIW German was not that far behind on the atom bomb although the
destruction of the heavy water plant by allied bombers did put a
signifiant dent in their plans.
In another of those 'daring daylight raids'? The ones that cost the
us 80% of our heavy bombers? I'm sure that some strategist,
somewhere found 80% to be an acceptable loss (considering the damage
that they did), but, boy, sucks to be on a bomber crew, huh?

c
--
A five percenter, of course...
indigo
2003-03-18 15:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Post by Charles
But, the germans had already lost africa and were losing italy and
were well on their way to losing russia...
Dude, what did they teach you in history class?! The US retook Italy! How
could it already be lost the day we declared war? Ever hear the the Battle
for Casserine (sp?) Pass (Africa)? (not a US victory, but still.....)
Post by Charles
In another of those 'daring daylight raids'? The ones that cost the
us 80% of our heavy bombers? I'm sure that some strategist,
somewhere found 80% to be an acceptable loss (considering the damage
that they did), but, boy, sucks to be on a bomber crew, huh?
the loss rates were high, but nowhere near 80%, and they dropped to nearly
zilch after the Mustang went into service.
Charles
2003-03-18 15:30:18 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
Post by Charles
In another of those 'daring daylight raids'? The ones that cost
the us 80% of our heavy bombers? I'm sure that some strategist,
somewhere found 80% to be an acceptable loss (considering the
damage that they did), but, boy, sucks to be on a bomber crew,
huh?
the loss rates were high, but nowhere near 80%, and they dropped
to nearly zilch after the Mustang went into service.
Haha! Got you this time! I did my research -before- posting! I'm
really sorry, I mean 71%, but that is pretty near 80%...

<http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html>

"12,000 heavy bombers were shot down in WWII
Between 1939 and 1945 the Allies dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs
That averages out to be 27,700 tons of bombs a month


2/3 of Allied bomber crews were lost for each plane destroyed
3 or 4 ground men were wounded for each killed
6 bomber crewmen were killed for each one wounded
Over 100,000 Allied bomber crewmen were killed over Europe"

If I interpret this correctly, more than 80% of heavy bombers got shot
down since the 71% stat is on KIA's (just below the cited stats, on
that page).

c
--
A five percenter, of course...
indigo
2003-03-18 15:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Haha! Got you this time! I did my research -before- posting! I'm
really sorry, I mean 71%, but that is pretty near 80%...
Nah, your statistical analysis is flawed. For one thing, the total loss rate
of aircraft was 33%, of men 10%.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~pendino/B17.htm
They carried the war to the heart of Germany and were loved by their crews
for bringing them home despite extensive battle damage. A bomber crews tour
was 25 missions, one out of ten went down on every mission. One third of the
total B-17 production of 12,731 went down during the war, and the Eigth and
Fifteenth Air Forces' personnel losses totaled almost one hundred thousand
men.

http://www.merkki.com/hyerdalldon.htm
Snetterton's first B-17s arrived on 11 JUNE 1943 - two days after the
Memphis Belle returned to the States as the first plane to achieve 25
missions. In the first four months of 1944, the 96th had the highest loss
rate of any Group in the 8th Air Force. From April 1944 to D Day, the Group
lost 100 aircraft and almost 1,000 crew members. Some Groups did not lose
this number of aircraft and crews throughout the whole of their service in
Europe. 96th BG total lost aircraft: 187 The 96th Bomb Group at Snetterton
had the second highest total of casualties in the whole of the 8th Air
Force. B-17 airmen suffered more casualties than all of the Marines. Of
210,000 airmen, 26,000 never returned. Almost one-third of all the B-17s
built were lost. Half of all Medals of Honor in WW II were awarded to B-17
airmen.

I'm too busy to do a detailed Google search, but I know for a fact that the
loss rate signicantly decreased after the introduction of the Mustang. Some
early, unescorted bombing raids did suffer losses approaching 30-40% I
believe, but later in the war the rates dropped significantly.
Charles
2003-03-18 16:14:24 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
Post by Charles
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Haha! Got you this time! I did my research -before- posting!
I'm really sorry, I mean 71%, but that is pretty near 80%...
Nah, your statistical analysis is flawed.
Oh, harsh! But then, so is yours :)
Post by indigo
For one thing, the total loss rate of aircraft was 33%, of men 10%.
??? You're trying to say that 1m men flew bombing missions? That
seems pretty darned high, if you asked me. Moment! Shite. Google
is for crap for some searches... Anyway, you only write of the b-
17... There were plenty of other bombers... Anyway, how about this,
I'll concede the point and shut my fsckin' trap about the whole
thing?
Post by indigo
Of 210,000 airmen, 26,000 never returned. Almost
one-third of all the B-17s built were lost. Half of all Medals
of Honor in WW II were awarded to B-17 airmen.
That's more than 10%, in case you were wondering... That's also
lower than the 100k lost figure. So, yeah, we're not comparing the
same things, I guess...
Post by indigo
I'm too busy to do a detailed Google search
And I'm only continuing 'cause I don't like -your- figures. Er, I'm
not continuing right now. Sheesh. Where is the line (you can just
answer this part and ignore the argument - I lost again, 'kay?)
between trolling and having a debate? For every stat/argument you
have, I can find an opposing one. Does this remain something of a
debate because we're still being civil, or because we're citing
actual sources, or what?

la la la
c
--
A five percenter, of course...
indigo
2003-03-18 17:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
And I'm only continuing 'cause I don't like -your- figures. Er, I'm
not continuing right now. Sheesh. Where is the line (you can just
answer this part and ignore the argument - I lost again, 'kay?)
between trolling and having a debate? For every stat/argument you
have, I can find an opposing one. Does this remain something of a
debate because we're still being civil, or because we're citing
actual sources, or what?
Well, IMO a "trolling" debate is one in which no facts are given to back up
statements, and no rebuttals are given when facts are presented (they just
get ignored). As long as the fact/rebuttal exchange continues civilly, it's
a debate, right?

As far as what we've been doing (wobbling all over different aspects of
WWII), at this point I don't think we _were_ both arguing the same point ;-)
In *my* mind, when I said "daytime bombing raids" I meant "mass daytime
carpet bombing by American flown B-17's and B-24's" although I never
actually spelled that out. Of course there were many, many other daylight
bombing missions carried out B-25's, B-26's and various ground attack
fighters like the P-47. I'm reasonably sure that the Brits stuck to night
time bombing pretty much throughout the war except in a few specific cases
using Mosquitoes, i.e. bombing the Tirpitz for one.

I watch the history channel way, way too much....;-)
Charles
2003-03-18 17:54:12 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by indigo
As far as what we've been doing (wobbling all over different
aspects of WWII), at this point I don't think we _were_ both
arguing the same point ;-)
Maybe that's a lot of the problem with debates, in general?
Post by indigo
In *my* mind, when I said "daytime bombing raids" I meant "mass
daytime carpet bombing by American flown B-17's and B-24's" although
I never actually spelled that out.
And then your links only went to b-17 sites. I mean, I like nice
synthetic views that show the whole picture... Of course, synthetic
views contain inaccuracies by their very nature... But, la la la! I'm
not going say anything... La la la! Oops! I've got to get back to
work on my boat! Oh! Look at the time! Goodness!
Post by indigo
I watch the history channel way, way too much....
LOL
--
A five percenter, of course...
Frog Prince
2003-03-18 16:35:37 UTC
Permalink
| > Haha! Got you this time! I did my research -before- posting! I'm
| > really sorry, I mean 71%, but that is pretty near 80%...
| >
| Nah, your statistical analysis is flawed. For one thing, the total loss
rate
| of aircraft was 33%, of men 10%.
|
| http://www.frontiernet.net/~pendino/B17.htm
| They carried the war to the heart of Germany and were loved by their crews
| for bringing them home despite extensive battle damage. A bomber crews
tour
| was 25 missions, one out of ten went down on every mission. One third of
the
| total B-17 production of 12,731 went down during the war, and the Eigth
and
| Fifteenth Air Forces' personnel losses totaled almost one hundred thousand
| men.
|
| http://www.merkki.com/hyerdalldon.htm
| Snetterton's first B-17s arrived on 11 JUNE 1943 - two days after the
| Memphis Belle returned to the States as the first plane to achieve 25
| missions. In the first four months of 1944, the 96th had the highest loss
| rate of any Group in the 8th Air Force. From April 1944 to D Day, the
Group
| lost 100 aircraft and almost 1,000 crew members. Some Groups did not lose
| this number of aircraft and crews throughout the whole of their service in
| Europe. 96th BG total lost aircraft: 187 The 96th Bomb Group at
Snetterton
| had the second highest total of casualties in the whole of the 8th Air
| Force. B-17 airmen suffered more casualties than all of the Marines. Of
| 210,000 airmen, 26,000 never returned. Almost one-third of all the B-17s
| built were lost. Half of all Medals of Honor in WW II were awarded to
B-17
| airmen.

Not all B-17s went to the European theater. The question should be how many
were lost in the respective outfits and not in total.
Charles
2003-03-18 17:33:06 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Frog Prince!
Post by Frog Prince
Not all B-17s went to the European theater. The question should be
how many were lost in the respective outfits and not in total.
Arr. But then things get really complicated... There are stat sites
for everything imaginable - but we're talking about a lot of research
to get anything meaningful from them... I guess that stats are just
like that!


'Course, it's all so much easier than before the web... Tee hee. I
remember being in the BS of CS program in the second year of
netscape... One of my projects got a really high grade and yet most of
the parts that the profs could see were done by commonly available
packages (xforms and sockets++)... (Sure, I worked my but off on the
design and whatever, but all of the visual was xforms and all of the
com was sockets++.)
--
A five percenter, of course...
indigo
2003-03-18 17:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frog Prince
Not all B-17s went to the European theater. The question should be how many
were lost in the respective outfits and not in total.
I agree, just didn't have the time to dig up the proper stats, but in
general the B-17 was primarily used in Europe, the B-24 was used in both
Europe and Africa, and the B-29 was only used in the Pacific theater.
Frog Prince
2003-03-18 16:32:45 UTC
Permalink
| 2/3 of Allied bomber crews were lost for each plane destroyed
| 3 or 4 ground men were wounded for each killed
| 6 bomber crewmen were killed for each one wounded
| Over 100,000 Allied bomber crewmen were killed over Europe"
|
| If I interpret this correctly, more than 80% of heavy bombers got shot
| down since the 71% stat is on KIA's (just below the cited stats, on
| that page).

No one said the losses were not high, then or now, but were considered
critical to the war effort. BTW the losses would have been even higher had
the Germans managed to get the jets working in any quantity. Likely would
have had Hitler not ordered the German air force to concentrate on other
less productive projects.
Charles
2003-03-18 17:41:38 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Frog Prince!
the losses would have been even higher had the Germans managed to get
the jets working in any quantity. Likely would have had Hitler not
ordered the German air force to concentrate on other less productive
projects.
Yeah, well... And the germans could have gotten further had they
adopted assembly-line production at the outset instead of much much
later (dixit that site again)... There are so many durned variables
and stuff...

But, you notice that his very shrubbiness is underpreparing for the
gulf war II? His father had 660k troops (including coalition forces)
and this time there are only 280k troops against around 350k iraqis.
Hmm. Can't seem to find the number of iraqis in the first one, but I
guess it's not really that important. Anyway, the US seems to be
relying on massive bombing raids to destroy the iraqis, as they did in
the first one... It just seems to me that if they get into any fire
fights then they're not in as good of a position as last time... If
the bombing doesn't have the desired effect, this one is going to be a
long term affair...
--
A five percenter, of course...
indigo
2003-03-18 17:48:46 UTC
Permalink
"Charles" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:***@216.154.195.60...
His father had 660k troops (including coalition forces)
Post by Charles
and this time there are only 280k troops against around 350k iraqis.
Hmm. Can't seem to find the number of iraqis in the first one,
Over 1 million supposedly, highly doubtful all of them were trained and/or
armed.

but I
Post by Charles
guess it's not really that important.
Not when half of them surrender or desert in the first couple days ;-)
indigo
2003-03-18 17:46:02 UTC
Permalink
"Frog Prince" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message news:b57idl$ft3$***@news.spamcop.net...
BTW the losses would have been even higher had
Post by Frog Prince
the Germans managed to get the jets working in any quantity. Likely would
have had Hitler not ordered the German air force to concentrate on other
less productive projects.
Like trying to turn the 262 into a bomber instead of a fighter.....
Frog Prince
2003-03-18 22:11:16 UTC
Permalink
| Likely would have had Hitler not ordered the German air force to
concentrate on other less productive projects.
| >
| Like trying to turn the 262 into a bomber instead of a fighter.....


BINGO!!
Frog Prince
2003-03-18 16:26:34 UTC
Permalink
| >| Fine - but you're proving my point (the one you didn't know I
| >| had)! The Germans were already losing when dday happened.
| >
| > If you move the time line forward enough Hitler is dead. Your
| > review fails to take into consideration what transpired between a
| > declaration of war with Germany (BTW Germany declared war on the
| > US not the other way round) and D-Day.
|
| Declarations of war are two-way streets

OK we declare war on Iraq and Sadam chooses not to .... what happens?
(Remember the movie 'The Mouse that Roared')

As to the W.W.II declaration the Germans declared war after the Japanese
attack on PH, then the US declare war on Germany as a formality. Strange
but I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) there was a formal declaration
of war by Japan on the US but the US was very quick to declare war on Japan.
Charles
2003-03-18 17:49:31 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Frog Prince!
Post by Frog Prince
| Declarations of war are two-way streets
OK we declare war on Iraq and Sadam chooses not to .... what
happens? (Remember the movie 'The Mouse that Roared')
Never saw the movie... But it iraq doesn't declare war, it doesn't
really matter to the us... That's not going to stop the attack!
Post by Frog Prince
As to the W.W.II declaration the Germans declared war after the
Japanese attack on PH, then the US declare war on Germany as a
formality. Strange but I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong)
there was a formal declaration of war by Japan on the US but the
US was very quick to declare war on Japan.
"Imperial Headquarters in Tokio later announced that Japan had entered
into a state of war with Britain and the United States in the Western
Pacific from 6 a.m. to-day."

Is this a formal declaration of war? I guess. Maybe. Hard to say.

Here are a bunch of declarations:
<http://navalhistory.flixco.info/H/135937/8330/a0.htm>
--
A five percenter, of course...
kram
2003-03-19 21:29:40 UTC
Permalink
In news:b57idl$ft3$***@news.spamcop.net,

Frog Prince said something that sounded like:

| OK we declare war on Iraq and Sadam chooses not to .... what happens?
| (Remember the movie 'The Mouse that Roared')

Or Melville's Bartleby?

--
KK
==
Enforcing solipsism is self contradictory.
Is there anyone to care?
Sylvesterthekat
2003-03-19 21:43:23 UTC
Permalink
"Frog Prince" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message news:b57idl$ft3$***@news.spamcop.net...
Strange
Post by Frog Prince
but I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) there was a formal
declaration
Post by Frog Prince
of war by Japan on the US but the US was very quick to declare war on Japan.
Gee I wonder why LOL
Trent Creekmore
2003-03-18 00:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
It wasn't me! It was indigo!
Post by Charles
We are still being quite civil and, hey, the spelling and
Post by Charles
grammar are pretty good, too... Let's see... I'm saying that it is
entirely my opinion, but, for you, I'll do at least some summary
research one of these days. Good enough?
Why of course, Charles. Take your time
You'll find many sites (sorry, I've only started looking) that say
things like, "Perhaps more importantly, if the British and Americans
were delayed in liberating western Europe, the Soviets would have
marched into Germany and maybe France, claiming it as theirs and all of
history would be re-written."
That says what I said, to start with. And, I'll just bet that you
can't find anything different... But, that doesn't mean that I'm not
still looking! But, it is still all just theory and it won't really
matter because neither of us can prove anything. Oh, but FP's quote
that the Nazi's were in the process of winning is easier to prove
wrong...
I guess we should first start using the term "Nazi" correctly.
It was only a polictal party (National Socialist)elected in Germany that
controlled the government. Just because one live in Germany or was in the
military at that time does not mean they were a Nazi.
That would be like calling the Iraqis "Ba'aths", (The controlling polictical
party there) "Oh, those Ba'aths are marching on Kuwait again!"
Or since the Republicans are the controlling majority, instead of
Amercians..."Oh, those Repulicans want to attack Iraq again!",
or "We hate those Republican's McDonalds and Pepsi!"
Post by Charles
<http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/1944.html>
Yes, yes, it's random. Sheesh. I'm still looking! I'll find
something reputable! Honest!
--
A five percenter, of course...
Frog Prince
2003-03-17 22:36:37 UTC
Permalink
| The us entered into ww2 in europe when the war was already over -
| there's nothing at all to pay back, there. Sure, they'd have been
| ruskies without us, but so?

You are ever so right about the war being over when the US entered the was
.... at that point the Nazi about had it won.
Sylvesterthekat
2003-03-19 21:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
The us entered into ww2 in europe when the war was already over -
there's nothing at all to pay back, there. Sure, they'd have been
ruskies without us, but so? Anyway... Hey! SDK! Obviously it's not
really -my- place to say, since I fed that particular troll (ok, fine,
and many others) more than once, but how long are -you- gonna feed it?
What I find amazing in this particular case is that he just doesn't
stop... He's got a stupid comeback for every intelligent comment
anyone make...
Hey, I'm not the one who's been arguing with him! LOL I barely put my
feline toes into the whole pensions debate as a certain someone was
obviously full of BS and not even worth responding to.
Charles
2003-03-20 01:29:36 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Sylvesterthekat!
Post by Sylvesterthekat
Hey, I'm not the one who's been arguing with him!
La la la! Ok! Don't mind us mice! Squeek (squeak? squeak!)...
--
A five percenter, of course...
Sylvesterthekat
2003-03-20 23:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
It wasn't me! It was Sylvesterthekat!
Post by Sylvesterthekat
Hey, I'm not the one who's been arguing with him!
La la la! Ok! Don't mind us mice! Squeek (squeak? squeak!)...
Watch it, or I'll pounce on ya!
Post by Charles
^..^<
Charles
2003-03-21 13:14:11 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Sylvesterthekat!
Post by Sylvesterthekat
Post by Charles
Don't mind us mice! Squeek (squeak? squeak!)...
Watch it, or I'll pounce on ya!
Post by Charles
^..^<
Like, as if! You'd still have to find me first! I know, it can't be
_too_ difficult a thing with all of the clues I've given and the great
detective work already provided by others... But you still have to
actually do it!
--
A five percenter, of course...
Frog Prince
2003-03-21 14:48:45 UTC
Permalink
| >> Don't mind us mice! Squeek (squeak? squeak!)...
| >
| > Watch it, or I'll pounce on ya!
| >
| > >^..^<
|
| Like, as if! You'd still have to find me first! I know, it can't be
| _too_ difficult a thing with all of the clues I've given and the great
| detective work already provided by others... But you still have to
| actually do it!
|

And your middle name is Saddam?
Charles
2003-03-27 01:15:31 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Mr K. Mean!
But you still have to actually do it!
And actually want to drive way the hell out there to Maine. But
maybe I'll be back there in time for the potato and broccoli
harvest. That was pretty exciting last year.
Broccoli? Whoa. Where do they grow that? Spuds, no problem... Way
up North... Broccoli? Gross! Anyway, I'm in Southern Maine - you
know, the populated part of the state... It's reasonably close to
where -you- live! (Depending on the definition of 'reason' that we're
using, I guess...)
--
A five percenter, of course...
Frog Prince
2003-03-27 00:56:52 UTC
Permalink
<snip>

| And actually want to drive way the hell out there to Maine. But maybe
| I'll be back there in time for the potato and broccoli harvest. That was
| pretty exciting last year.

Not nearly as exciting as watching them grow.

Frog Prince
2003-03-17 22:43:00 UTC
Permalink
| Ya know, I've seen tons of 'jokes' about the French lately which i mostly
| don't find funny at all. I'm sick and tired of seeing the same old crap
| about how France owes America yadda yadda... what some people seem to be
| forgetting is that without the French, America today might very well still
| be a British colony! So consider WW2 a payback for France helping the US
| take the colony away from Britain and stop whining about how France owes
| America.

It seems the French are keen on being included in the Iraq reconstruction
and are making quiet noises to be included in the 'after the war' alliance.
Trent Creekmore
2003-03-17 23:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frog Prince
| Ya know, I've seen tons of 'jokes' about the French lately which i mostly
| don't find funny at all. I'm sick and tired of seeing the same old crap
| about how France owes America yadda yadda... what some people seem to be
| forgetting is that without the French, America today might very well still
| be a British colony! So consider WW2 a payback for France helping the US
| take the colony away from Britain and stop whining about how France owes
| America.
It seems the French are keen on being included in the Iraq reconstruction
and are making quiet noises to be included in the 'after the war' alliance.
Well it has been made clear if people are not on board when the fighting
starts they have no voice in what happens after.
Heidi
2003-03-18 02:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frog Prince
It seems the French are keen on being included in the Iraq reconstruction
and are making quiet noises to be included in the 'after the war' alliance.
**Interesting, they'll happily sit back and watch but not participate, so
what's in it for them?
Frog Prince
2003-03-18 02:35:33 UTC
Permalink
| > It seems the French are keen on being included in the Iraq
reconstruction
| > and are making quiet noises to be included in the 'after the war'
| alliance.
| >
| **Interesting, they'll happily sit back and watch but not participate, so
| what's in it for them?


I think the plan is to get a cut of the reconstruction business.
Trent Creekmore
2003-03-18 03:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frog Prince
| > It seems the French are keen on being included in the Iraq
reconstruction
| > and are making quiet noises to be included in the 'after the war'
| alliance.
| >
| **Interesting, they'll happily sit back and watch but not participate, so
| what's in it for them?
I think the plan is to get a cut of the reconstruction business.
Now they won't get nothing
Frog Prince
2003-03-18 03:44:01 UTC
Permalink
| > I think the plan is to get a cut of the reconstruction business.
| >
| Now they won't get nothing


Want to bet? Bush & co will make them grovel and fight for the crumbs but
the will have a seat that the table.

The best part is the French will act like they gave the party.
Heidi
2003-03-18 13:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frog Prince
Want to bet? Bush & co will make them grovel and fight for the crumbs but
the will have a seat that the table.
The best part is the French will act like they gave the party.
**Yes, I'm sure we'll be very noble about it and call them long time friends
and all, I think Shrub is only too happy to dump aftermath on someone else
and get the hell out of Iraq - and on to Korea....
Sylvesterthekat
2003-03-19 21:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frog Prince
It seems the French are keen on being included in the Iraq
reconstruction
Post by Frog Prince
and are making quiet noises to be included in the 'after the war' alliance.
LOL, why am I not surprised?! Seems they should get the smallest slice
of any cake if it comes to that. The lion's share should go to those who
take part.
Socks
2003-03-18 15:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antoine J. Mechelynck
The "French Onion Soup" served in the neo-orleanese restaurant "La
Maison de Napoléon" is not going to change name. The restaurant's
director, Mr. Salvatore Impastato, announced it to (IIUC) the
journalists of AFP and the photographer of AP.
Hey - I got quoted in the news:

"Boycotting french fries to protest french policies makes about as much
sense as boycotting Bozo the Clown reruns to protest the policies of the US
Congress."
--
Bomb Texas - - - They have oil too
Charles
2003-03-18 15:51:44 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Socks!
Post by Socks
"Boycotting french fries to protest french policies makes about as
much sense as boycotting Bozo the Clown reruns to protest the
policies of the US Congress."
Well, I said it was catchy :) Who carried the story?
--
A five percenter, of course...
Socks
2003-03-18 15:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
It wasn't me! It was Socks!
Post by Socks
"Boycotting french fries to protest french policies makes about as
much sense as boycotting Bozo the Clown reruns to protest the
policies of the US Congress."
Well, I said it was catchy :) Who carried the story?
I'm told NPR. I didnt hear it.
--
Bomb Texas - - - They have oil too
Charles
2003-03-18 16:16:37 UTC
Permalink
It wasn't me! It was Socks!
Post by Socks
Post by Charles
Well, I said it was catchy :) Who carried the story?
I'm told NPR. I didnt hear it.
Still cool! Hmm. Who from npr reads the groups... Or, who forwarded
to someone who forwarded... Hmm. If npr is that up on what goes on
here, why did they give such a crappy show on spam? Oh. I see. It
must be a lurking spammer who forwarded to npr... let's get 'im!

:)
--
A five percenter, of course...
Frog Prince
2003-03-18 16:38:08 UTC
Permalink
| > I'm told NPR. I didnt hear it.
|
| Still cool! Hmm. Who from npr reads the groups... Or, who forwarded
| to someone who forwarded... Hmm. If npr is that up on what goes on
| here, why did they give such a crappy show on spam? Oh. I see. It
| must be a lurking spammer who forwarded to npr... let's get 'im!

did they credit the source?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...