caroljane

I sincerely hope you would not do that. If you were invited as an individual athlete, fine. Use the invitation to the president's home for a purely ceremonial occasion, to "cordially express dissatisfaction." to him. Or strip off in front of the TV cameras and show your "Obiwan is Marxist tattoo., or whatever. But I repeat, as a team member and representative of a sports organization which pays you to play your game, I hope you would pursue your political activism on your own dime.

There is no courage involved here. What did he risk? Hurting the feelings of people he doesn't care about anyway? Maybe getting booed by a few people at a Capitals Game? Seizing the occasion of being invited, as part of a team, to a ceremonial thank-you by the President, whoever he is, to grandstand your own political views is opportunism, not courage. It's a slap in the face to his teammates who might want to celebrate their victory as a team in this way, to the Bruins organization and to the fans. It might cost him a little ill-will but that's all. Courage within a sports organization, to me, is something like calling the police when a powerful coach is raping children. Thomas is a classless jerk, and I would think the same of a Canadian player who refused to meet Harper (whose policies I oppose and fear) in the same situation. He's proved that there's no "I" in team but there sure is one in Tim.

And as we know, he's sure excitable. Non Ignorami carborundum! Good one Carol! Vinegar Joe Stillwell and Barry Goldwater...who knew! Illegitimi non carborundum is a mock-Latin aphorism meaning "Don't let the bastards grind you down". (Carborundum, also known as silicon carbide, is an industrial abrasive material.) History The phrase originated during World War II. Lexicographer Eric Partridge attributes it to British army intelligence very early in the war (using the plural dative/ablative illegitimis). The phrase was adopted by US Army general "Vinegar" Joe Stillwell as his motto during the war.[1] It was later further popularized in the US by 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.[2] Generations of Harvard students have taken the phrase into the world, as it is the first line of an unofficial school song Ten Thousand Men of Harvard, the most frequently played Fight song of the Harvard Marching Band. This is, to some extent, a parody of more solemn school songs like "Fair Harvard thy sons to your Jubilee throng" etc. The first verse goes: Illegitimum non carborundum; Domine salvum fac. Illegitimum non Carborundum; Domine salvum fac. Gaudeamus igitur! Veritas non sequitur? Illegitimum non carborundum—ipso facto! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum "Non illegitimi" is the Canadian variant I guess. Negative on the left.

The Tragic Flaw. It caused him to allow the destruction of those boys, then defile his own grave. Unbelievable, and classically tragic.

And as we know, he's sure excitable. Non Ignorami carborundum!

Also ND, you would be the last person to be suspected of loving a Stevenson campaigner, later or sooner.

PS What are lulz?

As in, you think I'm writing seymourblogger's posts? For the lulz? Sounds like a fun idea... But I would need my own ghost writer to pull it off: Well, you could get away with it. Having a Tardis and all. Michael could never prove you and Seymour are not separate entities.

William, That sounds like you are in pretty good shape. I don't expect you to become a Randroid anytime soon. In your shoes, though, I would keep an eye on the propensity to be entertained right out of the gate as this hides a conceit in between the cracks that can grow into an ugly prejudice if left on its own. (I speak from experience.) In other words, looking down on another at first glance, even with an odd remark like that, comes with the seed of vanity. As we generally reap what we sow, guess what the seed of vanity grows up to be? We all have our ways of being and, maybe, you see this differently. But I've had that thing in my own soul grow and eventually bite me on the ass real hard, so I keep an eye on it. That's one of the reasons I came up with the identify-correctly-first-and-only-then-judge procedure (done almost pedantically) when I encounter or look into stuff outside of my normal habits. As to the give-and-take of everyday living, I'm comfortable with my biases. I'm usually aware of them as I sound off. But I try to keep them conceit-free. From the perspective of being inside my head and seeing what I see, that's not the easiest task I've ever undertaken. Michael Michael, I can't agree that to "be entertained" equates to "look down on". Of course we all see new people and ideas through with the backdrop of previous ones, biases and all But to be entertained, to me, is to appreciate and enjoy differences - not immediately judge them on a scale from worthy to worthless. And of course we do make judgments and decisions, but really I think we spend equal time not looking up or down, but sideways, if not straight backwards. You spend a lot of time looking inward, as your signature line attests and as your process of Correct Identification shows. Maybe everyone does identifying and judging unconsciously all the time but I don't recognize it much in myself. It looks like hard work. to do consciously.

I' m not 100% convinced this isn't Ninth playing some sort of metaphysical prank .

I surmise that the theme of this reading series is Colonialism or Imperialism. I am soldiering through Alongside Night. It isn't so Great.

I am a rube. I read neither physics nor philosophy. But, "this pretentious, vacuous question"? This was the question that haunted me for a short time around age five and six. I could imagine nothing (or so I thought then -- I grappled since with limited imagination) and I could imagine the world around me, and I could imagine time, endless time and a beginning. My mind thought ot infinity and its boundary in visual terms as a vast expanding sphere, and its beginnning, before the expansion, I imagined ever smaller, smaller, smaller and so small that it almost wasn't there. Why is there something (this world) rather than nothing (not this world)? When did it begin? I was completely irreligious. At the time of the haunting, I had been taken to church and spoken at only once, at my own christening. No one in my family, in authority, had ever talked about gawds or god or God. It wasn't on the table. But, my question and subsequent questions were vacuous and pretentious? I asked the V&P question back on another thread and the responses I got were basically, we know there is something and it doesn't matter why, the question is meaningless. The only conclusion I can come too is, my brain is equipped to ask such a question but not to understand it or to understand the answer if there is one.

I am glad I went searching, because however juicy an Ethel the Maneater story might be, it didn't ring true. It is a lovely double-barrelled family name, then, either adopted in adulthood or a brave family tradition? This would have made me, by Diana's delightufl nomenclature, Mr William Scherk Enwright (and had I married a Mr Chong, the choice of Mr William Scherk Chong or Mr William Scott Chong Enwright). I use my middle name generally for the same reason newspapers use the middle name when IDing famous criminals and assassins (James Earl Ray, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman): to distinguish myself from any name-cousins. I am not the only Bill Sh/Sch/er/ir/ck/k on earth, but I seem to be the only WSScherk at large on the internet. And my internet history goes back unbroken under that name since I strode onto Usenet an avenging fiend lo these many years ago. The weirdest post ever from Diana was during a fit of authoritarianism back around the Purge the Speicher episode. I can`t be bothered to look it up, but it came after she had denounced Betsy, banned her and slagged her, and told all Betsy list people to fuck off from Noodlefood and never talk to her at conferences. A reader asked in Noodlefood comments what she (the reader) might expect if she was an attendant at a conference on University grounds (or something collegial) and Diana said of course she would answer questions as required under a contract, but otherwise Fuck Off and Do Not Look In My Eyes or get near me or address me. I thought it was a freakish social moment -- when all her dunderheadedness combined into one peevish flipout, and I was again glad I lived north of the 49. Me too. At least if she sent henchpeople to purge us, they would have to leave their guns at the border. Snap, I was going to say "Maneater phase" instead of "Brittney phase"...stop pre=plagiarizing me! Even on your birthday.

PS is Scherk the Belgian part? Sounds Hunnish to me!

I bet Ayn Rand would have had a lot to say about this most important perioud of human history! _______________ ** I am a nicely mutted European-derived Canuckistani, from the four quadrants Norway, Norway, England, Germany -- with admixtures from Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands, France. In my mind's eye now, pictures of Grandma-Great Enwright with her black eyes commanding the family. My Near Eastern side. How stunningly serendipitous, O part-Syrian Sage. The yawning gulf does become more of a circular bridge, as you spend time with the eldest of the eld. My closest cousin recently retired, at 60, as administrator of a nursing home. I say retired but since then when not globetrotting she has spent as much, if not more time there, visiting or relief nursing, than before. She was always fascinated by geriatrics and simply enjoyed the company of those approaching the end of life, found the process of death as natural and even more interesting than the process of birth. My mother also enjoyed the company of the old, even in her 30s she had friends who were 70+ not to count the relatives. I spent most Sundays with her visiting the homes or the Home, awed at her patience in roaring a translation between her two deafest aunts.

What, you mean the Internet doesn't give immortality? Hell and damnation, where did I file Mephistoheles's number?;;; Carol 106 is as far as I go

Heh, heh. You're getting older, and I'm not!

She married her current husband Mr. Hsieh in 1999, so that means at age 25 she already had two marriages behind her. I thought just one prior marriage, a brief one. Are you sure about the "two"? That has me puzzled, too. Here is Diana bitching about "My Name" at SOLOP back in the day (11 November 2006): I count one husband, one family name/surname, and one outlier (Mertz). Do we know who the Mr Mertz might have been? [Edit: while searching for pictures of Diana in a frothy cascade of white sateen at her nuptials, I found this note at Noodlefood -- from 27 January 2006): ]Now, on to Mr Brickell. Who he? Looks like he was the one brief prior that Ellen mentioned. Too bad. I liked the thought of Ethel going through a Brittney Spears phase before she settled down to a life of Service to the Self.

James: I have a good solid organization in Missouri. It is certainly one that Mr. Newt can take. Not sure about Colorado. If Mr. Newt does win Florida, the establishment of the Republican Party is going to go nuts in their attempt to neuter Newt. Adam You do realize Adam that you are a Newter yourself. Well, I may have to claim my 5th amendment rights on that one...what doest thou mean woman type inquisitor? Just a couldn't resist - I will now claim the 49th parallel and run for the border as fast as my little legs will carry me.

James: I have a good solid organization in Missouri. It is certainly one that Mr. Newt can take. Not sure about Colorado. If Mr. Newt does win Florida, the establishment of the Republican Party is going to go nuts in their attempt to neuter Newt. Adam You do realize Adam that you are a Newter yourself.

Yep...and they vote. Exactly. I guess the wagging finger signifies schoolmarmishness intellectual argument from authority.Carefully calculated to appeal to the base. Needless to state I don't like it.

Angry White Guy .

Well, there goes Obama's hope of capturing the US Hockey Fans vote, all 272 of them.

She married her current husband Mr. Hsieh in 1999, so that means at age 25 she already had two marriages behind her. So very true, Carol! Remember the scene in GWTW where Sue Ellen bitterly complains about Scarlett already having husband number three, whereas she didn't even have one? Scarlett could at least have abstained from snatching Sue Ellen's fiancé Frank Kennedy away from her ...! Yes! That was the very meanest thing the little hussy ever did. But she was so desperate for the tax money, she would probably have married Pork if he had $300. My wife is reading my 10 year old daughter GWtW right now before bed time. Nothing like images of war wreckage, racial servility and romantic ineptitude to shape the young lass's dreams each night...Happily, she is sharp enough to distinguish the forest from the trees, and vice versa. Absolutely, this is a good age for a great historical novel to stir up the imagination. I was 11 or 12 when I read it first. Has she seen the movie too?

She married her current husband Mr. Hsieh in 1999, so that means at age 25 she already had two marriages behind her. So very true, Carol! Remember the scene in GWTW where Sue Ellen bitterly complains about Scarlett already having husband number three, whereas she didn't even have one? Scarlett could at least have abstained from snatching Sue Ellen's fiancé Frank Kennedy away from her ...! Yes! That was the very meanest thing the little hussy ever did. But she was so desperate for the tax money, she would probably have married Pork if he had $300.