Crap Throwing Monkey

Good plan. Let's declare a truce and rip on VA. Did you know he can fit in most of your tupperware?

Yeah, that's a LOT lamer than counting tupperware. Try again. Go for the mental illness crack; that's always a crowd-pleaser...

Go count your !@#$ing tupperware. Maybe you can buy a Fit to haul it all in, too...

Joe's frequently right. About half the time, actually. He changes his mind so damn much, after all...

Well, I watched SB XXV in a Giants bar. How many others can say they've put their life on the line for their team?

Actually, that wasn't an ad hominem attack. That was an observation. You are ignorant. And, in your ignorance, you choose to argue translations with me when you yourself admit you're not capable of doing the translation yourself. That makes you an idiot. That also means you're not worth arguing with, as it demonstrates your willingness to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions. Yeah, because the entirety of my existence is centered around answering JSP's observation about the Berbers. God knows I wasn't doing anything else this weekend.

All of them. And how the hell would you know what a questionable translation is if you don't know Arabic??? Your definition of "questionable translation" seems to be "disagrees with my preconceived notion".

Actually, I was thinking more English. But your point is valid: if you don't understand how idiomatic phrases are translated from one language to another, you're not going to understand a translation. Any translation. I'd think you just as ignorant if you were reading Marx in English thinking it was identical to the original German. What the hell do you think your argument is? I have. I've addressed, so far, most every issue and flaw you pointed out. Your answer has consistently been "But Islam is evil! Evil, evil, evil!", and thereby dismissed a priori every argument I've made by the logic that, if Islam is evil, it's own teachings can't be valid and can be dismissed...which is nice, elegant circular logic. You're ultimately using your a priori assumption that Islam is evil to prove Islam is evil. Which almost hides your ignorance. Almost.

And obvious. But "genius" usually is seeing the obvious before everyone else. So all props to April.

Bah-dum bum. <<rimshot>>

But he's right. Islam is evil. Evil, evil, evil.

He "played through" a ruptured spleen? Jesus... I don't know if that's tough, or stupid. Probably both.

How would you know? You can't even read it.

I disagree. There were basically four options at the time: 1) FG try. 2) Go for it. 3) Punt 4) Fake FG or punt. Given the field position (Jets 35), down-and-distance (4th and 3), and conditions (in a word, sh-------), a FG try was very iffy, and you'd be giving the Jets 7 extra yards if you miss. A punt...probably ends up a touchback, at the 20, and you gain a whole 15 yards. So you go for it, either straight up or with some chicanery. Three yards is a bit dicey for a straight-up run up the middle or even a short pass; it's a matter of opinion, but mine personally is: try the trick play. And as trick plays go, the fake FG was pretty well designed, with Moorman actually bringing the ball down before pitching it to Peters. The real problem was, it was an ugly-ass shovel pass and Peters didn't catch it. I've seen better trick plays, certainly, but that was no Mickey Mouse fake end-around bull sh-- reverse !@#$tard halfback option screen pass.

Even when he's blindsided, he's got to protect the ball. The fumbles are squarely on Losman, either way, and he needs to be coached to protect the ball better. That is, of course, in addition to fixing the bigger issue of piss-poor blocking. Was Mike Williams out there again today?

But some people actually believe Chavez (really...somewhere out there, probably deep in the Socialist Republic of Berkley, there's some idiot thinking Chavez actually DID smell sulfur). No one believed Comical Ali.

A friend of mine was running cable in the reinforced section. He'd just finished the previous Friday. Needless to say, he was little freaked out. Another big reason (a bigger one, really, than "Republicans lie". Everyone lies) for the conspiracies is that, to put it pointedly, people are idiots who don't understand that what they see usually isn't what's happening. I was on my roof about a half-hour after the plane hit the Pentagon when three helos flew up the Potomac (northbound, away from Wilson Bridge). As they passed behind the smoke from the Pentagon, a lady next to me started screaming "Oh, my god, the helicopters just crashed! Someone shot them down!" The juxtaposition of helicopters, then smoke, had her convinced the helicopters went down, even after they flew out from behind the smoke (she thought they were different helos). Normal, average people in unusual circumstances make horrible witnesses...particularly when their only reference for what they're seeing is movies or TV. Then the brain tries to make sense of what's seen by pigeonholing it into what's familiar...and you get people who are "positive" they saw demolition charges go off in the WTC, because they've seen those on the Discovery Channel, but never a building collapse. (Ditto TWA 800, btw...Of all the people that "saw" a surface-to-air missile, how many actually had the experience to know that, and how many went by what they saw on TV somewhere or another? ) Was the white smoke near the White House the car that overheated in front of the State Dept? I remember that; everyone freaking out on the Mall over a "car bomb"...that turned out to be a blown radiator hose. Again, people in stressful situations typically don't know what they're seeing.

Yeah, you're right. Everything Islamic is evil. Evil, evil, evil. Happy now?

How do you figure?

You are, of course, correct (save the "drove off" part...they were actually banned, despite their delusions). But when someone states point-blank in public that I myself am personally responsible for the deaths of Dawn, Kelly, and Paul, as T-Bone did...well, I feel compelled to defend myself, against my better judgement.

I think, after spending a good chunk of the day mulling it over, that "shock and awe" differs from "terrorism" in the purpose and target of the psychological exercise. Traditionally, in military campaigns, it is not only acceptable but preferred to operate in such a way as to confuse, discomfit, and basically !@#$ up the opponent's command and control. That is, by its nature, a psychological exercise...but it's a psychological exercise against a well-defined military center of mass. That is, the purpose of the "shock and awe" campaign wasn't to simply terrify Saddam Hussein, but to significantly degrade if not eliminate his command ability (to which end freaking him out can certainly help...so can killing him, so can keeping him so deep in hiding that he can't talk to anyone). But the psychological effect wasn't the end, just the means. (And traditionally, C&C objectives are a legitimate military target; Saddam would have been well within his rights under international law to attempt to kill the US president in response to the invasion.) Terrorism, on the other hand, attempts to achieve a psychological effect on a much wider, societal scale. Case in point: Hizb'allah shelling northern Israel. They're not hitting any military center of mass with that action...but they are trying to exert a constant psychological pressure. Another case in point: 9/11. The infrastructure damage, while extreme, was actually secondary to the symbolic (i.e. psychological) nature of the targets. Or the Madrid bombings, which were highly successful in that they exerted enough psychological pressure to effect a change of government. Or even IEDs in Iraq, which do not operate against the occupation's center-of-mass in any real sense (really, in any realistic military terms, such attacks against convoys are just nibbiling little bites on the periphery of the occupation forces), but have a disproportionate symbolic effect regardless. Really, the more I think about it, the more I'm seeing that terrorism is characterized by operations against targets away from any center-of-mass (military or social), in an attempt to exert influence indirectly on said centers-of-mass. Which is why "shock and awe" isn't really terrorism: it's a direct action against a distinctly (and distinctly legitimate) military objective, namely command and control, with a primary effect being physical disruption rather than psychological.

Awww, steve... I hate you too, big guy.

Except that Pittsburgh looked like crap on a stick against the Jaguars. But then Pitt -2 against the Bengals looks like such a sucker bet that I'd probably bet on the Steelers.

Well...we have to be secret. What with guarding the ancient treasure of the Knights Templar and all...did you know the Holy Grail can hold an entire can of Diet Coke? Too bad it's not diswasher-safe...

If you're flexible on the "beautiful" part, Ed may be willing...