No, it's not annoying, it's just a crappy word game you're playing. You're making a series of statements from authority about the nature of life and human interaction; for which authority we have no notion you are entitled.
I suspect you are not a native English speaker, but i don't think that excuses your statements.
Hardly a word game(perhaps a small one, but one you'd get; a pun). The word game you're most likely referring to would include obscure statements in which language fails to describe my true feeling on the matter; here, this is not the case(hmm, that sentence doesn't feel quite right in english). I am merely stating that in my opinion there is good nor evil. This are in perfect harmony the way they are, any attempt to change them might have catastrophic effects; of course, they might not. And even if such a 'time travelling-intervention' would occur, it would become part of reality and therefor it would be included in reality, ergo, it becomes part of a perfect reality, and this too would be perfect. But this would lead us to factual intervention in history bringing with itself, timeparadoxes. If at any point I remain unclear in the actual use of my words, please, let me know. In this particular topic, it is not my intention to be at all vague or to use to inability(or my use of them. But I have seen very smart people with an extensive lexicon state that words are simply not - accurate - enough. And of course, I have also seen simple minds put the truth in a very simple yet succinct way and were 'right on the money'.) of words as an excuse.
Good and bad or good and evil describe humanly perceived dichotomies, certainly--it was the subject of Neitzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. That is not the point, as i suspect you well know. I frankly am contemptuous of what you have expressed here, and consider that your attitudes are haughty and elitist expressions such as one so often encounters in young university students, or even secondary students. I begin to suspect that you are one or the other.
ReX wrote:Jews as in Israel's actions. Representing the jewish population. A statement simular to stating americans elected Bush and Bush is doing what americans want.
OK, but the point I was trying to make: not all Jews are Israeli's; not all Jews in the Diaspora are Zionist.
I know, the point I was trying to make was:
They represent it. Behave, damn it!
I'll be honest with you, I don't even know what 'Diaspora' is. But I'm not against anti-semitism rising if it means Isreal will cease it's inhumane activities. For convenient's sake, I'll start stop negating everything and start will make statements such as: I'm for Anti-Semitism and I'm pro-Hitler.
'heres a bit of controversy to get you all quacking'
A motto I could live by.
Main Entry: di·as·po·ra Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: dasp()r, -aas-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Greek, dispersion, scattering, from diaspeirein to scatter, spread about, from dia- + speirein to sow, scatter -- more at SPORE
1 usually capitalized a : the settling of scattered colonies of Jews outside Palestine after the Babylonian exile b : the area outside Palestine settled by Jews <in Israel or in the Diaspora> c : the Jews living outside Palestine or modern Israel d : the state of the Jews living scattered in the Gentile world
2 : a dispersion (as of people of a common national origin or of common beliefs) : spread (as of a national culture) : EXILE, SCATTERING, MIGRATION
3 : the people of one country dispersed into other countries <certain sections of the Armenian diaspora scattered over the world could be attracted -- Walter Kolarz>
4 : the dispersion of Christians isolated from their own communion
'Diaspora' used to be the name for all Jews living outside Israel / The Holy Land / Palestine / how you want to call it. Nowadays it is also used for other nations: the Armenian Diaspora (there are a lot of Armenians living outside Armenia) to give an example.
That is a GOOD definition BillW.
Looks like he is for the Hitler solution anyway -
Ahh, ReX....I used to use the same rhetoric at religious school when I was young, and I'm Jewish. Nobody's quacking, because it's simply boring, juvenile and only provocative for it's own sake, not to actually make a point about anything.
I don't understand it. He gets annoyed it seems because we comment him on his vague sentences. Who's here to blame, we??
One sould be able to see now why i have made my surmise about a description of our "friend" Rex.
I've also met a lot of French people and listened to what they have to say about Belgians.
Pourquoi ne faut-il pas conter les blauges aux Belges les vendredis?
Pour qu'ils ne risent pas pendant la messe.
Only thing I know about Belgium is the "Battle of the Bulge" to help free them from the Nazi tyranny. Go figure
It are not only the French who can comment on Belgians
I live not more than 20 miles off the Belgian border.
Pourquoi les belges ont-ils arrêté la chasse aux canards ?
- Parce qu'ils n'arrivaient pas à lancer les chiens assez haut.
That's about the entire extent of Netherlands anyway, n'est pas
